Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2017

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log

File:Panorama Burg Lindelbrunn.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 19:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat lighting = no wow for me, sorry, especially given how the castle is backlit. -- King of ♠ 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poké95 01:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KOH -- Thennicke (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not so much per KoH, although he's right, but to me that the processing in the left frames with the castle is more erratic than that in the right frames with the deeper, more satisfying view of the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Stained glass windows in São Bento Monastery, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 18:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's cut on top too because there is a structure blocking the view. Btw, here is a example of a FP cut of a painting --The Photographer 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I have to   Oppose then. The other FP doesn't convince me to change my mind. We have thousands of stained glass windows on Commons and I don't think this is remarkable among them, and flawed too. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. A good picture but not good enough for FP in an area where the bar is pretty high. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2016 at 17:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because camera shake. 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.

King of ♠ 03:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 07:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Турно Скијање 2015.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 10:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Yeah, maybe, but I'm OK with it as it is. His bent posture and pack accentuate the "man against the elements" thing here, which works quite well at the current size. I can imagine this being memed, Successories-style, with some text like "It's all ... uphill from here." Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel convinced me. --cart-Talk 00:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The midday backlit lighting doesn't work for me. (Also, I think it can be a bit brighter.) -- King of ♠ 02:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really seeing what is exceptional about this ski photo. The lighting isn't great per KoH, the camera angle isn't dramatic, there's no mountain vista in the background, and you can't see his face. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would like to see the face of the skier --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per all the other opposers. This isn't the "best of the best" IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kanyam Tea GardenKanyam-00015100.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 16:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Nepal
  •   Info all by me -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose beautiful scenery but subpar quality (primarily due to the incorrectly chosen focus). Sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main subject is unsharp. --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin, really a pity since it is such a beautiful scene. --cart-Talk 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everyone else's comments. Please try photographing this motif again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed in an attempt to compensate for the off focus; also while I can easily accept blue mountains here, purple ones are a bit much. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the focus/sharpness/color problems mentioned by the five opposers. 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.

lNeverCry 07:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Notre-Dame de Paris from the Pont de l'Archevêché by Night.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 20:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Halos around the building -- Thennicke (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the halos, especially at left. I also wonder if moving the camera further left would be possible in order to get a composition where the big fall-colored tree doesn't hide most of the building? lNeverCry 07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. The whole processing looks very unreal to me, e.g. the windows of the towers being so much darker than the night sky. --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the effects of the overprocessing noted by others. It seems as if the idea was to eat the cake and have it too, to have the building well illuminated but not have the blown lights you'd otherwise have after even the most careful of 13-second exposures. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Thanx at all --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 13:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2016 (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.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Canthare à Aphrodite, MBA Lyon E 388b.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Ceramics
  •   Info created by Gozitano - uploaded by Gozitano - nominated by Gozitano -- Gozitano (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gozitano (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very nice piece, but the photo is not sharp enough for FP, in my opinion. I'm thinking that if you could use a softer light source, that might help, but I don't know how possible that is in this museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A photo of an ancient artifact like this should be represented in its true colors. It doesn't look like there has been any attempt to fix the white balance, I tested it a bit and it looks like there are at least three light temperature present making this almost impossible to fix. It is submitted under "Ceramics" but the description on the file's page says nothing about what material it is made of, pleas add that. --cart-Talk 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2016 (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.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Милениумскиот крст на Водно.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:18:10 (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 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 15:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry but... It is a very good photo, it is extremely sharp and well lit, in fact so good that you can see all the dirt, grime, dust, fingerprints and other yuk-y stuff on the camera. If I'm looking at such a good photo I really want to see a nice clean camera without any such disturbing elements. This cleaning usually has to be done in two stages: 'analogue' cleaning before shooting and the some additional dust-spotting and removing with the clone brush. In my book Colin still holds the award for cleanest FP camera, sadly the same can't be said for many of the other FP camera pics. --cart-Talk 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Old cameras are going to have dust, just like ruins or historical sites that are popular tourist attractions will have crowds of people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Are those really analogous? I'm tempted to oppose per cart's argument. I think it's quite possible to carefully clean an old camera; do you think it's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel. I wish this was a Minolta XE7 or XK, but you take what you can get... lNeverCry 08:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes it is a bit dusty but mainly the photo doesn't make me go wow. I think one has to have just a little extra to get FP. Like being super clean or having interesting lighting, and if the tabletop surface is visible, it needs to be more photogenic than white paper. The background isn't pure white, like File:Sony A77.jpg (another immaculate camera) which limits its use a little. I note that we do have a mix of cleanliness of older cameras at FP, with some worse than this and some immaculate. Evan-Amos is the expert at taking photos of vintage equipment that look like they have only just come out the box. My own camera was almost new when I photographed it, but still required cleaning to remove household dust that gathers within seconds, and a fair bit of software cleanup. The rear photo was particularly difficult, with the LCD screen, viewfinder and especially the rubber eyepiece attracting dust like a magnet. So I do appreciate this isn't easy. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - cart and Colin said it much better and in much more detail than I could. This is certainly a very good photo from a technical standpoint, and I don't think anyone would ever think of suggesting that it doesn't richly merit its status as a Valued and Quality Image. But I think the improvements they outline could and should be made for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 35-37 HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 07:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Hypogeum of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. At both sides of this tunnel are located the cells where the beasts for the games were kept. The amphitheatre, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979, was built around 238 AD, when the modern Tunisia belonged to the Roman province of Africa. It is the third biggest amphiteatre and one of the best preserved Roman ruins in the world with capacity for 35,000 spectators within 148 metres (486 ft) and 122 metres (400 ft) long axes and a unique in Africa. All by me, Poco2 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I know the metal grate is not an original Roman element, but I love what it does to the photo. This is probably my new favorite out of all of your photos of this amphitheatre that I've seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    To be honest, Ikan, me too, apart from the nice panorama from the top that ended up 17th in WLM. Poco2 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, the metal grate ruins it for me. B&W might work here though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, interesting proposal, I will add an alternative in b&w, first time Poco2 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like Tunisia in colors, the BW looks too gloomy for me. --cart-Talk 13:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top corners are too distracting. -- King of ♠ 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan, I think the mesh roof actually makes the picture more interesting—I'm sure the Romans would have been like, "Cur non cogitare?" if they could have seen it. It's a nice combo of old and new. And, to build on cart's comment, the color so works. You could easily expect to see Indiana Jones running past. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Metal grate. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

