Open main menu


Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Lama glama Laguna Colorada 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 06:41:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. —kallerna (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support —kallerna (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, as the background, especially the sky, is too noisy/posterized for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose and composition. Charles (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a cw tilt, too --Poco2 12:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Tilt, noise and posterisation fixed. —kallerna (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't see a complete fix, as there are still some subtle striations in the sky, but that's good editing work. I've struck out my opposing vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, regardless of quality, I just can't see any great composition in this, it's more or less a 'get-everything-in-frame' picture and it just doesn't wow me. --Cart (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Erlangen Altstädter Kirche Orgel 3100622efs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 20:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Looking up is one of the reasons. The organ was built in 1961. I assume that figures from that time were used for the decoration. The artist was probably not famous otherwise he would be mentioned.--Ermell (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

L'enfant et les sortilègesEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 20:41:32 (UTC)

File:Scots' Church Interior 1, Melbourne, Australia - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 18:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The interior of Scots' Church, Melbourne, Australia, as viewed from the rear of the church looking toward the altar. The current church was constructed between 1871 and 1874, and was built with the intention of being the "most beautiful building in Australia". The interior features basalt aisle columns, a set of stained-glass windows depicting the Last Supper and other scenes, and a timber-beamed roof. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the view from higher up, on the balcony, is superior: File:Scots' Church Interior 2, Melbourne, Australia - Diliff.jpg. Less vertical angle-of-view so less vertical perspective effects such as making the roof look stretched. You also see more from that position. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - I know you tend not to like it when these pictures include too much vertical field of view, and I can understand. I did see that one as well but thought I'd go for this because I suspected some people might oppose the other because of the slight distortion of the bottom corners. We'll give it a go if this one doesn't pass. Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I know some people think an Alt should just be for a different crop/processing of same image, but I'd be tempted to try an Alt for the balcony view. Might be simpler to let folk choose which they prefer, and I don't think both should be featured. -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)



  •   Support As Colin suggests above, I have added the view from higher up on the balcony as an alternative. I agree that both images should not be featured as they essentially depict the same scene. Personally I actually prefer this one too - it has a bit more 'wow factor' and is a more unusual perspective than the classic shot - but let's see what people think. Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 04:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I prefer the alternative because I feel like the light from the windows is better handled from this angle. I also mildly prefer the longer sightline down the nave and the greater perception of the overall form of the interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Different from David's usual angles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Lago Pippin, Copper Center, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 115-118 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 18:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It is very high-resolution though. Personally I don't think the noise is bad for this size. But I take your point, I guess. Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Peulle, Cmao20: I've reduced the noise level a bit along with other minor improvements (crop, WB, curves) Poco2 10:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is Alaska, not the Caribbean, so the light is fine. I like the place and the composition. --Yann (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 04:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom and Yann. Dramatic and beautiful. If you can find out the name of the lake, though, please add it to the file description. Also, is it possible to add geo coordinates? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    Will investigate later today the exact location, about the name I cannot promise, as many lakes have none or this info is not accesible. In this part of the world it rains non-stop and you've millions of lakes Poco2 07:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
      Done, it was not reall tricka in this case, Ikan, may I introduce you? this is Pippin Lake! :) I also added a new cat, desc and renamed the file Poco2 10:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice catch, thank you for the nom Cmao20! Poco2 07:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. From my own experience in those latitudes, while I was fortunate to have sun and clear blue skies for a lot of the pictures I would like to have had them for, the landscape nevertheless has a different, peculiar beauty under clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.05.13.-06-Schwetzinger Wiesen-Edinger Ried--Zottiger Rosenkaefer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 16:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Cmao20: Actually, it is closer to 13mm long for adults, 15mm for larvae. --BoothSift 06:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You are quite right, Charles, although the focus isn't terrible for me, I can definitely see what you mean about the yellow 'painting' around the edge of the bug. Switching to   Oppose until this is fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're talking nonsense about the colour. First, I never change colours and second, insects don't have real colours. They are generated by light reflections. And that just is very yellow on this yellow flower. The only evidence that I see here is that you want to kick off alleged competitors. --Hockei (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am happy to take your word. Apologies. And I often vote positive for your images. There is no competition. Charles (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I will take your assurance at face value, if it isn't a real issue but merely an artifact of light reflection then I am happy to reinstate my   Support. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I looked at that area where Charles suggested an editing and came to the conclusion that there is none. Hockei has been for a while here and cannot remember of any chapter like that. Quality could be higher but the composition and size of the bug is a plus for me Poco2 12:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Goingarijp. (actm) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 15:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects American Windmill
