Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2009

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Contents

File:Nikola Zrinski Sigetski - spomenik u Čakovcu.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 07:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Canal Street (Manchester) Sign Post.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 01:10:32
 

  •   Info created by wrboyce - uploaded by Frao61 - nominated by Frao61 -- Frao61 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Frao61 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Transfer to CollegeHumor --JY REHBY (discuter) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad quality etc. kallerna 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is more about the supposed humour of the mising 'C' rather than the subject of Canal Street. If the 'C' had been there then it might be okay for showing the degradation of this part of Manchester. fr33kman -s- 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:HollywoodSignJAN09.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 21:38:20
 

  •   Info created by Zaui - uploaded by Zaui - nominated by Zaui -- Zaui (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zaui (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don´t like perspective and lighting. --norro 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose have to agree with norro. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special. kallerna 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Vandtårnet ved Ringgadebroen 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 21:49:36
 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:DSCF0P004.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 16:33:06
 

  •   Info created by Biso - uploaded by Biso - nominated by Biso -- Biso (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biso (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the snail is not properly identified. Lycaon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Invalid FPX, not a valid FP criteria (this is not QI) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). Lycaon (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Hollywood Boulevard from Kodak Theatre.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 16:18:43
 

  •   Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pedrodude -- Pedrodude (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I know it's slightly smaller than the guidelines but it's really well composed with excellent colour balance Pedrodude (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the file is much too small. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  •   Oppose The Canon EOS 5D is able to take photos up to 4,368×2,912px. Why is this file so small? Because it is really good! Diti the penguin 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •     Too bad about the resolution, it's really nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Girl and dandelion.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 05:00:20
 

  •   Info created by Nelly Motta - uploaded by Jorelo - nominated by Jorelo -- Jorelo 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jorelo 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Manuel Belgrano.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 03:43:47
 

  •   Info created by Francois Casimir Carbonnier - uploaded by Belgrano - nominated by Belgrano -- Belgrano (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Belgrano (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poorly scanned, low contrast - Luctor 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Good picture for it historic value. - User:Frao61
  •   Oppose Bad quality. kallerna 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ducks in Frognerkilen 0005.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2009 at 21:50:12
 

  •   Info created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Bep -- Bep (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bep (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition doesn't seem right for me. Diti the penguin 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose horizon is not horizontal, main subject is out of focus --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose + scrap on the objective. kallerna 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These are no ducks, they are geese GerardM (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Though less prominent, ducks are still in the majority (18 vs.8) on this picture. ;-) Lycaon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:USS TexasSan Jacinto Park in Fog.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 00:48:22
 

  •   Info created by Louis Vest - uploaded by The ed17 - nominated by Ottre -- Ottre 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful composition, ties in to lofty "end of the earth" mythology. -- Ottre 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image does not meet size requirements. MER-C 01:44, 20 March 2009 (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.
  • Comment from uploader - it is simply too small at 964 x 640. However, no higher resolution is available because the creator is "thinking of pitching to the museum store for prints and postcards." I agree, it's a great photo, and I hoped that he would release a high-res one...but he can't, and this one does not meet the standards. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk) 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • *Sigh* Add this one to the list of images that coulda, woulda, shoulda been. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Snowflake moray in kona close up c.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 15:27:45
 

  •   Info The head of w:Snowflake moray eal. It is an underater image taken in the wild.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- The motive blends in too good with the surroundings to make this a good picture. The composition of the photo is sub optimal due to being shot straight from the nose with the rest of the moray blurry. -- Peipei (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I prefer this enwiki FP --Muhammad 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but not so good to be featured. --Dezidor (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As others. kallerna 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

alt 1, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Better lighting, DOF. Shows good camouflage. --Muhammad 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Decent shot of a challenging subject. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA. kallerna 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info If CA means camera artifacts, there are no camera artifacts in the image. It is w:Caustic (optics). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Kallerna (talk · contribs) may be referring to the Chromatic aberration apparent on the dorsal fringe near the end of the tail-- the bluish-purplish blotches. I still reaffirm my support, though you may wish to consider cleaning up that part of the image. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Notyourbroom, for kindly explaining to me what CA means. I guess I'll let go on it. I do no know how to correct it in such an inconvenient place as a dorsal fringe. If the image gets promoted fine, if it does not fine too. The image has already done its job. It was used to create stuff eel to educate kids in Hawaii. Here's the image of my eel and the kids in Waikiki Aquarium. These are the reviewers I'm always happy to take pictures for. :), and all of you too of course. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Coarse woody debris 5062.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 17:44:22
 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:CastelloMontechiaro.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:45:50
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor image quality: no detail, excessive softness. Again: please use maximum avalibale jpeg quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

file:OdledalGabler.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 23:01:25
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry. For 2 reasons i can't support this actually nice pic. First there seems to be a lot of noise, especially on the rocks. The second thing is that I don't like the composition. If you crop the left part away to get the hut in the lower left corner you have a much better composition (imho). A big panorama is not everything... --AngMoKio (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • To give you an idea i uploaded a cropped version here --AngMoKio (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's a pity that the quality is so poor because the composition of the cropped version is quite good -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:OldeEstate1.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:54:52
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor quality, no detail (high jpeg compression) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Marmotta nelle Odle.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:52:49
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you add the species name to the description page? As a reminder, the FPC guidelines state that "Quality images must be categorized, have meaningful title and description. This should include the scientific names for minerals and taxa naming for organisms." --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This is FPC not QIC, different requirements --Tony Wills (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because because the image quality is poor (no detail, unfocused subject) and the species is not identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (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.

  Comment - Please use highest possible jpeg quality in your pictures, otherwise the chances of promotion are small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited FPX, species ID has never been a requirement of FPC --Tony Wills (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Re-edit FPX, species ID should be a requirement of FPC. Lycaon (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:ChiesaTarces2.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:47:19
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor quality, disturbing shadow, not the best point of view -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:STS-119 EVA1 Arnold01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 18:29:33
 

  •   Info Astronaut Richard Arnold, STS-119 mission specialist, participates in the mission's first scheduled session of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction and maintenance continue on the International Space Station. During the six-hour, seven-minute spacewalk, Arnold and astronaut Steve Swanson (out of frame) made important work on the International Space Station. Created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - uploaded by Alessio Rolleri - nominated by Natural RX -- Natural RX (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support There's something breathtaking about this picture. -- Natural RX (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral but leaning towards opposition. There's some pretty severe CA and the picture is blurred as though the camera had been shaking. That's all a pity to me, because it's otherwise an incredible shot. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Might I suggest one of these instead? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I may nominate this one, but not until after the community has spoken on this image. I'll remind all to not let the double/triple reflection on the astronaut's headgear throw you off. Thanks for those suggestions! Natural RX (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • My pleasure. It's annoying, I know, when you think you've found a great image, and the community doesn't agree (see the link on my userpage for evidence!). But stay a while, and you'll learn fairly quickly, though it might not be all fun and games. *Winks at Lycaon*
  •   Oppose Composition isn't that great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLovers suggestions were much better. kallerna 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Kallerna. First alternative is a potential candidate. Lycaon (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0703-507, Berlin, Reichstagssitzung, Rede Adolf Hitler.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 16:31:58
 

  •   Info Adolf Hitler in Reichstag during his speech against Franklin D. Roosevelt and United States, December 11, 1941.
  •   Info Image of Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) - uploaded by BArchBot - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima Msg 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Béria Lima Msg 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is less than one half of a megapixel-- less than 25% of the normal cutoff. Are we certain no higher-resolution version exists? I would think it would be a shoo-in at an adequate level of resolution, so in that regard, this is a great find. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (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.
  •   Comment Thank you for that information, Diti-- your assumption that I did not know about the size restriction was correct. I leave anyone to challenge my FPX if they desire to, but I do feel it would be inconsistent with the concept of a FP to promote an extremely low-resolution image simply because a higher-resolution version would be unfree. An argument could be made that it would be a sort of provisional promotion in lieu of the higher-resolution version (which- one assumes- would be made available after a certain number of years) but at the very least, that would necessitate a template along the lines of "This FP must be replaced with a higher-resolution version when such a substitution becomes legal." All in all, I'm uncomfortable with the idea, and I do not withdraw my FPX. I appreciate your information on the matter, though. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To expand upon my above comment slightly, I do think it would be good to have a category or template marking images such as this one as promising FPCs which simply do not have free high-resolution versions at this point in time. I don't think there ought to be any kind of formal voting process for this designation, but it could be a good idea for the future to mark relevant images for future consideration once a larger version of the image becomes available. I am a new member and do not know the best way to formalize this suggestion, but I encourage anyone interested in this idea to articulate and expand upon it in the appropriate forum. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I have considered creating a page where people could list those types of images; however the number of great images that are hamped by small size is tremendous. Maybe something like Commons:Larger Needed? People could search for larger versions of those existing images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting image, but perhaps more suitable for VI. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Dª. Estefânia Square at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 18:23:27
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the quality of the image is poor: general unsharpness and noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (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:Pulsatilla grandis.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 15:46:19
 