AltEdit

  Info Following Martin's proposal an alternative in b&w. Pinging @Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, Martin Falbisoner: to let them know about the alt Poco2 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support interesting, abstract play of shades, shapes and lines --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Either way, it's an outstanding photo for my money. Could they possibly both be featured as a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice, but missing the colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Nice use of perspective, and the top corners are much less distracting in BW. -- King of ♠ 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Another case where I'll take either one. lNeverCry 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, and I experimented with some crops also, but can't get away from that metal grate, which is just too busy. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors
The chosen alternative is: File:Anfiteatro,_El_Jem,_Túnez,_2016-09-04,_DD_35-37_HDR.jpg

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5906-12.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 16:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Not a candidate
  • I can check the image within the next days, but IMO there is no more space. Do you think another image may be a good choice? The one on the right?--XRay talk 17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I don't like that one as much and see what the issue is: There's another building to the right, and including it in the composition makes it more complicated, to its detriment. I will live with this photo for a while and see what I think later. Thanks, XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)  Comment I would actually prefer the second one. In that the hand is "clearer", it isn't interfered with by the lit windows behind it, it also gives an uninterrupted view of it's reflection and that of the horse nearby. In other words, it is less cluttered. Maybe with a little crop at the bottom to get rid of the uninteresting pavement. Decisions, decisions...   cart-Talk 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a decision for today. The crop at the bottom isn't a problem. But I'll wait a couple of days. --XRay talk 17:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending nominator's decision. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination A decision! I think, I'll nominate the other image next year. Thanks for all your comments for all the images within this year. --XRay talk 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Castle of Les Baux-de-Provence cf01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 19:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

White cedar in sun shower and frost fog, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 17:37:45 (UTC)

  •   Info A set of two photos of the same two white cedars and a small opening between them about 3 meters above ground. One photo is taken during a sun shower in autumn and the other in frost fog during winter about two months later. All by me, -- cart-Talk 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support of course, an excellent idea :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great idea, well executed. Thanks for your creativity, cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak support the second does not convince me ... but together they work --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I knew I was going to get some comment about that one. It is shot in heavy fog just a few hours after this one so it is bound to be less sharp than the first photo, but I wanted the fog as a feature in the photo since it added to the cold ambience of it. cart-Talk 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I didn't think of these as FPs, but now that they're nominated, I think they work as such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting! Jee 07:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Loved seeing these on your Flickr stream and I'm glad you nominated them. You can almost smell the season in both. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • cart: did you think to join then into one shot, with middle line, or even some home made curve. --Mile (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • PetarM, thanks for your comment. There are several permutations if someone wants to make these two pics into some combined photo: side by side with one or the other first, one on top of the other, half of each photo and so on, using either some software or plain wiki-code with a space between them. I think it is best to keep them as a set of two separate pics here so that people can decide for themselves how they would like to use them in articles etc. Combining them for the nom would make this inflexible. Let's keep this simple and basic. cart-Talk 15:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants#Family_:_Cupressaceae

File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar Geburt 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 22:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
  •   Info Nativity of Christ at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Kefermarkt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master (Master of the Kefermarkt Altar), around 1497. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fröhliche Weihnachten --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice, but is it not possible to up the sharpness further? Or perhaps it's the type of dull light that hit it that's tiring my eyes a bit when I look at this photo and that wouldn't be helped by further sharpening. Am I the only one who's affected this way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No, you're not the only one... Sharpness could be better here, no doubt. I just don't think it's actually bad enough not to support. But any attempt to improve the quality is definetely welcome. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comments above, and also in order to prevent a quick close and extend discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media#Religion

File:Landscape Nissan-lez-Enserune cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 09:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Merry Xmas Christian, nice touch of the light and colors. --Laitche (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Somehow the dead tree makes an otherwise unremarkable landscape special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 06:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very sorry to interrupt the support votes, but I really don't get why this composition is great. The village is unsharp and uninteresting to look at, and I think there's too much empty sky. I might rather see the rest of the tree that's cut off on the left and crop the photo just a bit to the right of the church, so as to focus on the dead tree, which is by far the most interesting thing in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Partly per Ikan, but I also don't see any beauty in the subject itself -- so to me it lacks "wow".. sorry. There are ugly subjects that still make my jaw drop but this looks the same as many other rural-industrial areas to me. The light is nice though! -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Thennicke --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opponents --Karelj (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Four versions of a floodlight through rain on a window.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 00:26:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
  •   Info A little something for those who wanted more artistic and perhaps minimalistic pics. :) A combination of four photos of a halogen floodlight as seen through the pouring rain on a double-glazed window one dark and stormy afternoon. All by me -- cart-Talk 00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support @W.carter: I love seeing all the original ideas you come up with. This looks like a very artistic Rorschach test.   lNeverCry 01:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • INC, that comment about my crazy ideas being welcome made my day! Now I don't care if the rest of the votes are 'opposes'.   --cart-Talk 11:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC and out of pure interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like a very surreal playing card ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment good and interesting! It may be just my screen but I really don't have to try all that hard to identify the individual segments, ie photos, of this composite nomination. Maybe you'd like to go back to photoshop for a sec to improve (darken) the background a bit more? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback. :) It's not you monitor, I hadn't planned on "merging" these four photos any further than a thin gradual line to separate them. They are after all photos of a window pane and not total darkness, but if you think a bit darkness would improve the pic, sure I can do that. Only the space around the floodlights though since a total darkening overhaul would damage the fine details on the floodlights themselves. I'll have to do it later though since this is the day we celebrate X-mas in Sweden. Have you seen all the tiny rainbow patterns at full size? --cart-Talk 11:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks - and never mind. The picture is great as it is! So:   Support, of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Martin, that very gracious of you. :) Nevertheless, you were right. I've cleaned up the gradient in the darkness between the lights a bit.(Hmmm, in any other context that sentence would have sounded metaphysical and contrived... ;) On this project we certainly say things that would have sounded crazy outside the scope.) Best, cart-Talk 12:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 00:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Creative. If it had no description I would be scratching my head. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support! Jee 06:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 08:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this more than the other one. The added shapes at left add some interesting structures/lines to the composition. The crop at left may be a bit tight considering the generous right crop though. lNeverCry 08:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info New version uploaded with even cropping on the left and the right - thanks for noticing that INeverCry -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is nice, especially with the trees breaking in on the sharp lines of the building, stairs and whatever those "fins" are for. --cart-Talk 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I think the "fins" are just decorative. It's a really strange building in many ways. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice architectural picture and converging lines - Benh (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely work with the forms, per other supports. Still a little cool, but I will chalk that up to the photographer's tastes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: I assume you're referring to the WB? I've tried to keep the lighting and processing consistent with images such as this and this and IMO this is very much as the scene looked (those trees are I think Eucalyptus cinerea and their leaves are blueish-grey, maybe that's making things look too blue to north american eyes?) And thanks for your comment of course -- Thennicke (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thennicke: That's sort of what I meant by "the photographer's tastes". You know this scene, I have never been there, and although my mind wants the concrete to be a little warmer (and maybe cheesier) that's not realistic so I defer to your experience there.