  •   Info
    English: American-style windmill that was originally used to drain one of the five polders of the Fries village of Goingarijp. The windmills became redundant when the five polders were merger into one that was serviced by a single pumping station at Terkaple. This particular windmill was restored in 2007.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well-framed and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - On google-map you cannot see the mill in street view? Is the geo-tag right? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   CommentThe mill has been rebuilt. coordinates adjusted. Thank you for your comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Fortifications of Capdenac 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 14:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 14:42:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Plate of chips at the Chalet Cafe, Cowfold, West Sussex, England.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eurygaster maura MHNT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 04:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 04:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- BoothSift 04:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think some reviewers will probably object to the background, but I find the composition interesting, and this insect is only 8-11 mm fully grown, so the resolution is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like the soft colors and shapes of the background contrasting the hard exoskeleton of the bug exploring the flower. Works well. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Indeed, I find the bottom of the flower just in front of its head too disturbing, otherwise the quality is great --Poco2 10:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan - if it's that small, this is great quality. Cmao20 (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cmao20 -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you all and especially to Boothsift for this appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.03.-19-Glubig-Melang-Fliess Wendisch Rietz--Keilfleck-Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2019 at 19:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Münster, Schlossplatz, Frühjahrssend -- 2019 -- 4208.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2019 at 08:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 08:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 08:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support What a trip! Must have been quite hard to get the exposure time and timing all right. Since it becomes almost an abstract, it is a perfect reason for not trying to correct the perspective, that would ruin the balance of the composition. Well done! --Cart (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Even people had the decency to stay still. When everything just... works! -- KennyOMG (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fear and Loathing in Münster   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 13:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 23:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Worked out well. Charles (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost hallucinatory, as other !voters have suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cyprus donkeys, Karpaz, Northern Cyprus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 23:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose If only the eyes were open :)--BoothSift 01:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exactly. Charles (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. :) It's like the donkey is smiling in the sun, closing its eyes since it's too bright.--Peulle (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I fail to see the wow in this. One animal looks sleepy and the asphalt road doesn't bring much in the way of background. --Cart (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, I agree with the above, it's a good photo but the background is a bit distracting and it's a shame about the eye. Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose per the eyes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 04:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof-Mooskamp Werkshalle-innen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 16:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  •   Info created by DerMische - uploaded by DerMische - nominated by DerMische -- DerMische (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DerMische (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info 360-view: panoviewer DerMische (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't really understand the choice of viewpoing. Nor sure the subject has high enough wow. Being inside a tram might be worth the 360 (though challenging). Or being inside a great museum hall with lots of vehicles of land and air all around. But sandwiched between two trams is not a great position. -- Colin (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the way this is treated like looking up and down the aisle in a church, a popular viewpoint in these panoramas and you can really get a good look at all the details of the trams. What I don't think is good is the way the highlights are treated in the photo. All lamps and big highlights have dull gray centers, it doesn't look good. --Cart (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposition (white color look more like grey) and chromatic aberrations --Wilfredor (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--BoothSift 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Thanks for all your feedback! You are right! I have load up a new version with correctet highlights and reduced chromatic aberrations. DerMische (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Amberboom (Liquidambar styraciflua). Detail. (d.j.b.).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 15:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Altingiaceae
  •   Info Two new leaf buds and below them a tangle of seeds from a Liquidambar styraciflua (American sweetgum).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting combination, but the composition isn't working for me. Also the hard light and the postprocessing make it look unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin--BoothSift 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version. Softer light.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Famberhorst: It is a good picture, really, it deserves the QI and VI, but in terms of FP, that is debatable. --BoothSift 05:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think there's too much room around the subject.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support So do I, but that can be dealt with by cropping the top and bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. I cropped the photo. If it is not enough. Like a note. Thanks for your comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer the new cropped version, seems good enough to me now. Cmao20 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Duomo nuovo di Brescia ingresso.