  •   Info created by Ria - uploaded by Ria - nominated by Ria -- Ria (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Pulsatilla grandis in Kobylinec, CZ
  •   Support -- Ria (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. Composition is a bit cluttered, the flower doesn't really stand out in front of the grass. You also have to take care that the sharpness is on the main object. Don't give up and try again ...welcome to FPC :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per AngMoKio. kallerna 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment You might also want to crop out the cut-off flower on the left, and some of that unused space. It's all about balancing the picture. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Pro2 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:The tea junction DSCF2110.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 07:25:34
 

*  Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) please log-in to vote. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because because the image is underexposed, has a poor jpeg quality and is tilted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (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.
  •   Comment - Please use the best available jpeg quality of your camera -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus megacephalus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 18:18:16
 

  •   Info Subject created by God, picture created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Muhammad 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the composition - animal looks misplaced, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition could have been better, but I like the eyes!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Richard. You are in insect heaven over there. Can you find this fly again for a another shot? Lycaon (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not exactly heaven; I live in the city ;) I haven't seen the fly again. As Richard said, it looked a bit misplaced but when I tried to straighten it out, it zoomed away --Muhammad 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If it was mine I had tried to retouch it before uploading - looks doable --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Natalie interacting with a child.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 21:29:25
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dimitri Torterat. The photo takes place underneath the Eiffel Tower, during a rainy, windy, but sunny day. The place is very often filled with plenty of people, so I had to chose a wide aperture for isolating the subjects of the photo. Digital editing was possible to give this photo a lower exposure, and a « better look », but it resulted in quality loss. I decided not to include a person on the left side while taking the photo, maybe that was a mistake. Diti the penguin 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Diti the penguin 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am aware of the discussion regarding the last image of this type that was nominated, but this just seems like a tourist snapshot, albeit a much higher quality one. It's annoying you can't get the Eiffel Tower in shot. :( Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Everything, except the radiant smile of the child. Like Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, I can't see anything more than a snapshot. You can shoot Tour Eifel, "mais seulement quand elle n'est pas illuminée" (only when it is not lighted) - that is the weird French law -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please keep trying though. I think that there is an FP here - it just needs finding. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sry, I have to agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. kallerna 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination And I'm looking forward to taking a better photograph later, then. Thank you for your comments. Diti the penguin 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Giant Tortoise.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 18:31:31
 

  •   Info An Aldabra Giant Tortoise (Geochelone gigantea). Picture created, uploaded and nominated by Yotcmdr -- Yotcmdr (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yotcmdr (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|the tortoise is not sufficiently identified.}} If you find out the species, please also recategorize accordingly. Lycaon (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC) fixed. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info fixed. Yotcmdr (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 06:42:39
 

  •   Info Looks like an ant, but not one. A katydid mimicking an ant. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Muhammad 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Kuvaly (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small subject (and too little detail) for the smallish file size. Doesn't reach the current standards for macro photography. It is a very interesting capture though which would make a handsome VI. Lycaon (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The katydid was only 4mm long. Better details would require a larger magnification than 1:1 --Muhammad 14:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a pity. Still interesting image. Lycaon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose hmm details should be better. --Aktron (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support The colors are great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support from me, though speaking from an unscientific perspective, I would have liked a slightly different angle focusing more on the anterior than the posterior. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There could be more and finer details and a tad more DOF for that small image size with the amount of unused background ... flashlight is 2 harsh for my taste, otherwise nice colors and good composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that it's a decent size for such a small insect + wow. --Lošmi (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lycaon + Richard Bartz. kallerna 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose little noisy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, great composition and colours. --Aqwis (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - per others -- Pro2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:First flight2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 23:24:14
 

  •   Info The first airplane flight. Created by Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Wrightflyer highres.jpg. Would replace current featured version File:Wrightflyer.jpg nominated for delisting below. -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Should've been like this in the first place! Thanks for following proper procedure. Lycaon (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Things move along much more smoothly if you communicate via normal channels. Please do so in future. :) Durova (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support   ■ MMXXtalk  09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support wow can you please add the EXIF ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by EXIF? Durova (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • was just kidding...Digital cameras store EXIF-Data with the pic in which you can see technical details about how the pic was made (aperture, shutter speed and so on..). Btw do u agree with my statement about the lost nuances? --AngMoKio (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, joke. :) Re: detail, might be a matter of monitor settings? Durova (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
          • hm..I have a calibrated monitor. But even when I increase gamma or brightness in the new version i can't see the details of the old one. Look at the jacket details of the guy on the plain. There are several details lost that you clearly see on the original (at least with my monitor). --AngMoKio (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose after a second look i found out that the restored version lost quite some details and nuances. It is very obvious when you compare the guy on the plane in the original and the new version. I guess this shouldn't happen when you restore photos. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - agree with AngMoKio. It's most noticeable on the man on the right, but you can also see it on the engine. Something's wrong with the levels/contrast. Otherwise a fine job. Lupo 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support GerardM (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Changed my mind per AngMoKio. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 19:47:41
 

  •   Info created by Jonathan Mallard (on Flickr) - uploaded by Andrew c - nominated by Yarnalgo -- Yarnalgo (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yarnalgo (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm opposing this on grounds unrelated to the subject matter, though I'm sure there will be at least one or two who oppose it for being "military-glorifying propaganda" or some such related notion. My view from a quality perspective is that the whole image has a muddy, noisy feel to it, and I don't much like the composition, either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lack of composition and war pics can't give me wow. I am not in general against war photos, if they document a war in a realistic way, cruel and senseless as they are, then I can support them. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support A rare high quality image from Afganistan. Of course the wars are cruel and horrible. Too bad that sometimes there's no other choice, but to fight the war.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - poor composition (Two cutoff figures on the right) and the lighting is not good - Peripitus (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Sry, this one is much better. Needs editing (I'll try do something). kallerna 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Well, it's bit better now. kallerna 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As much as I enjoy military photography, I must concur with Peripitus and Notyourbroom. The photo is cluttered, the subject obscured and minimised and the lighting detracts from the quality. The current FP, as Kallerna pointed out, is superior. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Supportvery good picture.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

image:TestonMonteRudo.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 19:43:28
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peipei (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- Good composition but subject's lighting (should I say shadows?) is not the best -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Foggy background. --Karel (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition, decent quality. kallerna 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, too much contrast between the dark house in the front and the excessively bright sky - i.e. poor light conditions. --Aqwis (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

image:Sorapiss e lago.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 19:35:51
 

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Poor framing, boring composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Welcome to FPC, llorenzi! Please don't consider the criticism as unecessarily harsh. But these are supposed to be the best of the best images in Commons. Go on trying, but pay attention to details and try to get the best possible from your camera (better yet if you get a better one...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support A good interesting image. --Korman (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of I-Mages (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, but please add "heading" to {{Location}}. --Kjetil_r 07:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate crop at the top. Lycaon (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, agree with Lycaon. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry but what you (generally) mean with the term crop? I cannot understand...--Llorenzi (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Supportoverall good but needs more sky at the top.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:ISS-11 Discovery heat shield photograph.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 13:23:50
 