There are some eucalyptus trees around on the U.S. East Coast, mostly decorative plantings in larger yards where people wanted a big deciduous shade tree but not (for whatever reason) an oak or maple, but yes of course I haven't set eyes on whole forests of them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Okay, now I understand :-) The only reason I mention the trees is that this is a rare type of eucalypt even here, with a unique leaf colour. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much stronger composition than before. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support EXIF data very short. Next time: Please add a description to your nomination. --XRay talk 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Good observation about the EXIF, I'll try my best to track down which program is doing that. I'll also add a more detailed description; thanks for pointing that out -- Thennicke (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Mausoleo de Hafez, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 09:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created and uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Ceiling over the marble Tomb of Hafez, northern edge of the city of Shiraz, Iran. The mausoleum is dedicated to Khwāja Shams-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Ḥāfeẓ-e Shīrāzī (1325/6-1389/90), better known as Hafez, one of the most important poets in the country history. The mauselum is situated in the Musalla Gardens and was built in 1935 according to a design of French architect and archaeologist André Godard, are at the site of previous structures, the best-known of which was built in 1773. Poco2 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - There is already a Featured Picture of the ceiling of this mausoleum, and I think it's quite a good picture, but it's a detail picture concentrating on the center, whereas this shows all the tilework. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Ikan once more for this finding! Poco2 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional info. This was built in 1935? I assume the design is heavily influenced by earlier styles well-known to the archaeologist/architect who designed it, because I definitely wouldn't have guessed 20th century for this style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pierre André (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 12:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is a bit awkward, and the off-center positioning made me think it was a heptagon until I counted the sides! -- King of ♠ 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH, off-center positioning doesn't work so well for this image IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I take the point. It's a perfectly valid point of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Zwei Pferde- -- 2016 -- 5969-75.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 11:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 11:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 11:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I was thinking that maybe it could have been cropped in tighter, but looking at it and thinking about it I realized that the background is just warm and subdued enough to perfectly contrast the bright yet cool sculpture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel. lNeverCry 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support "Oddly enough" ;) my first reaction was like Daniel's, that the crop was too wide but then I realized I could not suggest a better one since I wouldn't want to cut the glow from the horse, so it is perfect as it is. Really unusual. --cart-Talk 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Flawless, to my eyes -- Thennicke (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Rofental, Tirol.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 07:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Doronenko (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - This photo's excellence is most evident to me at full size. I love the rockiness, the high, narrow valley, the contrast of light and shade, the brighter regions being further away, the dramatic sky, the glaciers, all the shapes. I'll be interested to see whether the rest of you share or don't share my feelings about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Ikan. The waterfall at left is especially dramatic. However, quality is not fantastic (old camera, I know) and it seems like you might want to turn your sharpening/local contrast down a tiny bit -- Thennicke (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Drama! --cart-Talk 10:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support echoing Ikan Kekek's sentiments. —Bruce1eetalk 14:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Easily memeable with the expression "I took him to the mountain and showed him the valley". I can't think of a better illustration for the underlying sentiment. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great dramatic lighting. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Austria