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 10:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panorámica esférica de San Andrés, Calatayud, España, 2014-12-29, DD 01-176 HDR PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 09:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Spherical panorama of San Andrés church, Calatayud, Spain. The Gothic-Mudéjar church was built in the 14th and 15th centuries and underwent some modifications in the 16th-century. This image is the result of 175 frames, most of them merged in one out of 5 HDR frames (3 rings of 5 x 10 frames at 0, +45 and -45 degrees + 1 x 5 on top and 2 x 5 at bottom). c/u/n by me, Poco2 09:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info To view this spherical panorama properly, click here (pano viewer on wmflabs). Poco2 09:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 09:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support FP for me, the panorama is very sharp. -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 09:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow for me --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp all the way around. The perspective warp is of course part of the composition.--Peulle (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • warp? did you use the pano viewer when assessing it? - Benh (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. Don't need to go there now. Does it render the typical church interior FPC obsolete? Charles (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support truly amazing! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   WOOOOOOOOOOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course, this is quite extraordinary. Cmao20 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work! --Gnosis (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry but you might want to fix the heaps of stitching errors out there first... the arch in the right side of the transept (so when looking at the altar) renders particularly weird. Not sure what went on there. - Benh (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    True, I can see them, I'll upload a new version later today with those stitching issues fixed. Poco2 11:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    Benh:   Fixed --Poco2 12:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Puente sobre el río Gerstle, Delta Junction, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 41.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 09:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info Through truss bridge over Gerstle river, Delta Junction, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poco2 09:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 09:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose light. Charles (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support due to the symmetry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That composition is borderline titillating... Unfortunate lighting though. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 15:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and sharp, good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad lighting--BoothSift 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles, the light is not good. --Cart (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Measured support If the bridge members had been painted, I would agree with Cart and Charles. But ... the cloudy skies actually work well IMO with the bare metal here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Daniel, although I'd like to note that the metal is painted silver-grey ;-P --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and Peulle -- Piotr Bart (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mirador Llano de las Ventas - La Palma - Panorama 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 06:39:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Before we can judge this photo, you need to fix some bad stitching on the bare branches of the tree on the left. I didn't look at the whole photo, so check for any other stitching errors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition: the tree is distracting, and I do not like the map guide. Other than that it's 60 % sky, and the valley is covered by clouds. What is the subject? —kallerna (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- The map is distracting. -- Piotr Bart (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The map, the map, the map!--BoothSift 06:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Too many distracting things   --Llez (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mongoose pile.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 05:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Charlesjsharp:, @Daniel Case: Is this better?--BoothSift 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but still not FP for me. Charles (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although I wish the tail were in focus. Cmao20 (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although I could see squaring the image off to get rid of that blurred rock Charles is complaining about. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 6. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cute but I miss the tip of the tail and only one of the three mongooses' heads are good captured Poco2 10:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge during blue hour (16 x 10).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 01:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info We already have a similar shot from the same spot in the similar hour. We also have 19 FPs of the bridge. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FP should have more diversity--BoothSift 05:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Podzemnik, great pic but I think with 19 FPs of the bridge needs to be a little more stunning and in focus, sorry --E.3 (Talk). 07:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per E.3.--Peulle (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, not bad but not better than the existing 19 FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Joy & Heron - Animated CGI Spot by Passion Pictures.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 19:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • We promote pictures all the time because we like the craftsmanship behind them, how the light falls on a tree, the curve of a bottle, the color of a flower, the lines in a slope, etc. All very subjective reasons and digital photography is hardly groundbreaking by now. I don't see why we can't promote some moving pictures on the same grounds. Educational? I don't care if it has the heron's feeding habits wrong, what I care about is that it teaches that unselfish generosity can be rewarding even if you don't expect it. A rather good thing to educate youngsters in IMO. (Sorry about the spoiler, but it has been viewed by a lot of people now.) In the old days, such morale was taught with the help of allegories and fables, now we have animations. I don't think that grapes are what foxes normally eat either, but people usually overlook that in favor of the fable.--Cart (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem. Herons eat worms. And excellent EV. Charles (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Fish are the main diet, however herons do eat worms. --BoothSift 00:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on the worms. I only mentioned it as the only educational aspect I could find was heron diet, and that was wrong. They might eat worms occasionally, but they aren't its main diet and there is no way the chicks would refuse any food. While there is a moral story, that argument holds for many works of fiction.