  •   Info created by NASA- uploaded by Finavon - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks as if NASA has problems with focussing and cropping ;-). I'm used to better quality from their hardware. Lycaon (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I`m fairly new to examining photos, so could you explain where the focusing is wrong? The cropping I can understand, though I personally don`t think it detracts very much. On a side note, if you have time, it would be helpful if you could examine some of the other images I plan to nominate, see the link on my user page. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too grey. --Aktron (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I overwrote the original picture with a slightly more contrasty version. —Pixel8 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support No matter what a great image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would like to see whole space shuttle in the photo. kallerna 13:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very poor composition. --Karel (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Schloss Forstegg Salez Panorama.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 15:03:54
 

  •   Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support a bit dark but still nice -- D-Kuru (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool --Muhammad 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Stitching errors on phone/electricity line. -- Peipei (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Indeed too many stitching errors. Lycaon (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for stitching errors. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Chicken February 2009-1.jpg became a fp and this not, because of stiching errors? {{Confused}} --D-Kuru (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No template yet for confused ;) --Muhammad 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      •   Comment - I'd say that that picture is more diffuse in what's wrong with it, I for one would have opposed it. But stitching errors are such a clear way of noticing that the picture is sub-par and should not be classed as a featured picture. -- Peipei (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Where do you see similarities between those 2 pics? --AngMoKio (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching errors. kallerna 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Kallerna. --Estrilda (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral gets my support when stitching errors are fixed. I really like the composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, same as AngMoKio. --Aqwis (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  Info I have dropped a request that the stiching errors get fixed. You may don't move that page to the old discussions now if you close it. --D-Kuru (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Encounters.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 01:03:24
 

  •   Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Never underestimate the force of the green galaxy
  •   Oppose Sorry ;-) -- Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The storyline is not well. The picture should be flipped, in the way that Dart's line goes before Luke's. --Lošmi (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice resolution, natural appearance. EV seems quite high. Did you use Google translator set on translate from insect to english? --Muhammad (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • request: Can you please also make a pic for the scene with Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia on the planet Tatooine? Would love to see that ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Strong info Princess Leia is mating right now, but how about that ? --Richard Bartz (talk)
lol...we should start a new category the Lolbugs. But now fun aside: The picture for sure has encyclopaedic value but unfortunately it is tilted and furthermore geotag has to be wrong. I saw Luke lately here. I seriously doubt that he was in Bavaria. That's why i can only give a weak   Neutral --AngMoKio (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
C'mon that's not fair !!! --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Delete That's no insect. That's a space station. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  Max Rebo Band member
  •   Oppose Not serious enough for Commons I think… but I laughed hard! xD Diti the penguin 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Strong neutrality I like one of the bugs but not the other. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => Withdrawn not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hamilton hill wa gnangarra.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 11:20:01
 

  •   Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded & nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnangarra 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gnangarra 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it needs lightning & colour adjusting. Do you agree? kallerna 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could be my imagination, but especially in the thumbnail, there looks to be some vignetting as well. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment it was taken at sunrise to avoid people in the photograph, there's isnt anything wrong with the colours. Gnangarra 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (roule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Stal-2 (by).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 19:20:00
 

  •   Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you please give us more informations from where the picture was taken e.g. geocoordinates & geological particularities because the image name (image should be renamed) and the image description isn't really telling, thanks. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info It was already geocoordinated and I have enhanced the description. --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose well taken picture, but there are much better exemples of this IMHO (perhaps if the description explained why this particular one is unique ...) --ianaré (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg.wmv.OGG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 02:23:38

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Any chance of a high-res one for downloading? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Adam. May I please ask you, if you ment that you yourself would like to download the video?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   On hold Fantastic and useful file (penguins are rare here), and it's nice to see you improved the quality, but why did the video resolution decreased? VGA format was cool, and for now I don't think I'd feature a video with such a small size. Diti the penguin 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah Diti the penguin , to tell you the truth I doubt this video could be featured. I did it mostly for you because I know you like penguins. With videos higher rsolution does not always mean a higher quality, it might be just the opposite. The only video format Commons accept is OGG. Here's the highest resolution I was able to get after I converted my video to OOG: File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg edit1.OGG. I cannot play it at my computer at all, so I cannot say anything about the quality. It is for you to decide which one is better. I only like to add that we had a big fun watching those penguins. I do not think penguins had fun too. There was a w:Leopard Seal nearby, and somebody even saw a w:killer whale.Thank you for watching, and please feel absolutely free to oppose, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I've been on a category-restructuring frenzy lately, and I just shuffled around a lot of penguin-related categories and images. :) I also made a category for penguin-related videos. This is a good starting point to explore the new category tree, and of course feel free to make any alterations you want. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! May I please ask you, if you were able to watch the higher resolution of the video, and which resolution you liked better? This question is for everybody, please. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I did indeed watch the high-resolution version-- it's a very fascinating scene. Almost like watching salmon try to jump up small waterfalls to go upstream. I'd call it very valuable, but alas, the lack of a tripod to keep the camera steady- as well as just the distance between the camera and the subjects- gives it some technical problems. Still a joy to watch, though, and I envy these experiences you have :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Notyourbroom. Which one worked better for you the nominated or a higher resolution one? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I'm not sure I understand your question, Mbz1 :) both versions play fine to me, and it seems to be that as in photography, the highest-resolution version ought to be the preferred archival version. Please clarify your question if I have missed your point. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I was trying to understand what version you as a viewer would prefer, but you already answered my question. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is also the issue that my monitor is set to 1920*1080 resolution, so anything of relatively low resolution seems even smaller to me :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Mono lake tufa formation.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 18:21:17
 

  •   InfoTufa at w:Mono Lake
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition so-so, poor quality due probably to fanatic de-noising. Detail is also affected by (too much?) light in the main subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and for your vote. I tried to do de-noising only on the sky and on the water. I guess my efforts failed. BTW this image was taken in the good old time, when I knew nothing about Commons, and what is even more important Commons knew nothing about me :) Back then I just took the pictures, shared them with friends and removed them from my computer most of the times. This one somehow survived. Now I think it might have been better off, if it did not :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Monument to slaves in Zanzibar .jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 19:23:26
 

  •   Info Monument to w:slaves in w:Zanzibar
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose intersting place...but the composition doesn't convince me. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info This "composition" should convince, I mean it'd better does that nobody in the world would go through slave auction ever again. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry. AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one, so I retract my words and I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I judged the picture not the monument. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the picture was taken with such a perspective that shows how "people", who came there to buy humans were looking at the slaves staying in this horrible hole. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Agree with AngMokio. The framing and angle don't emphasize the symbolism of the sculpture. Looks like a snapshot to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mbz1. --Ahnode (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Now it is strange that you opposed my own image per me. I supported my image and I'm still supporting it. No matter the other image has a better composition, the nominated image has much, much bigger EV, but thank you for your vote anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant this: "AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one" . Sorry for that. --Ahnode (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing to be sorry about. My bad. I should have said AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one, but mine image has a much bigger EV." Best regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RacovițaHartăToponimică.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apache Lake 02.jpg

File:Sadat and Begin clean2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 16:07:02
   

  •   Info created by Leffler, Warren K. - cleaned up version of File:Sadat_and_Begin.jpg, uploaded and selfnom by User:Jaakobou Jaakobou (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at the Camp David Accords. Jaakobou (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: Added a cropped version without the border. Jaakobou (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question why did you darken the face of the man in the middle (Anwar Sadat?)? Is this sth that is "allowed" in a restoration? (original(?) <-> restoration) --AngMoKio (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply - Original had the tonal details washed up a little (due to old age probably). At first I left it the same and his skin tone looked very similar to Menahem Begin's, but then we had a bunch of TV shows with clips from those days (we're celebrating 30 years of the peace accords) and he's not just a bit dark like Begin but more Black like Michael Jordan. I used tonal details from the original to dilute the over-exposure a bit and get a more natural (and closer to real-life) tonal output. Hope this answers your query. Jaakobou (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your reply. I am just wondering if a restoration should keep the colours (or in this case the grey nuances) as in the original or if the picture should get adapted to reality. I tend to say that historical documents should get restored in a way that tries to make them look as they were before time, light, dust,.. changed them. A restoration should remove the influence of time on a photo. As you only change this one persons face, I think it was rather a adaptation to reality (imho). But this is really a difficult topic and I am really no expert concerning restoration. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Thought I'd link a sample photo where you can see the tonal features File:Sadat Carter Begin handshake (cropped) - USNWR.jpg. Jaakobou (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
          • This is a normal effect of histogram adjustment, which is a normal step in restoration. Durova (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Histogram adjustment affects the whole picture, I guess. Here it is just the face of one person that is affected. When you only change one face you change some "facts" compared to the original. In the original the face was quite bright maybe bcs of a spotlight or sth. In the restored version this is not that visible anymore. I just wonder if this is sth that should be done in a restoration. I am not really sure about it...guess we should discuss it with others too to get to a point. To judge a restoration is a bit different than judging a photos made by commons users. Maybe we even have to add sth in the text about how to judge pictures. It can't be only about wow, composition and technical quality. You always have to compare it with the original to judge the work. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keep in touch DSCF2453.jpg