File:Ballroom ceiling (29580926361).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 04:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United Kingdom
  •   Info created by Tim Green (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by lNeverCry 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks to W.carter for cleaning this one up (the fixture is very slightly askew, but that's up to the Todmorden Town Hall maintenance crew to deal with) . I still think the colors and patterns are interesting and striking enough to be featured. I appreciate your consideration, and Happy New Year to everyone! lNeverCry 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Harmonious colors and well composed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm finding this too unsharp for FP. If the sharpness is successfully upped, I may reconsider, because this is a very nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It looks nice in thumb, but the pixel quality is not at all there for me - very noisy. Some very strange things going on, like the chains, they start out being black at the ceiling, then turn to purple further down? That looks very wrong to me. But a happy new year to you too, INeverCry! -- Slaunger (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, even though I fixed this for you, but Slaunger is totally right. At first it was not only the chains that were purple, but the whole corners and some of the bottom of the pic. I cleaned it up as best I could and I was unsure about what to do about the chains, since it would take forever to clean them up without disturbing anything else. It's not very sharp and it would have ruined the details if I had done any major noise reduction on it. --cart-Talk 17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination lNeverCry 19:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station December 2016.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 09:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Rådhuset metro station, Stockholm. Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Having seen this view a thousand times on my way to work, it has never look as good as in this photo, and yet nothing is added or changed. Well done! --cart-Talk 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exposure was too short. The level of blur of the train is disturbing and not well handled. lNeverCry 09:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Info for non-Swedes about the choice of artwork at this station: "Rådhuset" means Town Hall/Rathaus and the partial pillars are symbolizing the ancient foundation for the building above. cart-Talk 09:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   strong support what a great picture of a truly wonderfully designed station! Personally I'd prefer longer exposures but that's just a matter of taste. 1/15 works as well as it provides a better idea and more details of the moving train. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have another Featured by you from the same point of view and IMHO better quality --The Photographer 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think it is 2 very different images, due to the different focal length. Regarding the quality, I believe the quality to be good considering that it is a uncompressed 24mp extreme wide-angle image.--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm also not sure about the two noms. I think, ArildV, you should have stated the other nom up-front. The previous FP has a slight horizontal-perspective issue (see the escalator lights) but handles the lighting highlights better. It is also better for having some people on the escalator, imo. Both have a similar amount of roof, but this one has more of the black floor, which isn't very interesting. The escalator here isn't quite centred in the frame. The train adds a little bit, but essentially we just have the same photo zoomed out a little bit. I would encourage you to consider a 16:9 crop (see note on file page) which will centre the escalator, remove some of the floor, has the floor lines lead in from the corners, and has a more dramatic format imo. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know about the other FP. Hmmm. I don't know why you shoot and nominate the same subject for FP with only some slight difference and not even in the "set way" where several shots of a subject makes sense. Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location? I won't change my vote, but I agree with Colin that you should have declared the other photo in the nom and explained why you think we should have these two versions of the same view. --cart-Talk 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It is vey simple, I thought (and think) it was a different images with different focus (more of the station and train, IMO also a more dynamic composition with the lines (train, and the lines in the floor). You can of course disagree. The previous FP was no secret, it was a finalist in last year's POY and I hope you are not suggesting that I tried to hide it consciously.
Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location?
First: I am not employed by you or WMF for taking pictures. I am a volunteer and do not need to be extremly productive. Furthermore, I believe that it is good to have many images of an object taken during different seasons. I wish all small villages to be as well-documented as Ljungdalen, all the islands as well documented as Landsort and all metro stations as well documented as Rådhuset. I have limited time and often have a camera in my bag, and take photos of the places I visit anyway.
W.carter: Regarding Landsort; the last nomination from 2016 was from another user. The another from 2013 and 2012.
--ArildV (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your explanation, it clarified things. --cart-Talk 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ArildV, I wasn't suggesting you "tried to hide [the previous nom] consciously" but even a POTY finalist can be unknown to people who only joined recently, and not everyone will remember the photo as well as you remember your own. It is best to be "up front" about this, so avoid the situation where a similar photo is pointed out only after several people have supported. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ArildV, I wasn't suggesting you "tried to hide something" too. I can see here how you added the featured category and I'm sorry if my vote was rude, however, it was not --The Photographer 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I prefer the existing FP. This one has more darkish areas, too much floor (though it could be resolved by cropping), more disturbing highlights (the lights on escalators, and the reflections on the floor), and also more noise (visible on escalators and the plaque). --A.Savin 11:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with opposition. --Mile (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too similar with the other FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it but ... I am reserving judgement because there is the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--ArildV (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Friesach Geyersbergweg 24 Ruine Geiersberg 21122016 4717.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 04:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Perhaps the edit according to INC`s critic helped? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very useful for VI, but I'm not finding the composition outstanding to move my eye around or view, or to put it another way, the photo is certainly interesting but isn't wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light, and good technical quality, but many obstructing trees and a general low reading on my wow-o-meter, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not wowed either; I think my main problem is the diluted sky. It may be how it was that day, but it doesn't create enough of a contrast with the earth tones of the castle and woods. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination - Thank you, guys, for your honest statements. Hereby I withdraw this image. HAPPY NEW YEAR! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Korab 11.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 23:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I preffer a more descriptive name like "Korab Mountain, Macedonia.jpg" --The Photographer 02:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer, including the name change. --cart-Talk 08:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per The Photographer. lNeverCry 09:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per unexceptional composition noted by the Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unappealing composition. File name is OK with me, its primary purpose is to be a unique identifier and not be misleading. The description of the subject shall be in the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Radisson Blu in Christmas time.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Radisson Blu in cold Christmas time. Only way to dismiss Freedom of Panorama, and yet its good shot. Krismas tree can be seen inside of a dark hotel. And de-minimis ligths, non part of Xmas lighting. I am done for 2016. -- Mile (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure the freedom of panorama can be applied pics where a copyrighted logo is the main subject of the photo. This file may be a copyvio, hopefully someone may know more about this. --cart-Talk 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Asked, and one didnt have problem. But if you check Radisson BLU, ex SAS, they got even bigger here.1, 2,... --Mile (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyright status of the logo in Slovenia. I believe, however, that the US part of the equation is fine, since it appears to consist of words in a common font and geometric shapes ... thus it is ineligible for copyright in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the idea of this image, but the building's edges aren't clearly defined, so it seems like the logo is floating in space, it just looks weird to me, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, somewhat along the lines of Gamaliel. The emphasized forms just sit there and stop my eyes from moving around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per compositional difficulties noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Charles Bradley (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP6830 smial wp.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 18:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Smial - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like beautiful photos of architecture and nature as much as the next guy and gal, but it's good to have more FPs of people, and I really like this soulful picture of a singer in concert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I love his shirt, his hair, and the obvious emotion of his singing. This is an excellent portrait. lNeverCry 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really the kind of picture you'd wish you could just click the ( > ) button on and get the audio as well. --cart-Talk 22:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Makes a nice pair with this image, also an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would qualify my !vote, however, by saying that I hope someone can make the pink and purple splotches look like they came from the lighting and not paint dripping off some unseen part of the set  . Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Pink/purple LED stage lights are a PITA for photography. The look cool but render differently with digital sensors, where they are often out-of-gamut and easily blow the colour channels. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, we don't have enough FPs of people. Great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--XRay talk 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WClarke (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 03:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Кањон матка.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 14:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't feel like I'm really able to fairly judge this photo without making a high-quality print of it, because I don't think it's at its best at full screen, and I can't view it on my screen all at once at full size. My one hesitation is whether the depth of the view is truly captured in fog. But even so, I'll vote for it on the basis of my initial reaction of "wow" to the thumbnail and my sense that except for the motors on the boats, this looks similar to great Japanese paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Surprisingly high quality given the conditions! But please add a geocode. --cart-Talk 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose technically sound, but I can't see that composition justifies FP status. Charles (talk)
  •   Oppose The scene has potential, but doesn't quite work for me. The boat is too central; the person onboard isn't striking an engaging pose; nor is the boat particularly photogenic; the harbour seems arbitrarily cropped. I think an FP has to be a great image, not just vaguely remind one of other images. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It definitely has potential but the crop is not really good. I'd probably support a different version with a sustantial crop on bottom and right, and maybe B&W works here Poco2 20:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice mood, but the centered composition does not work for me, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Welzenegg Krastowitz 1 Schloss Krastowitz SW-Ansicht 29122016 5929.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 07:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Surely there must be a better place to take this photo from that shows more of the building from ground level not from way down where the building is half hidden? Charles (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose per Charles. I like the subject and light condition but the composition is not balanced. The tree and fences in the foreground just steal to much attention to the viewer versus the castle in the background. I'd have probably tried to look for a different spot to the right and closer to the castle. Sorry, not convincing to me like this. Poco2 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The trees don't help the composition: they dominate too much of the left-hand side and are also cut off at the top. -- King of ♠ 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Sorry, it was one of my wrong decisions to nominate this picture here in FPC. I wanted to demonstrate the relation of the name Krastowitz (Slovenian "hrast" means "oak tree") to the oak trees nearby. Perhaps it would have better fit to the VI. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male underside.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful pastel colours, great composition -- Thennicke (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Thennicke, and I was just remembering how this was the kind of picture I used to oppose. I guess I'm still not sure this kind of bokeh is my absolutely favorite thing, but if that's what's needed to get this photo of the butterfly, I'm OK with it. And it is pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You're always going to get a blurred bokeh with a macro, Ikan and DoF is about 2-3 mm. Charles (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--XRay talk 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 7. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 19:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Bokeh in macro is always strange, and often can go to banding. This one is OK.--Mile (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Dreamy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 70mm? 24-70? Jee 15:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, not my usual 100mm macro lens, Jee. I was on holiday, not really butterfly hunting, and had my 24-70 F4 L IS lens which has a macro facility. Charles (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting! Jee 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Old medina of morocco.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 07:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