Compare Elephants Dream which was created on open source software to demonstrate what it could do. It has its own wiki article so is notable itself. This is a commercially produced short film to promote a big Chinese company (though with a oddly American-looking fisherman). Since adverts and other promotional material are not typically sold (and I assume the dog remains trademarked) then giving this a free licence is just a clever way for the promoters to increase its footprint on the web. The Commons I like is free, independent and has an educational mission. This is Commons being abused as a platform for the commercial promotion of large corporations. Don't think that represents us at our "finest" at all. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) We are usually very happy when professional photographers with companies and other companies (like SpaceX) release their material to us via OTRS. Yes, it is beginning to dawn on marketeers that it is good to give out some free photos and media. That is why we these days have so many good free photos of politicians and other notable people, some of which are FPs. This is the same thing. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Limited images from promotional material can be very useful to illustrate a product or people. SpaceX launches are notable so having material that documents them is great. I think this crosses the line too much. It isn't providing information about a product or the company. It is just brand promotion dressed up in a cartoon, and you can see from their Wiki article that the company is heavily investing in promoting its brand. There's nothing notable here. We seem to have a mindset with film/CGI that anything with a free licence is in scope. I don't think pure advertising/promotion is a valid use of Wikimedia servers. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we are just as guilty of helping big brands ourselves when we promote gorgeous photos of cameras, watches, booze, airplanes and luxury cruise ships to FP. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No we aren't "just as guilty" as those have educational value, those illustrate real actual things and having a great picture of them hugely improves Wikipedia or WikiVoyage or someone's educational book on how best to use your camera, etc. On their own, the promotional value is low and they represent distinct products. We'd have more problems if the camera was obscured with a splash saying "World's fastest autofocus" or a ship had a banner saying "Live your dreams on a --- cruise". We don't currently have folk uploading promotional short films for luxury cruises, with voice-overs from famous actors, and beautiful models pretending to be captains and waiting staff. Or an advert where some Canon brand ambassador is standing in a breathtaking location and explaining why he chooses Canon to get the job done. I hope you'd think those were out-of-scope.
This film is totally about brand promotion, which is not concerned with getting across information but about establishing good emotions for the brand. We don't learning anything about at all, or about fishing or about herons. But that cute dog mascot is stuck in your neurons linked to positive emotions. Someone somewhere in a marketing meeting, dreamed this up solely as a way of getting "cute dog mascot" brand awareness up from X% to Y% and about ensuring that brand awareness is a positive one. "Generosity" is in the film not as a moral tale to improve society but because that's a positive social value we now link to "cute dog mascot" and will recall if we see the logo. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If you are so opposed to this film, why don't you nominate it for deletion per out of scope, I think that would be a more appropriate place for such discussions. That way you will get a better response from the community on whether free material from Company A is good and free material from Company B is bad. Here where we should mainly discuss the quality of the film. Btw, personally I think the dog is ugly. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I've thought about it but "in-scope" deletions are notoriously difficult. There is a gap between "so obviously out-of-scope that the community wishes to delete the file and prevent any use on any project" and "so barely in-scope that it isn't an example of our finest educational media files". -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I respectfully disagree with Colin on this. It's a cute film and very well done. It doesn't matter to me if it promotes a company (and if it does, not so well for anyone like me who still hasn't a clue which company it is). Hell, every Disney film promotes a product, if you think about it, even if the product was originally the Disney films themselves. I don't think that would ever make a Disney film unworthy of a feature in the alternate universe in which they decided to make one freely licensed. I can also definitely think of advertisements that if they ever became freely licensed would be great FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • +1 ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I watched the film without knowing (or caring) if there was a hidden marketing objective. Colin has many FPs that prominently promote products made by Philips, Sony, Russell Hobbs etc. What's the difference? And should we investigate whether the Tower of London was secretly marketing itself through its gossipping ravens? Charles (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My photos don't "promote" any products. They are neutral. They could be used to promote a product. They can also be (and are) used to illustrate a Wikipedia article about a shaver, camera or steam iron. And they do so at high level quality of illustration. That's the difference. This is a fictional cartoon created by a marketing agency. Yes you aren't supposed to spot the hidden marketing objective. And you aren't the target market (yet) because this is a huge Chinese brand. If you were Chinese, you'd recognise the dog. The film director wrote "we ... saw an opportunity to play with his [mascot dog Joy's] innocence, and connect the audience with the company’s ethos in a genuine and meaningful way". The film closes with title "Make Joy Happen" which is a current brand theme. JD asked the production company to make a short film to promote their brand. That's 100% what this is about and 0% about what Commons is about. -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 006.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 18:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Oppose Due to the shadow--BoothSift 23:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow at the bottom right corner, harsh light, and I don't like the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question What is that shadow at the bottom-right corner? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info This is the shadow of a tree. This tree, on the right. The sun in this period (in winter) is very low. The lowest altitude in the sky at all, around December 19th. --Milan Bališin (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow distracted me from the rest of the image, possibly a better crop? --E.3 (Talk). 07:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile --Cart (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special IMO. —kallerna (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:France 1793-A 24 Livres.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 14:54:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money_&_Seals