File:Thamarai-Namam2.png, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:31:39
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vaikunda Raja -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info This is the religious symbol of Ayyavazhi, a South Indian Dharmic belief system. This Image, I feel, the best, and of highest-resolution among all the similar Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC. This is already a featured Picture in English Wikipedia.
  •   Support -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not a good idea to promote religious symbols and national flags, imo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Sorry, Though I agree with the point of User:Alvesgaspar, I like to inform that the reason I nominated the image here was verymuch more than it being merely a religious symbol. This image, I feel is also much more than a mere outlined symbol like this or a less complex (in design) National flag. This is more a 'religious art' than a symbol or an emblem. For instance, the small greenish spikes, the green circular border and the brown background is not part of the "emblem". But it was justified here since it was more a 'religious art'. Of course it (or) part of it may be a religious symbol. But, I like this image to be featured here is not for the reason that it is a 'religious symbol' and for the reason that I believe it's beautiful and very much deserves to be featured as a 'Religious Art' as so in English wikipedia, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment That is no valid reason to oppose Alvesgaspar. Under your criteria so much could be censored. Art is a reflexion of a culture, religion included, and as such, a theme where creative activity takes place. Religion and art have had a long walk throughout history and I doubt that it will stop anytime soon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is just my opinion, not an attempt to introduce censorship. There is so much beyond the strict graphical components of such symbols that I'm afraid we cannot isolate them from the whole. Of course, we can say if we like them or not, in a strict aesthetical sense. But will that procedure be acceptable, when compared with what we do when assessing bug and building pictures? In this particular case, I find the image quite kitschy but that is probably because I'm not aware of its detailed symbolism. Should I be? Both a simple cross and Bach's Mass in B minor have strong religious content. But while I can still enjoy and understand Bach's masterpice being unaware of that component, that is obvioulsy not true with the cross. The same goes with national symbols and, for example, Tchaikowsky's 1812 piece. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me ask an academic question, which will make my point clearer: would Vaikunda Raja consider nominating this picture as a purely abstract creation of his own, saying nothing about its religious content? And would the chances of promotion improve by doing so? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If I understood you correctly, any-work which could create a symbolic ideology such as religious sentiment or Nationalism should not be given any featured or special status? Am I correct? If so, further sharpening your views, if I understood rightly, not even an outstanding photograph (or) a well written article that of a religious (or national) building or symbols shall be featured.
But it is not the case here in wikimedias. Here every thing including the ones which you neglected enjoys the featured or similar status; It be article, Category, List, Portal, Images or videos. The only thing is it should meet the appropriate criteria. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't understand correctly. My examples clear show that I'm not against featuring works with religious content. I'm only against promoting religious, national and partidary symbols or emblems. And I don't make any distinctions between the national flag of Portugal, the swastika or the Christian cross. As for the rules and criteria governing these issues they are not shared by the different wikis. There is an enormous difference between featuring an article on the Nazi ideology and featuring the swastica! Because the first can be neutral but not the second -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All religious images imply a transmission of ideology, the recipient, however, may or may not accept the symbolisms that such images convey. There are many variables involved. Protestants, for example, may take offense at catholic imagery, or jewish people at nazi symbols. However offensive the symbols may be to certain people, they exist outside an ideological realm and can be appreciated from different contexts, cultural, historical, etc. To suppress nazi symbols does not make the past dissapear, and in fact, may even contribute to forgetting the terrible events, which in turn, as we say in Mexico, the medicine would be worse than the illness. So in this small FPC world IMO it would be better to limit support or oppose votes strickly on technical and other relevant criteria aligned with the advancement of knowledge and preservation of history in general and not rely too much on the small world of personal opinions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is not whether they have an ideological value for FPC, that doesn't matter. The point is that once FP, they will become POTD, nolens volens one day and at that time make publicity for that particular ideology and that would be wrong. Lycaon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that introducing the ideological variable to FPC is foolish. It is hard enough to agree on aesthetic, cultural, historical, encyclopedic value as it is, and to throw in the possible implications of ideology of images on some people is a recipe for disaster. A cross, or an image of a cross could be an insult to muslims, a swastica to jews, nudity to puritans, and so on and so on... yet, neither crosses, swasticas nor nudity cease to exist or dissapear from history. Unless of course we turn over FPC to the Talibans and have them determine acceptable content from now on and have them delete what they don´t like. Much of graphic creation, sculptures, architecture, photography, drawings have an ideological base, consciously or unconsciously, and even if they come from the most abhorrent political spectrum, the work itself, the thing, does not necessarily lose its qualities as a work of art, or neither because it comes from there can it constitute itself in a piece of art. By exersicing good judgement by the community offensive material can be filtered out, ans solely based on technical and cultural quality. Unless of course we stick with the birds and the bees... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Lycaon - But the same is true of every image we promote. Shots of Catholic stained glass windows get promoted, thus making 'publicity for that particular ideology'. The same could be applied to shots of dead chickens, PETA may come after us saying that we approve of animal slaughter. But it was still promoted. There are American military aircraft Featured, when those reach POTD, will we be accused of favouring the US? Whether or not we realise it, each image that is promoted could be 'publicity for that particular ideology'. Singling one out is just hypocritical. Everyone seems to forget that this is Commons. If one side thinks that there are too FPs of one particular thing/idea/faith/country, they can always upload some of their own, and nominate them. It's a about quality and message, and I don't have to be religious to appreciate a religious photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You've got to ask yourself - would this picture even be nominated if it was not a religious symbol? If the answer is "no", then oppose. If you think it would be worth featuring without it's religious connotations, then support. This has nothing to do with censorship as far as I am concerned, it simply "has no wow". Plrk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose should be SVG --ianaré (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Originally I created this image using Adobe Illustrator. But due to 'forced rasterisation' of certain parts (the flower petals) while converting to SVG, the whole image was converted to a PNG and was uploaded. I also made a trial in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab but failed. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per ianaré. kallerna 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, Plrk said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment mistake in typing - it's not featured. --Lošmi (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg

File:Lake Tenaya in Yosemite NP .jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 17:30:12
 

*  Support Looks very slightly tilted CCW, but it's probably just the way the uneven shoreline messes with my perception of the horizon. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Removed support because the "Edit 1" version has sufficient support to become a FP.