thank you very much Mr ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/ for nominating this picture. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Md.Boualam» (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Great colors, great detail and overall great mood. But there are too many things going on in this one compositionally for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much parts which are not really sharp IMO --Llez (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - I really don't know how much more room there is in this alley. If there was more room behind the photographer, I think that stepping back for a longer depth of field could have improved the photo. I think that was needed for the viewer to feel a greater sense of relaxation in viewing the composition. In this case, I feel tense because all the details seem to be closing in on me. I think that's what Daniel may have meant when he said "there are too many things going on in this one", but for me, it's not that there are too many things; it's that because there are so many things sticking out in a picture with a short depth of field, the parts end up feeling to me as if they are almost the whole, whereas I'd like to see them more clearly subordinated to the long view. I hope that makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse (2016).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yeah, the building in general isn't in great shape. Due to safety concerns, the lighthouse is currently not open to the public. It's also not clear how long it's going to take until they reopen it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 
  • Frank Schulenburg I thought sea should be floating like that ? --Mile (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at it very closely, it's not the lighthouse that's the problem but the sea. It's not perfectly level but tilted a wee bit. Could you fix that please. cart-Talk 11:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've fixed it. Thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the fixing needs just a little bit more... --Laitche (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fixed. --Mile (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting twist ... a Pacific Coast lighthouse lit by dawn, not dusk. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. -- King of ♠ 02:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 15:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --The Photographer 10:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition. --Laitche (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Towers#United_States_of_America

File:To Become a Martial Arts Instructor in Hawaii 161208-M-QH615-011.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Aaron Patterson - uploaded by (talk) - nominated by (talk) -- (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm having trouble getting what's featurable about this photo. Do you just find it a really striking face? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a portrait (don't know what else it could be) I would like some better DoF and if we want pictures of guys that are focused and "in the zone" for a daunting task ahead of them, well, I've seen better. The bite guard only makes him look freaky, like some cheap version of Hanibal Lecter. --cart-Talk 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bare-faced curassow (Crax fasciolata) female head.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 20:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Easy to do if that is the consensus. I chose to put the eye in the middle. Charles (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Charles how about a right third ? link --Mile (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, I most often do that, but here I chose the dominant black neck to be the 1/3. However we crop, there's always a difference of opinion among voters. I used to just leave all my images in off-the-camera 3x2, but most people seemed to want varying degrees of crop! Charles (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support That is one weird-looking bird... Well-balanced, the eye is in the center of the photo, you used a ruler huh. ;) --cart-Talk 10:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Oooh, so crisp. And definitely memeable, although I have no idea what it would say. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Me neither, but it would surely involve the hat maker for some of the British Royals. ;) --cart-Talk 21:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's quite a head! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very funny --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cracidae_.28Chachalacas.2C_guans_and_curassows.29

File:Common kingfisher in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 898.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 18:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support lNeverCry 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Have you no sense of tradition?. Then I was young, Christmas was for subway (not bird photography)! Support when the CA is removed.--ArildV (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ArildV: I am not involved with Christmas Eve.(^^)v And you mean Martin? --Laitche (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes  
  Support--ArildV (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info   Fixed the CAs. --Laitche (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, but the unsharp branch and twigs in the lower left and center foreground really bother me and distract me from the bird. Because of them, this is not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On image quality grounds. I don't know if this is relevant to your 7DII, but I tried using the Sigma 150-600 C on my old Canon 60D and found the image quality at 600mm to be much, much worse than on my full-frame 6D. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Alt1Edit

 

  •   Info Cloned the branches in background and crop change. --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm skeptical at times about the ethics of cloning out things that were there. But that said, if you're going this far, why don't you crop out the branch completely? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek: Since I don't like the square format of birds photo. --Laitche (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I know you're not the only photographer here who objects to certain shapes of picture frames per se, but I really don't really understand why. A square is just a shape. The important things are the content and how the elements relate to each other compositionally. But that said, if you crop just to the right of the branch, it won't be a square but will still be wider (l-r) than it is long/tall (top-bottom). In the current version, I will again   Oppose because the branch distracts me from the bird, and I care about that, not the shape of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek: I nominated the alt2. If crop the left, I think square is better. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Alt2Edit

 

  •   Info Cloned the branches in background, square format. --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The sharpness and CA are much improved, and this isn't an overly busy composition like the other alternatives. Excellent! (though small now) -- Thennicke (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 05:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Et voilà - 7. --cart-Talk 10:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support And 8  --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support And 9   -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support And a 10 from the American judge ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Alcedinidae_.28Kingfishers.29
The chosen alternative is: File:Common kingfisher in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 898 - Square.jpg