  •   Info created by National Museum of American History, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gold coin of the French First Republic, during the French Revolution, 1793. High resolution and quality. -- Yann (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, It's great. The first thing that came to mind was the french revolution, I don't know why -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is from the French Revolution. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the tilt. Charles (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support gone, thanks. Charles (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But I see that on the English WP it was nominated in a set with three other images showing the 'winged genius' design on other coins. Would it be better to do the same here? Personally I think all four have what it takes to be FP and are even more impressive as a set. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has a lot of value as a set, but that's not a primary criteria here. Usually the gold coins get the star, others much less. --Yann (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 21:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Are my eyes playing tricks with me? It looks to me like, judging from the "24 LIVRES" text, the back of the coin is rotated noticeably down to the left, rather than straight. If I'm right, that would require a difficult correction, as that portion of the picture would have to be separately rotated counterclockwise, then recombined with the picture of the coin's head, with the black background edited as needed to keep the rectangular shape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it may be slightly rotated, but I don't think it is significant enough to warrant a correction. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I usually don't notice these things. I think this imperfection is significant enough to oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment "LIVRES" is now tilted noticeably up to the left, but I'll take your point and discontinue my opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Centaur mosaic - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by unknown artist / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gigapixels reproduction of Roman art, by the Google Art Project. "One of most virtuoso works of Roman mosaic art", according to GAP. -- Yann (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow... I love it -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent.--Peulle (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Incredible. Shame the full-res version crashes my computer. Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

*  SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment - On the face of it, at least when looking at file pages, the retouched version seems to look better. Please discuss. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 21:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Moving to   Oppose due to how dark it is--BoothSift 02:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "black frame is not necessary", I'm not so sure... see my comment below. --Cart (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)



  •   Support I agree it is better. See 10 MPx thumbnail (4000 x 2585 pixels). --Yann (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yeah, I too agree with yann -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have a problem with the 592 MB. I think, the maximum upload size should not exeed 100 MB, as it is said on the upload page? --Llez (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree--BoothSift 04:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
ZoomViewer is not currently working here either. From the source and considering the resolution I suppose of course a professional quality, but what about the access to the file ? Impossible to display it larger than 4000 px width. What can we do ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately, we can have files bigger than 100 MB. This bug is phab:T218089. Should we stop promoting images because MediaWiki software is broken? I don't think so... Yann (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm just going to assume the quality. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Someone's getting desperate :)--BoothSift 05:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, better. Even though, usability is becoming an issue here. Resolution like this might be alright to display in many years ahead but now most of browsers just get frozen. It'd be nice to have like 20 megapixels version linked in the description or the section "Other versions" so people with standard hardware can enjoy the picture in a higher resolution than "1,280 × 827 pixels" offered by MediaWiki. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO, the point to such a huge resolution is not to see the whole file in a browser, but to be able to crop out some details. You can still see the original resolution in the set of tiles. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Still doesn't work for me. The best thing is usually to "tile" the big image. The original is presented in four tiles, but they are of uneven size making two of them too large anyway. If this version (not the 50% jpeg) could be tiled into 6 or 8 tiles, I think anybody could view/download it and if necessary re-assemble the image in their computer. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Habitator terrae: The issue is not size in MB, but in pixels. So your new version doesn't help. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Habitator terrae: Still too big. I think it has to be less than 100 Mpixels, but it can be of higher quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