  •   Comment - Maybe so, but the picture would benefict from a slight CW tilt, even if formally incorrect. I found the composition a bit boring, with the horizon dead centered in the frame. A little crop on top? I'm not sure it works. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support A great photo of mother nature. --Korman (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. --Karel (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow --sevela.p (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I can't help but feel the white balance is a bit off. --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1 Alvesgaspar suggestion, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one better, but I will support either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes. --Karel (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better indeed --Muhammad 05:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support A fantastic photograph. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry - poor optic quality, big CA. Also don't composition - seems too flat and too tightly cropped at top (original is much better). But I think it is really great place :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I can't help but feel the white balance is a bit off. --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I prefer the original. Can't we have a happy medium? Tilt, but no crop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The original nomination is clossed already. I'm not sure I have the right to overwrite the image with a new version at this point, or do I? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (the orignal one has higher support) Mywood (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Untersberg panoramic view winter.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 11:07:52
 

  •   Info created and uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Kadellar (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose photographing snow is not the easiest thing, especially to get it white, as it should be. On this pic most snow is kind of bluish (bcs of underexposure I guess). Furthermore the composition also doesn't really convince me. It is a very big panorama for sure and it might be difficult to get all those pictures together ...but also in panoramas there has to be a convincing composition imho. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   CommentI wouldn't agree with AngMokio abt the composition, but the snow should be white. Might be a white balance problem? --Muhammad 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The snow is white in the sunlight. If I would change the white balance to turn the bluish snow in the shodows to white, the snow in the sunlight would red/yellow. MatthiasKabel (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason I cannot see the image in the full resolution. Does somebody else has same problem? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do. It´s probably to big (39 MB). If you use Firefox and it crashes: I already files a bug for this and it will be fixed in Firefox 3.1beta3 and later versions. --norro 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the composition --norro 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. kallerna 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've seen lots of snow but never like this - are we on earth...? is it a natural phenomenon?--alpinus5 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Color, structure, anything else? MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Blue snow?--alpinus5 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Supportinteresting photo--CnrFallon (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 03:25:04
 

  •   Info created by unknown ukiyo-e artist - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Extremely rare example of Japanese art depicting Commodore Perry's visit which led to the opening up of Japan. Restored from the Library of Congress copy, which is, at most, one of only a handful of copies. As time has not been kind to it, I have not attempted a complete restoration, as the unrestorable parts would look awkward next to the restored ones. I did, however, do substantial work in the name of readability and to remove highly distracting damage, such as a large stain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful work. It's always amazing comparing the initial uploaded version with your final product. --Notyourbroom (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And what, precisely, does this have to do with this image? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Wikipedia has this "rule" that you should not Wikipedia is not there to make a point. I find that Alvegaspar is not assessing the picture but making a point. Arguments about restorations as I understand it are about what makes a great restoration. They are hardly about what makes a featurable picture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia, sorry to disappoint you. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
True, this is not wikipedia but the points discussed in POINT IMO apply here as well. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that the base policies on Wiki carried through the entire project. Am I wrong? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) This is a fine pictue it has relevance for the WMF projects and it is therefore featurable.. It is a fine restoration as well.
  •   Oppose – WikiCommons is not there to make a point. And that is exactly what this page is set out to do. So I will join Alvesgaspar in his protest vote. And on another note, why do you have to fill your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each (sic) within a few days before you are satisfied? This can better be done off line. If you must preserve the history of your different attempts, then why not upload those at lower jpg resolutions? Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Looks as if the main reason for this dissident vote has been removed for now, so is this opposition. Lycaon (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Lycaon, I have not participated in any discussion related to that page in a week, because I only started it as a favour to a friend. There is a thread on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates that you are, of course, able to participate in. This is not the place for such discussion, and as you say, WikiCommons is not here to make a point, which is what this hijacking of a Featured picture candidacy to harass someone can only be described as. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You are conflating issues. Your very argument is what may make the featured picture candidates a battle ground. This is to argue the merits of THIS picture. You are using your vote as an instrument to protest, to make a point. Please desist from such nonsense because this damages Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Lycaon, your actiona are unbecoming of an administrator. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What has this to do with being an admin? A bit confused? Admins are regular users that have taken upon them to perform extra maintenance tasks for which extra access is required. Am I not doing my job? Are admins supposed to be opinionless? Lycaon (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not a comment appropriate to the context of FPCs, but I have to second what GerardM has said, and what several others have said before him in other threads. I have only been an active Commons member for about a month, but Lycaon's behavior has often confused and bothered me as well. In this thread in particular, his sniping about "...fill[ing] your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each" boggles the mind. As I understand it, one of the pillars of Wiki-style collaboration is having a rich version-history archive to work from. In providing a gradual buildup to his final restoration, Adam Cuerden enables future restorers to branch off from his work at a point of their choosing, rather than having to pick between fully-unrestored and fully-restored versions. I think it's commendable, forward-thinking behavior, and is not something to be belittled. How an administrator could become mixed up on this point is beyond my comprehension, and so his words just come off as a weak attempt at a personal attack. I have no prior investment in any of these controversies, so I hope this viewpoint is accepted as a third-party assessment of the situation. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
So nice not everyone joins in the Lycaon-bashing day today :-)). Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Not bashing, merely examining your conduct and attitude, in light of your admin status. I agree wholeheartedly with Notyourbroom; we are here to judge pictures on their own merit, and not let anything else influence that. Whether or not you agree with the establishment of Meet our Restorationists (who do a fine job, by the way), that has no bearing on this picture. Evaluate the picture, nothing else. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, please read the discussion page before commenting on this! It is precisely the object of evaluation in FPC that was implicitly subverted by the way the page was created! Sorry to be so bold but I'm already tired of repeating the same thing over and over again: one thing is to assess the value of a picture, a completly different thing is to assess the quality of a restoring. And these two things cannot be mixed up in FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Will you PLEASE stop disrupting FPC, and go to the talk page? Furthermore, as this message by Alvesgaspar continues his harassment and disruption campaign even after I disowned meet our restorationists and removed my name from that page, it is clear that appeasing Alvesgaspar is not going to work. I hence have resored my name to Commons:Meet our restorationists, and will fight for the right of restorationists to be recognised with every tooth and nail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar you conflate two issues and you are wrong in doing so. You can assess pictures that are to be featured, that is what this is about. If your point is that you cannot assess restorations, then do not do that. It is not possible to technically assess restorations anyway because Commons does not have the technology to make that possible. We are slowly moving in that direction because we can now upload the work files as a tiff. These file cannot be shown in a thumbnail or otherwise yet. This information is not new to you. Now desist of further nonsense, you agree that these pictures are important, the only argument you are left with is being uncomfortable that restorations are in a category of their own and that there has been no lengthy discussion about it. As you already implicitly agreed that restorations are in a category of their own, there is not much to discuss. My problem is that you make it seem as an "us and them" conflict. Commons needs digital photography, illustrations and restorations. We need a friendly atmosphere in order to do well and this bickering is counter productive. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If no one can assess restorations, how are the MOR members elected? By the number of FP's? Then, anyone who has uploaded at least five vintage pictures which have become FP's may claim a membership, provided he/she makes a statement that they were all restored by himself/herself (one to go, in my case). Better call the page "Meet Our Uploaders"! Can't you see that the absence of clear and just election criteria, based on the quality of the restoring job, makes the proccess arbitrary? Before accusing people of saying nonsense and trying to interpret their own discomforts, please have the humility to admit that you just don't understand (or don't want to). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Making this page the battle ground for this issue was inappropriate. At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations. The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present. This is the wrong place for this argument, this is the place to assess if this picture may become a featured picture. Now, let us discuss this at a proper place the criteria for what makes an appropriate and best practices based restoration. This seems like a good place to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. At least not in the context of this picture. Whether or not MOR should exist and how to run it has nothing to do with the issue at hand; that is, judging whether this image is worthy to be Featured. The FPC talk page, or MOr talk page is where you want to be for this sort of stuff. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support A fine restoration and a protest to the opposition votes based on making a point. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice work. --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support More great work Mr. Cuerden; I hope to see more of your (often under-appreciated) restorations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--sevela.p (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, well done! --Kjetil_r 07:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sign For sale in Kalapana.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 04:46:00
 

  •   InfoFew years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. When active lava flow moved out of Kalapana, few people came back and rebuilt. There are no roads, no any utilities in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. There are smocks at the background of the image. The smocks come from the vegetation that is getting burned by an active lava flow. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg. It is interesting, if any adventurer soul will buy this property.
  •   Info Everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Very blurry. Do you have another version? kallerna 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor quality, blurred, OOF, overprocessed? Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and for vote. I have no other better version. I'm afraid I do not know what OOF stands for.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Out Of Focus, I believe. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you,Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. Now you see that I am not God :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but you 'created everything', did you not? :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I've learned this format from Muhammad (not the Prophet), but our Muhammad. I guess I need to stop using this now. I did not create anything. The Nature has done 100% of the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, don't let one poor quality joke spoil your fun. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It is what I really think about some of my landscape images. The nature does all the work while I only try, but most of the time fail to capture the Nature on film. May I please ask you to continue with your jokes on me? I love jokes, and I would never get upset because of a good joke. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info I cropped some blurry rocks in foreground. The background is a different story. There is an extreme heat at the background from the active lava flow and fires. It cannot be very sharp. Thank you.
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this version better. --Notyourbroom (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Sorry, but the image is too overprocessed, and there are highly visible JPEG-artifacts. AzaToth 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not salvageable, sorry. Lycaon (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very dark image. The 'for sale' sign by owner is very distracting. --Korman (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I liked the for sale sign, but the quality of the picture is unfortunately not good enough. Lycaon (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Late votes are not counted. Lycaon (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Highly visible Sharpening artifact. --Base64 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find nothing interesting worth featuring on this one. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose => not featured