File:Pierres gravées Khumbu.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
  •   Info created by Gozitano - uploaded by Gozitano - nominated by Gozitano -- Gozitano (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gozitano (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm leaning toward supporting this because it's so interesting to look at. But could you possibly extend the photo down a little further so that we can see the rest of the stone in the bottom middle? I don't like the sensation of being cut off while moving my eye around the picture frame. Escusez-moi de ne pas ecrire en francais. Il faut tant de temps pour moi d'ecrire choses comme ca en francais. Et soyez le bienvenue ici! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Hello, and thank you for your welcoming. Sorry, but I am not sure to quite understand what you are asking for. You mean that you prefer I cut the picture like this ?
      • No, I would like for the photo you submitted to extend further down, so that the large stone in the middle of the bottom of the picture frame could be seen in full, if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, Ok. Not possible in fact, the picture is the original framing, sorry.--Gozitano (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is an interesting and unusual monument (here on COM:FP) and I would like to be able to support it but it looks overexposed to me, especially the big rock down right. Also for an FP, I would like a bit nuanced lighting and the text to be sharper, the focus is more on the rocks in the water than the text rock. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per cart. Overexposed areas of rock and water look like some attempt was made to mitigate it in processing, leaving a sort of artificial look. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Signal vor Einfahrt Bahnhof Meiningen 2016-11-28 HBP - A v2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 20:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grand-Duc. This image depicts German railroad signals erected on the approach to Meiningen station (Bundesland Thuringia). Due to a slightly fogged weather ambience, we've got a stray light ray that IMHO serves nicely to illustrate the functioning of light signalisation. As I've got really positive reviews on DE-WP, I put this up here for scrutiny. As for a slight blue hue and bright spots visible in the lower half of the picture: I tried to offer the watcher's eyes some guiding towards the reflecting panels of the signals by illuminating them with a LED lamp (contrasting to the road lighting by yellowish sodium lamps). This made some ice crystals on the ballast stones appear as bright spots, too, the ice stemming from the fog freezing at around -2°C. I'm looking forward for any critics. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Grand-Duc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting idea and hard to catch such beams but I think this would have gone better if you'd skipped that LED light. I don't mind the glittery snow crystals but the blue hue adds yet another color to the landscape and the light makes the reflective surfaces stand out and compete with the red beam for the viewers attention in an unnatural way. A more coherent and warm color scheme would have been better. Unfortunately, part of the beam also coincides with the tree line, that sort of "stops" the beam and messes with it, plus you've got traily stars. For such a dark photo you could have upped the ISO just a bit to cut time. cart-Talk 00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? Quite interesting, atmospheric, and the quality is surprisingly good for a night shot like this. --A.Savin 01:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 02:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - cart's points are well taken, but I also doubt this could be an interesting enough image to warrant a feature, rather than VI/QI. I hope that doesn't come across as unnecessarily harsh: I definitely respect your effort to take an informative photo in the cold, and I think it bore fruit, but as informational, ergo VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Alexander. I'd get rid of the stair trails... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support of course ... a very good image need some opposes too! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Grand-Duc told me of another version of this pic on my talk page, one that I think is more harmonious since it focuses the attention on the beam. It still has the star trails though. cart-Talk 11:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Cart. To be FP in my eyes, the composition of a shot like this would have to do an incredibly good job at abstracting the signal and tracks away from the background - as it is, with the yellow sign and the trees in the background, it's too "busy". And mixing light sources is asking for difficulties in post-processing. The image does a great job of showing what it needs to show, but (to me) it lacks "wow", and as Ikan said, is therefore a good VI candidate. Just my 2 cents and I hope it doesn't discourage you from trying more creative images like this -- Thennicke (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This would be great with a landscape format. The rails cut at left is a pity. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I Love people original,and this is original! The stones are fantastic for me with the red light --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart; I think the red beam in the fog by itself might have looked special and distinctive, like a laser beam; I have been struck by some that I've seen recently but was unable to photograph. However, all the other things take away from that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht over Val Venezia vanaf Posto di Avvistamento Pian Venezia 04.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Dancing Knight 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2017 at 15:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - Is it customary to shield the horse's eyes, so that they are almost completely invisible from the side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Those are called blinders and are used all the time when horses perform in stressful environments. Horses are very skittish and accidents can happen if they are distracted from looking only straight ahead on say a race track or at a show, especially if they perform in a group as the rest of the photos from this event shows. These are very stylish blinders. cart-Talk 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That makes perfect sense. This is a very picturesque photo. I suppose some people may complain about the lack of more space in front of the horse, but I like the composition, anyway. I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm wondering about the file's name, is it referring to this act/show or is the horse called "Dancing Knight" (horses can have very strange names...)? Could this be explained a bit better in the description and maybe a better name for the file? cart-Talk 22:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment dear cart-Talk it is referring to the act/show generally there is drum sounds and the knight make the horse dance --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the horse and rider, but the setting looks haphazard and lonely. The dust bugs me a little too. lNeverCry 08:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The setting looks appropriate to me, but I don't like the framing. Normally, you'd want more empty space in front of a moving person/animal/object than behind it. --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose basically per El Grafo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Overprocessed A great picture otherwise, alas. Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the moment a lot, but colors and composition are out, and that people in back. --Mile (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Gnosis (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Braves6000 - uploaded by Braves6000 - nominated by Braves6000 -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very beautiful but waaaaaaaay too small. Please upload a much larger file, ideally at full resolution -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC) per opposers below now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment According to the metadata, the camera it was taken with is 24.3 megapixels. The original photograph should have a much larger resolution if you have a copy of it. WClarke (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Added a higher res verion Braves6000
  • FPX reason striked now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alchemist-hp -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alchemist-hp, I can see now why it was downsampled. --cart-Talk 08:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose We are so used to rejecting sunsets (actually, as I've said before, this is a dusk, since the sun itself has already set, and I have so categorized it) out of hand for not being distinctive enough that it's a real shame when you see one like this which does stand out from the pack to have to reject it for the obvious flaw of being too unsharp.

    I like that the photographer used a long exposure to bring out the color, but I'm a little curious as to why the aperture setting isn't recorded in the metadata, something that might explain whether the unsharpness was avoidable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Osaka Castle Outer Moat and Osaka Business Park, November 2016.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, Colin and 3:2 it is... you're right, cropping did improve the image. As for the dissapointing image quality at 100%, there's not much I can do now, alas. Suffice it to say, I replaced the 17-40 with the far superior 16-35 4 a couple of weeks ago (after Japan... :-/ ) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. -- King of ♠ 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. The crop improved the image substantially. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 05:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I want the Martin's money for go in Japan  --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support And I want Martin's new camera equipment.   I was hesitating at first because of the sharpness issue to the right (pre new lens), but this juxtaposition of old and new is simply too good to be turned down. --cart-Talk 08:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm afraid I must insist on keeping both equipment and money for upcoming photo projects  . But I'll definitely come back to Japan one day - one the most amazing, interesting and beautiful countries I've ever been to! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment fro this reason i want your money!   --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful composition despite quality-wise and you are welcome to came back and stay in Japan anytime :) --Laitche (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Slightly qualified support Has some slight imperfections—wildly unsharp tree at right and overexposed area on the castle—but overall it is an excellently composed juxtaposition of not only old and new but, by extension, East and West. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Japan