80Mpixels Habitator terrae 🌍 18:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Good. Now the zoom works with that version. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Habitator terrae 🌍 11:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    Habitator terrae while I think the GAP original is a bit dark, you should not change the colour balance. You have no reference and can't just pick a grey tile and say "make that neutral grey". If the tiles have a warm hue then that may be quite natural: this isn't a computer image printed on Xerox copy paper. It is likely the GAP professionals had a colour checker card to ensure their equipment/process was calibrated. Also your file size seems a bit extreme at 592MB. Photoshop with maximum quality 12 gives 436MB but the original was only 207MB so there is little point in saving any higher quality than that. For example Photoshop level 10 is 198MB which is a considerable saving and likely to make the image more accessible. On my PC I have a version with a +1ev exposure increase, a slightly more generous crop (27993×18139), original colour balance (a little warmer) and an sRGB profile so folks all see the same colours. I can stick on Dropbox or upload here if there is interest. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Colin: I don't change the clam; I look at the color levels and change for every RGB channel the max and min input to the real max an min color (defined by a minimun level with my eyes). So this wasn't real color balance. This all was done by GIMP, and saved with 100% JPEG quality, without using the original quality, because that remove data for future edits. Habitator terrae 🌍 17:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Habitator terrae, Yann: I don't understand your first bit about "the clam"? But it sounds like what you've done is not really an acceptable adjustment. Most images not not reach min and max for RGB and many do not reach min and/or max at all. I would really not expect an old mosaic to be bright white and each colour saturated -- generally they have low contrast and saturation. I did suspect you had effectively increased the global contrast. I have to   Oppose for now because this is an artwork scanned by professionals. Btw, the way to save a copy that avoids removing data for future edits is to save as PNG then generate any JPG copies you need from that. I can upload a version I mentioned above. If you both have no objections I could overwrite this "retouched" file and ping folk, or I could upload separately to a different file (but then need Yann's permission to create a third alt and it gets a bit messy). If folk really want the highest-quality version, I could download the four higher-resolution tiles and recreate this sized image from those. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: You can upload a separate file, and I will eventually replace the alternative. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yann, ok, it will this evening before I can do this. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully there is a size for everyone there. -- Colin (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The ZoomViewer works for all sizes including the gigapixel one! (FYI when you first access ZoomViewer for a new image, it creates a cache of image tiles to use, which for very large images takes so long you get an error message. But if you are patient, the cache gets created eventually, and when you try again it works). Yann since the gigapixel version can be viewed with ZoomViewer and is the highest quality/resolution image we have, and is identical but for size with the two others, I would propose that we should feature as "finest" the gigapixel image.. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This is very weird. The ZoomViewer works here, even for the biggest one, but not for the current nomination, and even for smaller ones. :oSSS Yann (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good now. Would be nice to identify all the stones used in the mosaic (jasper, feldspar, sandstone, malachite, olivine, turquoise, flint, quartz, carnelian, granite, etc.) :-) --Cart (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I admit, I was sloppy here. I was pinged by Colin (about the new versions) who now reprimanded me on my talk page. I looked at the versions he uploaded and assumed one of them had also been uploaded onto this alternative version as Yann indicated he would do once they were available. I hope that offer still stands and I will leave my support vote here in the meantime. --Cart (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what Yann intends to do. Yann, please don't overwrite or delete files (for now). Hope we can agree on the optimal file to nominate. Perhaps it would be cleaner to start a new nom? -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think to let this one finish, and do a delist and replace. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Flèche en feu - Spire on Fire.jpegEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 12:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by LEVRIER Guillaume - uploaded by LEVRIER Guillaume - nominated by Habitator terrae -- Habitator terrae 🌍 12:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A perspective correction could be wrong here... Habitator terrae 🌍 12:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flèche en feu - Spire on Fire.png, problems solved. Habitator terrae 🌍 12:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Wow! A well-detailed image of a tragic fire. Basically this one would have my vote as Picture of the Year (Obs.: category changed to Historical, seems to be more coherent). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot from great distance. The subject matter is very much of the moment, unlike more general shots of the cathedral.--Peulle (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not exactly perfect technical quality, but still an outstanding shot. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support What it lacks in technical quality, it makes up for in drama and historic significance. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing view, very striking. A bit of noise but high resolution and quite sharp considering the distance. The arrow could be more vertical (and maybe the tilt corrected), but this is less architecture than reporter photography, and we know that this arrow was leaning at this stage to collapse soon. I think this work is almost professional level (see at 6 Mpx), since it's rare to be so close of such a big fire (and as the author says on twitter a few minutes later the police asked the people to keep outside the security perimeter). Shot at the right time, when the flames are huge and the smoke intense. Great archive -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Unique I assume. Charles (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We are fortunate to get this quality of free photo of such an event. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support An horrific sight. I thought we might see this one again once authorship concerns were resolved. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 21:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support the history speaks for itself, amazing capture --E.3 (Talk). 07:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:RhB Ge 6-6 II Versam-Safien.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 10:48:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A Ge 6/6 II hauls a RegioExpress from Chur to Disentis through the Ruinaulta near Versam-Safien station, Switzerland.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Great! A typical Swiss landscape (Switzerland = Featured picture). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. Must have taken some planning to get this shot when the train was there. Cmao20 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You have no idea of the lengths this expert train photographer will go to to get his shots!   What he does is outstanding, just take a look at his user page and be amazed. Also read about one of the shots here. --Cart (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, these shots are truly extraordinary! Thanks Kabelleger for making these available on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Stouffville Reservoir.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 02:49:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eastern chanting goshawk (Melierax poliopterus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2019 at 23:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