File:Female Black Lemur,Eulemur macaco at Madagascar.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 04:48:00
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Eyes stand out quite well even in thumbnail. Good EV, nice wow. I wish I could explore other countries as much --Muhammad 05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You will Muhammad, just trust in this. When I was 17 years old, my friend asked me what I needed to be happy. I wrote a poem in response.I told her that to be happy I wanted to climb Everest and get down skiing,that I wanted to fight a shark in Red sea and dive Great Barrier reef, that I wanted to see Antarctic mountains not only in my dreams, but in real,that I wanted to see flamingos in flight and take images of lions in Kenya and so on and so on. I ended up with telling her I wish I could fly to the Moon.My girl friend made a big fun of me.It was equally impossible to fly to the Moon or to go to Kenya from Ukraine. Well, here I am now, done many things of what I dreamed of, and still hoping to fly to the Moon one day :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blown background really distracts here and the details are also not spectacular. The lemur is however. Lycaon (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad crop (the tail isn't on the photo). kallerna 09:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:053 French Foreign Legion.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 11:14:36
 

In context of Commons that´s a positive thing, isn´t it? Thinking of Wikinews ... --norro 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, I mean that it looks like a frame from a video news bulletin; the odd angle and bad framing are typical of the medium.
  •   Support --Kjetil_r 07:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel78. kallerna 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, lighting and noise problems, oversaturated. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, oversharpened, and per the others. --Aqwis (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it looks great.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result 4 support, 7 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Assisi San Francesco BW 5.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 16:31:50
 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Asilidae Stichopogon sp.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 18:38:07
 

  •   Info A very small 4mm long Robberfly. This picture was taken at 1:1 magnification and cropped to around 18xx pixels. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Muhammad 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Composition is good, lighting is 2 harsh for my taste - would prefer more finer details for the image size which is on the minimum side of life :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • True, size is small, but I did not downsample. This is just a crop of a 1:1 shot. --Muhammad 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Your crop is allways exactly 1200x1800 ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit particular. The image was cropped, to around 18xx pixels (if I remember correctly). After which I slightly downsampled to get my usual 1800px and 1200px, something I picked up from Mr Monk. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier on --Muhammad 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Image too blurry with little detail and less than optimal lighting. Probably a QI but not a FP, I believe it is possible to do better than this. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, decent, but per Alvesgaspar in File:Sarcophaga Bercaea2.jpg's FPC. --Aqwis (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • While I respect both yours and Alves' opinions, I think EV should always take precedence over aesthetics. --Muhammad (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Muhammad, but this is Commons, not the English Wikipedia. The fact that EV is relatively unimportant on Commons is a large part of the reason why the English Wikipedia has a separate FP process. --Aqwis (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No WOW. --Karel (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutra; => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Wil Altstadt 8375.jpg, delistedEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 11:01:38
 

result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

after voting period:

File:Yellow Admiral on thumbnail.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 21:41:31
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by and featuring User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the idea --norro 07:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, I approve. --Aqwis (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry but I don't like it. The quality and composition are far from excellent and are not mitigated by the originality of the situation. A child looking at a butterfly in his little hand would be much better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't have a child handy ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support This picture is an eyecatcher. Clear support --Simonizer (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks ordinary --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. --Ahnode (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. kallerna 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image! But really, Tony, please do have a child handy next time. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the "child holding butterfly" idea is a bit of a cliché, and unworthy of FP :-). But as the main objection to this image is one of composition, I might see if I can come up with a more pleasing alternative. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I'm trying to find a more pleasing crop, so have withdrawn this, please comment on/suggest alternatives on Commons:Photography_critiques#April :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Kazakhstan Altay 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 13:33:22
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Really amazing! kallerna 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, mainly for its encyclopedic value --ianaré (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, but no wow. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Crisp and clear photograph, saturated colours and simply lovely scenery. --Ahnode (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Thamarai-Namam2.png, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:31:39
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vaikunda Raja -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info This is the religious symbol of Ayyavazhi, a South Indian Dharmic belief system. This Image, I feel, the best, and of highest-resolution among all the similar Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC. This is already a featured Picture in English Wikipedia.
  •   Support -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not a good idea to promote religious symbols and national flags, imo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Sorry, Though I agree with the point of User:Alvesgaspar, I like to inform that the reason I nominated the image here was verymuch more than it being merely a religious symbol. This image, I feel is also much more than a mere outlined symbol like this or a less complex (in design) National flag. This is more a 'religious art' than a symbol or an emblem. For instance, the small greenish spikes, the green circular border and the brown background is not part of the "emblem". But it was justified here since it was more a 'religious art'. Of course it (or) part of it may be a religious symbol. But, I like this image to be featured here is not for the reason that it is a 'religious symbol' and for the reason that I believe it's beautiful and very much deserves to be featured as a 'Religious Art' as so in English wikipedia, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment That is no valid reason to oppose Alvesgaspar. Under your criteria so much could be censored. Art is a reflexion of a culture, religion included, and as such, a theme where creative activity takes place. Religion and art have had a long walk throughout history and I doubt that it will stop anytime soon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is just my opinion, not an attempt to introduce censorship. There is so much beyond the strict graphical components of such symbols that I'm afraid we cannot isolate them from the whole. Of course, we can say if we like them or not, in a strict aesthetical sense. But will that procedure be acceptable, when compared with what we do when assessing bug and building pictures? In this particular case, I find the image quite kitschy but that is probably because I'm not aware of its detailed symbolism. Should I be? Both a simple cross and Bach's Mass in B minor have strong religious content. But while I can still enjoy and understand Bach's masterpice being unaware of that component, that is obvioulsy not true with the cross. The same goes with national symbols and, for example, Tchaikowsky's 1812 piece. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me ask an academic question, which will make my point clearer: would Vaikunda Raja consider nominating this picture as a purely abstract creation of his own, saying nothing about its religious content? And would the chances of promotion improve by doing so? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If I understood you correctly, any-work which could create a symbolic ideology such as religious sentiment or Nationalism should not be given any featured or special status? Am I correct? If so, further sharpening your views, if I understood rightly, not even an outstanding photograph (or) a well written article that of a religious (or national) building or symbols shall be featured.
But it is not the case here in wikimedias. Here every thing including the ones which you neglected enjoys the featured or similar status; It be article, Category, List, Portal, Images or videos. The only thing is it should meet the appropriate criteria. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't understand correctly. My examples clear show that I'm not against featuring works with religious content. I'm only against promoting religious, national and partidary symbols or emblems. And I don't make any distinctions between the national flag of Portugal, the swastika or the Christian cross. As for the rules and criteria governing these issues they are not shared by the different wikis. There is an enormous difference between featuring an article on the Nazi ideology and featuring the swastica! Because the first can be neutral but not the second -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All religious images imply a transmission of ideology, the recipient, however, may or may not accept the symbolisms that such images convey. There are many variables involved. Protestants, for example, may take offense at catholic imagery, or jewish people at nazi symbols. However offensive the symbols may be to certain people, they exist outside an ideological realm and can be appreciated from different contexts, cultural, historical, etc. To suppress nazi symbols does not make the past dissapear, and in fact, may even contribute to forgetting the terrible events, which in turn, as we say in Mexico, the medicine would be worse than the illness. So in this small FPC world IMO it would be better to limit support or oppose votes strickly on technical and other relevant criteria aligned with the advancement of knowledge and preservation of history in general and not rely too much on the small world of personal opinions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is not whether they have an ideological value for FPC, that doesn't matter. The point is that once FP, they will become POTD, nolens volens one day and at that time make publicity for that particular ideology and that would be wrong. Lycaon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that introducing the ideological variable to FPC is foolish. It is hard enough to agree on aesthetic, cultural, historical, encyclopedic value as it is, and to throw in the possible implications of ideology of images on some people is a recipe for disaster. A cross, or an image of a cross could be an insult to muslims, a swastica to jews, nudity to puritans, and so on and so on... yet, neither crosses, swasticas nor nudity cease to exist or dissapear from history. Unless of course we turn over FPC to the Talibans and have them determine acceptable content from now on and have them delete what they don´t like. Much of graphic creation, sculptures, architecture, photography, drawings have an ideological base, consciously or unconsciously, and even if they come from the most abhorrent political spectrum, the work itself, the thing, does not necessarily lose its qualities as a work of art, or neither because it comes from there can it constitute itself in a piece of art. By exersicing good judgement by the community offensive material can be filtered out, ans solely based on technical and cultural quality. Unless of course we stick with the birds and the bees... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Lycaon - But the same is true of every image we promote. Shots of Catholic stained glass windows get promoted, thus making 'publicity for that particular ideology'. The same could be applied to shots of dead chickens, PETA may come after us saying that we approve of animal slaughter. But it was still promoted. There are American military aircraft Featured, when those reach POTD, will we be accused of favouring the US? Whether or not we realise it, each image that is promoted could be 'publicity for that particular ideology'. Singling one out is just hypocritical. Everyone seems to forget that this is Commons. If one side thinks that there are too FPs of one particular thing/idea/faith/country, they can always upload some of their own, and nominate them. It's a about quality and message, and I don't have to be religious to appreciate a religious photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You've got to ask yourself - would this picture even be nominated if it was not a religious symbol? If the answer is "no", then oppose. If you think it would be worth featuring without it's religious connotations, then support. This has nothing to do with censorship as far as I am concerned, it simply "has no wow". Plrk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose should be SVG --ianaré (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Originally I created this image using Adobe Illustrator. But due to 'forced rasterisation' of certain parts (the flower petals) while converting to SVG, the whole image was converted to a PNG and was uploaded. I also made a trial in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab but failed. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per ianaré. kallerna 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, Plrk said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment mistake in typing - it's not featured. --Lošmi (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Chrám svaté Barbory - Kutná Hora.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:23:09
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question do you also have a upright shot made from the centre of the church? Because on this pic the arcs are cut-off at the top and part of the altar is behind the benches - which kind of bugs me. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    no, I have only this photo of main altar. Benches are OK for me - simply a different perspective on the altar --Pudelek (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Basik07 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support grotesque --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) after voting period --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 10:04:47
 