File:Portrait of young man by Sandro Botticelli - Louvre.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 10:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Then you will have to take with botticelli since left the shadow has designed him .... for that on the top .... somewhere the light has come. Hovewer thanks Villy Fink Isaksen.   --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay and thx - It is only the top shadow then, just like nearly every museum there is problem ved the light at top, some a great shadow. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 14:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Any option to crop as noted, and maybe some +light ? --Mile (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • For the crop i'm not very sure...i like the frame. For the light i would more opinions,thanks--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done Ok I think you have right for the light my friend, Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, assuming that this is the best free image available. If it isn't, we should feature another one. But either way, I consider this a very good photo of the painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Museums are very stingy about changing their light for a shot, even for a distinguished Wikimedia publication. cart-Talk 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Dome of Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Buono Nuovo Anno! Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Just for my own edification, I just compared this to 3 FPs of comparable subjects by different photographers. Without naming any of the photographers or filenames, the quality of this photo is clearly better than one of the 3, on a comparable level to another, and the 3rd one is a greater picture but of a larger portion of a different church's ceiling. To me, this is clearly a good FP. Livio, I think you have improved your skills, and we are seeing that lately. Congratulazioni! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Friesach Petersberg 209 Filialkirche hl Peter O-Ansicht 21122016 5813.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Do you like the image`s tone better now after brightening it up a bit? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah yes! :) Now you can really feel how winter-crisp it is. It also added a bit more depth to it. Thanks, great picture! --cart-Talk 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The gratitude is on my side. Thank you for your positive review. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really striking composition, irrespective of cart's points, which I have no reason not to trust. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll support it in any case, it's up to you how much you want to fix it. --cart-Talk 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support That contrail? is a bit disturbing for me though. --Laitche (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice mood. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this works. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot. Still, I'd have liked to see more on the left than on the right (and maybe a bit less of sky) but this image deserves the star anyhow. Poco2 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Altar-mor da Basílica de Nossa Senhora do Carmo, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 00:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Thennicke: Thanks for your observation. It's a Barroque Church from 1500s with severals "imperfections" (currently in restauration), however, the bottom problem was a barrel distortion caused by a lens distortion (I guess). Thanks @Colin: for your thennicke and I think that it's   Done, however, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   conditional support Agree with Thennicke that there is some barrel distortion that should be fixed. If you use Lightroom to import photos, you can set it up to apply the lens profile automatically on import. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Couldnt you cut bottom and start from the step ? I see wires now. --Mile (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done --The Photographer 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good stuff, you kept some real colors.--Mile (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 15:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Brazil

File:Arrizala - Sorgiñetxe 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 19:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support You beat me to it! I was going to nominate this one when I had a chance. :D Great shot. --cart-Talk 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thank you for all your advice, for me it was just a pile of stones :-) When I was there for shooting, I was hoping that the fog would break up in a more spectacular way. It seems it was good enough. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • De nada. This is truly The Mists of Avalon. --cart-Talk 21:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice composition and mood. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is unusual and special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like that. So would Obelix --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gora Euskal Herria !--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What it looks like when a mushroom gets stoned  . Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WoW --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition and atmosphere. Would have probably liked to see a wider image (showing a bit on the right), but still a solid and wowing FP to me Poco2 20:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment} This is Álava, on the right is absolutely nothing  :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Pugilist (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this tilted? The thumbnail gives me the sense that it needs more CW rotation -- Thennicke (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The row of trees suggests that the image could be tilted but I'm quite sure it isn't. The landscape there isn't totally plain and (you can see this if you look in Google Maps), the row of trees isn't limiting a horizontal border but it's a row of trees along a stream that comes down from the mountains (where we're looking to). Another hint are the houses just behind the dolmen: they are straight. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places#Spain

File:Neophron-1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 13:34:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

There is maybe now enough featured images (around 50 or 60 images) in this bird order to create a new gallerie... I will do it soon... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds#Family : Accipitridae (Kites, hawks and eagles)

File:Osnabrück - Piesberg - Feldbahn 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The combination of the quality and direction of the light and the curve in the track helps make this photo special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan and KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems much better in full, than thumb. But i miss some more infos...narrow gauge, etc. --Mile (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done I've added some extra information and two weblinks. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the sense of anticipation it creates ... what's going to be around the bend (As it's the start of the year, I hope it's something good). And since it seems both from this and the satellite images to be an internal quarry narrow-gauge track, I am not going to get all uppity about taking pictures from an unsafe location. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light and scene!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Industry#Germany

File:Water droplet laying on a damask.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
  •   Info Water droplet laying on a damask textile due to surface tension and low absorbtion of textile. Focus stacking: 24 shots, step 5; Raynox 250. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great idea, well executed. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Slaunger. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support CA and blur at edges ... but so what? Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not sure about CA. It could be normal diffraction of the light.--Jebulon (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool image. --Reguyla (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena#Liquid

File:Four pears.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 21:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Nice composition, however, I preffer the other one used for Happy new year message --The Photographer 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That one is just for fun and we can play with that later, this is the real nom of a good photo for articles. --cart-Talk 13:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good idea and quality, it's indeed funny. Can you though offer a version where the left shadow is not cropped? Poco2 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Anything is possible with photoshop and I'm sure a version with a more narrow shadow can be created too, but for now people seem to be ok with this so let's leave it be for the time being. --cart-Talk 20:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way the one on the left looks sort of like that one person in every impromptu group photo who's got to lean his/her elbow on the shoulder of the person next to them, to show how spontaneous it was and what a cutup they are. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking of cutups, when this group photo started, there was also a Bosc pear lying down in front of everyone. But it kind of blocked the little forelle and everyone got sick of it. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Maybe you should consider to build a poster with all your pears ? It could be very nice, IMO (and easy)--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea, J! + pinging R --cart-Talk 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure, W!--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent idea and high encyclopedic value! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - At certain points, I've wondered why people thought this was such a great photo, but in looking at it again, I find that tilting the yellow Bartlett (the pear on the outer left) to the right is sufficient to create a simple but nice back-and-forth motion with the red Anjou, whose stem curves to the left. That's enough for a good composition of 4 items lined up widthwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's amazing to see how little is needed to create a dynamic in a photo that would otherwise be rather static. There is also the flow of color change from left to right with the smallest fruit being turned so that it bridges the colors at its sides. Rhododendrites really has an eye for this. cart-Talk 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Food and drink#Fruits and raw vegetables

File:Northern Lights timelapse.gif, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 23:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I think the thumb is failing because of a long job queue. Ainali (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah! Yes at 18MB it is a heavy gif file to process. I was comparing it with one of my own gifs   but that is only 4MB and is no problem in small size. cart-Talk 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's a great document. It's very small for FP, but because it's a timelapse and not one or more single pictures of the aurora, I think making an exception to our usual size requirements can be justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - One caveat: I would hope that before we feature this file, the time interval of the time lapses will be identified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This won't display properly on FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, or Safari, on Windows, OS, and Linux (I tested it out with a useragent switcher). I would support this if the display issue is fixed, but I can't support something with a serious technical problem. lNeverCry 02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Worked on Firefox for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is changing the user agent really relevant? It doesn't increase the software capabilities if the browser cannot handle it. Works fine on Chrome on Android. Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per primarily viewing it in Firefox, and also the tendency of some of the Wikipedias to discourage the use of these .gifs when possible because of technical issues like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral   Support Impressive, no doubt! I'm just not sure whether gifs like this one belong here as they are a good deal more like movies than stills. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
  •   Comment - We've judged web videos and animated GIFs here before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That's true, and (if I remember correctly) I also supported some of these nominations. Still, shouldn't there be another project specifically for that, something like "Featured Movies"? Or should we redefine FPC to evolve into something like "Featured Media"? Not that's its a terribly pressing problem - the number of truly good vids/animations/etc. on Commons pales into insignificance when compared to our massive holdings of excellent still photography --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: It displays great at full size, no?   lNeverCry 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that really lit up the page! :) --cart-Talk 10:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It is simply a great picture, however I would also like the timeframe in the description. Looking at the un-traily stars and the airplanes going by I guess it is about a couple of minutes. It would also be great if there was a smaller version of this (below 4MB) as an alternative (linked to under "other versions") so that this can work as a thumb or smaller picture, otherwise it is almost impossible to use this in an article; for that there has to be something else than an annoying little icon up in the frame for the reader to click on. Many Wikipedia editors would love to use this, but as it is now they can't. I think the problem with displaying it here in any other way than full size really illustrates the problem. (Can anyone see it as a thumb here, or even at x300px?) cart-Talk 10:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Display problem solved by Kristian who uploaded a smaller version for use. The original full-screen version is still accessible in the file's history. Now it can be used in articles as well as seen in its full glory. Many thanks!   --cart-Talk 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   strong oppose IMO animated GIFs have no place in a serious image repository, and are especially unsuitable for photographic animation rather than simple CGI models. This is 2016 and we have video formats now going all the way up to 4k and true colour rather than a palette of 256! See File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm for an example video created from stills. The only reason such GIFs are popular on the internet is that Apple killed Flash and we've yet to find a universal alternative for moving images one can't turn off. I would support this if a quality video file was created instead. The GIF here has been reduced in size so that it is only 500x331, which is smaller than an old standard-definition TV from last century. If it was a video, then an HD image would be possible, it could be streamed, and viewers can start/stop/pause/rewind. There's really no excuse for choosing this file format. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Colin makes a strong case for opposing this. I had thought of supporting if this display issue was fixed, but it really wasn't fixed. The creator had to upload a much smaller version instead. I'm going to stay at oppose. I wonder if Colin, Yann, and others would be interested in starting a discussion or RFC on excluding .gif (and perhaps a few other formats) from FPC? I would support that. lNeverCry 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Its good to see it, but i see banding even on this small size. Without, in normal size, some 1080px, this could be FP. For now, maybe Valued Image. But those planes, i got feeling meteorits are flying from the Earth to the sky. --Mile (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[[:]]Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 14:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Toys
  •   Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe one hand up for New Years and Krismas !? --Mile (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Copyright violation. King of ♠ 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support not that it would matter... Too bad it's a copyright vio - the image is great though! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe a a copyright violation, but really a great image. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - OK, if we're judging this as a photo, I disagree that it's great, because all those circles of light distract me so much and hinder my eye movement around the picture frame. The Lego gingerbread man himself is photographed excellently, but the background kills the photo for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan (and the copyvio).--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 05:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Jee 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Cam Newton, Joe Webb Dec 2016.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: People
  •   Info created by Keith Allison - uploaded by Thomson200 - nominated by Thomson200 -- Thomson200 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thomson200 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Undoubtedly a great moment for the team and its fans, but as a still picture, I find that looking at their jump in this background of a crowd hurts my eyes at both full screen and full size and doesn't result in a good composition, in my opinion. Much less importantly, they themselves are a bit grainy at full size, but that really had no effect on my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 07:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition is fine with me. As for the grain: Well, there's nothing one could do about it, taking the camera settings into consideration (which I don't question at all). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I didn't know that synchronized jumping was a sport? ;) Seriously, any sports event is bound to have a lot of spectators and the photo captures the mood in the arena very well. I don't think the crowd in the background is any more distracting than say a hillside full of small houses as a backdrop in a panorama. --cart-Talk 10:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. I can see the attraction of the symmetry of the two figures, but the background completely washes that away. On a less photographic note, I wouldn't be jumping if I was coming to the end of a season that had me chosen as my team's most disappointing player (Super Bowl to fourth-worst passer in the league ... really?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: I would also like to add to my oppose more copyright party-pooping: The Washington NFL team's I refuse to use their name website states explicitly that "Guests may not reproduce any shots for any commercial use without the written permission of the [team]". I have long held that policies like these mean that we cannot consider pictures taken at the sporting events in question to be free images within the terms of Commons, since attendance at games is purely voluntary and, as the back of the ticket always clearly states, you accept those conditions by the act of passing the gate and entering the venue. The only way around this policy is for someone to get that permission, which has been done on the francophone Wikipedia at contests in France, Switzerland and Quebec.

I know this is not accepted broadly within the community and it is not a policy reason to initiate a deletion (yet), but it is enough for me to oppose an FP for this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment Trust those big teams to put a dampener on things... Well, with the ridiculous sums they pay their players I guess they have to control their copyrights pretty tight. But if this is like Daniel says, and I have no reason to doubt him, I'll change my vote based on the copyright issue, I want the FPs to be squeaky clean.