  •   Info created by Oren Jack Turner - File:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg - cleanup, upload and selfnom by User:Jaakobou -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Image is a rare portrait shot of Einstein at the old age of 68.
  •   Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but it's below size requirements. kallerna 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Notice: Did some extra work in 32bit, output file is a bit bigger now as well. Jaakobou (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      •   Info For the consideration of other voters: the image above is 2.066 megapixels and the image below is 2.043 megapixels, so they meet the letter of the guideline, though just barely. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed but that is after the original nomination was upscaled. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Done I split the two images into two headings before someone opposes or FPXes due to the combined nomination. I'm copy/pasting Jaakobou's own self-vote below as well, but I'll leave it up to Kallerna whether to copy down the opposition vote.
  •   Oppose Valued yes, but I do not think the quality is good enough for FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunate quality. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cropped Version

 

  •   Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Valued yes, but I do not think the quality is good enough for FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Chapito.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 05:25:26
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support This is how Chapito wanted to be photographed, pointing toward the mountain caves. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, yet bit unsharp --Aktron (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sharpened a bit.... still getting used to new camera ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't think this is going to get the votes it needs, and I didn't feel the urge to support it the first time I came across it, but I've clicked back to this a few times since then. I find it compelling and haunting, and that's why I think it should be a FP. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support as Notyourbroom --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. --Lošmi (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done. --Dori - Talk 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

End of voting period was here --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support Timely shot, captured the moment! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Doña juanita.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 05:04:33
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support why not? It is a solid and interesting portrait of an interesting person with a nice composition. Would like to see more such pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - For the human component (which is scarce here) and despite the distortion made by the lens, which I don't like Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Alvesgaspar, thanks. As far as the distortion, it is the lesser of two evils.... in order to get the whole view I use a wide angle setting, and move the subject up close so to separate her from the background. Once I get the proportion I want, that is, main subject large enough and within her context, I click... and yes, wide angles pointing down or up distort, but in this case it was unavoidable. By lowering camera angle I would have lost the environment, same with lowering her, the visual effect would not have been the same. The only way to shoot with rectilinear precision is with perspective correction lenses or view cameras... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The strong posing looks unnatural to me. Lycaon (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support best of the 3 --ianaré (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lycaon (& Alvesgaspar). kallerna 10:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support As AngMoKio. --Lošmi (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support One of the most "talking" images - speaks a lot to viewers! Should be more photos like this one... --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Baker beach at twilight 41.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 01:22:52
 

  •   Info The image is more about w:twilight and reflection than about the bridge. I do not think we have this kind of reflection represented in FP. It is reflection over wet sand.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OOF. Lycaon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative 1, not featuredEdit

 

Looks like I've done something wrong once again. I believe I should have nominated one image, wait until few opposes (or no votes at all for that matter) and then nominate an alternative. I would never learn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I think this is the right way to do it. They're both awesome, that's why it's so hard to choose. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good colours --Muhammad (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Golden Gate is falling to right. Please rotate counter-clockwise. Pretty in preview, but not technically good at full-size. Seems out-of-focus --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks really nice on thumbnails, but isn't enough sharp on full size. kallerna 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OOF. Lycaon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, there are some odd artifacts on the bridge towers. Has this picture been through a lot of JPEG compression? --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not know what JPEG compression is or how to do it. May I please ask you in what parts of the towers you see "odd artifacts"? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alt 2Edit

 

  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted. kallerna 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Stained glass - Kutna Hora.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 17:10:20
 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Gazania rigens var. rigens.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 12:55:13
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by BetacommandBot - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pro2 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really think that this focus stacking went too far in this imagine. It looks too artificial for me, concerning sharpness and maybe also concerning exposition (not sure about that). It is a nice technique, but it should only get used when necessary. And I think here it is not necessary at all...at least not to that extend. The photo has a nice composition but the focus stacking ruins it imho. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Through heavy stacking the flower looks cut out somehow, otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful --norro 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok. kallerna 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support though smallish ... Lycaon (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Bellows macro.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 11:15:06
 

  •   Info Here is the secret of my superb bug pictures: a vintage camera plus a bellows! Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought you were the one, who takes superb bug pictures, and now I see it is actually your camera that does :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It has 2 much pink tint for my taste, lighting/exposure is a bit sad and could be more snazzy. Sharpness is average for a studio shot, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Bellows macro-edit.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 16:43:38
 

  •   Info created by Alves - uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, no, no, no: way too overexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
0 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Basalt columns in yellowstone 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 01:24:12
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Basik07 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Savant-fou (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC) after voting period --AngMoKio (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Toshiba Vacuum tube Radio .jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 23:18:32
 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Doorknob buddhist temple detail amk.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 22:29:27
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Weak support This is a very powerful image- lots of "wow" factor- but the angle of the shot bugs me a tiny bit. I feel like the camera was probably a bit too high and to the right. I can't deny that it's FP quality, though. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support because I would not knock :-) --Böhringer (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Symbolic Doorknob! 멋지다(cool)! ;) --FriedC (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karel (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Dirce Beauty Colobura dirce.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 19:53:16
 

  •   Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce)
  •   Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish I had the kind of equipment (and patience!) necessary to create images like this. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --AngMoKio (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - Not enoigh to oppose but I don't like the framing and tight crop. Let the poor thing breathe (and fly)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support   ■ MMXXtalk  11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support sauba --Böhringer (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lookatthis (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support great --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Image is in excellent focus with brilliant colors. --Korman (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Basik07 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Eichen-Schmuckwanze Rhabdomiris striatellus.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 13:27:14
 

  •   Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   InfoPale form of Striped Oak Bug (Rhabdomiris striatellus)
  •   Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Excellent composition, sharpness and detail. But I don't like the first plan being unfocused. Maybe we arw all spoiled by focus bracketing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--AngMoKio (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoverfly May 2008-8.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 12:21:29
 

  •   Info A female Marmelade fly (Epysyrphus balteatus) on flight, hovering near a Hebe sp. flower. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, focus. Proud to support :-) --Muhammad (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support very good details for a flying subject.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW !!! --Umnik (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW !!! --Böhringer (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support nice catch combined with a nice composition...well done! --AngMoKio (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Really cool --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent image. --Korman (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Doucus (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:TV station on Chopok.jpg,not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 11:24:04
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Some problems with image, but the ice crystalls are great. BTW do you know what kind of crystalls those are?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't now - crystalls are crystalls :D --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Do you have a less cropped version? So more sky around the subject? --norro 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    no, I have only this version :( --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support but with the stipulation that the CA could still be neutralized a bit. The purple fringing is minor, but should be pretty trivial to clear up. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Done Also, I created a new category for this image. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight IMHO. Sry. kallerna 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree about the crop (left side). /Daniel78 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like how the snow/ice coats everything.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I love this picture, but there needs to be more on the left. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. It is a well spotted scene but for several reasons I have to oppose: tight crop, artefacts/noise(?) and snow is in my opinion underexposed. Still a nice shot! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - I like it and think it's good enough to be a quality image, but I have to agree about the tight crop. Jonathunder (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llorenzi (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support But do photoshop it and add some sky to the left, it would look great. --Ahnode (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to composition, as mentioned. --Dori - Talk 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 7 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Cat eyes 2007-1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 10:45:57
 

  •   Info Close-up portrait of a tabby queen. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is too close to the objective resulting in a bad framing .. at least the chin shouldn't be cropped , sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support The image name is "Cat eyes" and the eyes do show great details and the framing for the eyes is good. If we would vote according to a nominator past voting history, I am afraid all my nominations should be opposed at once :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support /Daniel78 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You can has   Support?? ;) --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose have to agree with Richard. I also don't like the harsh light of the flash. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Richard --norro 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. kallerna 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose after I saw this one. --Ahnode (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
4 support, 6 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Rusty train in Koprivshtitsa.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 00:38:44
 

  •   Info created by TwoWings - uploaded by TwoWings - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately. --Korman (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Question Any particular reason? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   InfoPlease recall the FPC voting instructions, which request that you "include a few words about why you liked/didn't like the picture, especially when you vote oppose." Not including an explanation doesn't invalidate your opposition, but explaining what you find to be deficient will be helpful for everyone in order to better frame future discussion. Thanks! --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support looks OK --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough depth of field (which is weird, given the aperture the photographer used…), lack of artisticness. Diti the penguin 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I'm glad that some people like this picture (and this nomination is already a honour, thank you Sarcastic ShockwaveLover!) but I have to say I don't think it's technically good enough to be a Featured Picture. I took it with a rather average automatic camera since I didn't have a better one at that time. By the way, this train wasn't abandonned and it may still be used in Bulgaria. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry to miss nominator's question. Dominating, rusty and dilapidated trains don't really catch my eye. If it was a smaller man-made object, I could have supported it. We all have our personal preferences. --Korman (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You really only support pictures of small objects? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • @ Korman : when we vote for or against a FP, we should only deal with quality, not with personal taste. If you don't like tennis and if there's a great picture of a tennis player nominated, do you oppose? Well, it's the same here! That said, I don't think my picture (technically) deserves the FP status. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting but not special. Not outstanding from the huge amount of railway pictures we have and technically far from perfect. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment How about HDR? I think it would look great. --Ahnode (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm...interesting. I'm afraid that my knowledge of HDR is very limited, can it be applied after a photo has been taken? But yes, the effect would be unique. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Flowers February 2009-1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 23:53:45
 

  •   Info Flowers and buds of Freesia sp.. Everything by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely image!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lovely flowers, but flash lighting is not proper IMO --Muhammad (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Muhammad. --Ahnode (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Schloss Forstegg Salez 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 10:51:23
 

  Comment very good edit - you do not want to nominate Kallerna? --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You can nominate it if you want. It's your picture :). kallerna 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Lacock Abbey view from south.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 20:01:25
 

  •   Info created and uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture of this abbey-- Kadellar (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the sides of the tower on the leftright should all have the same size, because that's how it is in reality. Something went wrong with post-processing I guess... --AngMoKio (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --ianaré (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mainly because of the distortion at the right side on this nominated edit . --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Richard --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose mainly due to distortions. --Dori - Talk 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Solar coronae created by the steam getting out hot springs 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 17:29:14
 

  •   Info Morning fog and steam getting out of hot spring created Solar Coronae
  •   Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting solar phenomena aside, I'm half-expecting to see a T-rex lurking in there somewhere ... --ianaré (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! kallerna 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting picture. I learned something --Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, but   Question Do you think you could geotag this picture? I would love to know where it was taken. Yellowstone is a big place. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark and foggy, no wow. Lycaon (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Foggy!!!??? Is the image really foggy!!!??? Well, I guess it is. It is the image of the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

*  Oppose Don't like the composition. --Dori - Talk 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Too late.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 1 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Wendelstein 20090320 SK 002.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 14:23:04
 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support No visible CA, very little noise, and the white balance looks good to my eye. I think the composition could be a little better, but it's not a big issue here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support An intersting place.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Being Simonizer the master of composition, there must be some logical explanation for this one being somehow unbalanced. Was it the only possible shooting spot? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      •   Comment No it was not. But it was the only spot on the same hight of the church. There are some more spots below the church and another one some meters above (but not at this day because of snow). I have taken several other pictures with more landscape visible but then the church is only a small part of the picture. I will upload them shortly. Maybe you like them better! ;-)

--Simonizer (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Awkward composition, Mediocre sharpness at full size, snow is under exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition doesn't 'do it' for me --ianaré (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Notyourbroom. kallerna 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, very interesting. --Aqwis (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture. --Korman (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llorenzi (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. I think the unbalanced composition works here, as it adds to precarious feeling.Jonathunder (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Soyuz TMA-13.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by NASA - uploaded by Savant-fou - nominated by Savant-fou --Savant-fou (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Savant-fou (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support For some reason, I don't find this image to be as stunning as I would have expected. However, this does look like the best image of its type on the Commons. The value should be self-evident, and there's nothing too bad I can say about the photographic quality, either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Support removed as a matter of process, because this version is tied with the Edit version for support, and I prefer the latter. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support per Notyourbroom.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -Two reasons: (i) look at the sky at left (low jpeg quality?); (ii) Let the poor thing fly - give it more space above! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I seem to have started a run on space images! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Agree with Alvesgaspar. kallerna 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support the edit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose could be sharper (they're not really that fast just coming off the pad) --ianaré (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose => not featured (Edit has more support votes) --Simonizer (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 

Edit, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info - Noise reduction on the sky, upper part of the sky digitaly added. --Lošmi (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, I think this version is superior. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, much better. --Aqwis (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Savant-fou (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Biso (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely shot. --Ahnode (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Praha Orloj DSC 0528.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 08:00:12
 

  •   Info created by Tmaurizia - uploaded by Tmaurizia - nominated by Tmaurizia -- Tmaurizia (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I fixed the image's categorization as well as its English description. You can see many other images of this clock within the category I linked to. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe this is superior to other images of the same subject such as this one. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor framing, needs geometric correction, some parts are underexposed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment - Thanks to --Notyourbroom who fixed right category, It's not easy for me to find right ones :) -- (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I may be biased as I have uploaded a picture of this clock to Commons myself (which not suitable for FP either, due to a slightly odd composition), but I feel this is a bit too ordinary for a featured picture. It should be photographed not from ground level (to minimize distortion) and under better light conditions, and preferably also with better sharpness. --Aqwis (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as opposers. Lycaon (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)