  •   Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Interesting shoot view, however, the view from below is not very beneficial to appreciate the bird completely, the quality of the photo is quite low compared to other photos of birds. The composition makes it seem that the bird is falling and he has only has one leg. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting composition, though I agree with Wilfredor. The bird looks as if it is about to fall any minute now, from that angle. Next, the quality here isn't as good as your other pictures and it isn't as good as the other bird FPs. --BoothSift 02:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting this mistake Wilfredor and BoothSift. I had corrected the tilt of the post, but the post was actually leaning. New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  Support Now--BoothSift 21:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks good to me, and I like the hawk's tough-looking (to me) facial expression. I feel that the hawk has quite a firm grip on the post and would have a firm grip on any prey as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me, too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. The quality looks just as good as your usual FPs to me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, your Images are very sharp as one can deduce from your account name 😄 -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 16:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good bird shot as usual, Charles. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Elegant in its simplicity. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Valued image with good quality, but no wow for me. —kallerna (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support As it could be crispier and the background/angle is not the best Poco2 10:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Windmolen Oude Zeedijkmolen (DSCF9628).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2019 at 19:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Belgium
  •   Info by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharp photo, but no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In terms of quality, this is good enough. In terms of wow, it is lacking. --BoothSift 02:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the windmill, but I don't like the lighting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately I agree with the above, the lighting is not there really. Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really like the idea and I'd happily support this in a different light. In the best case you'd move a bit to the right to get rid of the tree at the right bottom :) --Podzemnik (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20190304151621 - Parque da Independência.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2019 at 17:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Moscow Hotel National stairway asv2018-09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2019 at 13:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Llano del Jable - Panorama 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2019 at 05:42:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question I feel you needed to be 100m forward of where you were to see more of the valley. The foreground doesn't add anything.Charles (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info It is a "Llano" (= Plain) there is no valley, there are only flat depressions witch look like the parts of the Llano you see in the foreground. The valley is behind the trees, some kiometers away. The foreground adds much in my opinion, for it shows the typical landscape of the Llano del Jable (= Plain of sand), which is formed by lapilli. --Llez (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the explanation. Charles (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost an abstract with three undulating parts: sky, greenery and dirt. Good balance between the three makes it interesting --Cart (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 13:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 17:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. I like the foreground ... it gives the landscape an earthy feel we usually don't see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Québec city 0001 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2019 at 23:16:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks. That's not the photo I'm thinking of, though. Someone nominated a big panorama, taken from much higher up, of Quebec with a big ship in it, but also IIRC showing the Chateau Frontenac and much of the rest of the city. Maybe it wasn't Wilfredor, or maybe it didn't actually pass FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan oh yes I remember :). I will try add more saturation with lightroom (just joking). I did not have time to go down to take a picture during the same golden hour. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Time of day. Charles (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 13:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good photo but I much prefer the existing FP that Ikan links to. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In favor of the existing FP--BoothSift 17:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others Poco2 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this photo. Nice composition in blue hour. --Rbrechko (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like the lighting. Though, It'd be good to have a better name of the file, this one is not very descriptive. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird posterized purple globs on the structure at the back of the top deck. Plus I think it would have worked better compositionally if it were more just the ship. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mural na Catedral da Sé.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2019 at 22:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info Even after three failed nominations, I think it deserves a star. Created and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment As you've nominated it before and there's been no support, why do you try again with the identical image? Charles (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good points - very beautiful mural; clear QI; nice composition. Bad points - resolution isn't very high for an image that isn't very difficult to capture; the figure on the top right is distorted. I don't think there's enough either way for me to support or oppose overall. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Changing to   Weak support. The more I think about it, although the resolution isn't the best, it is nice and sharp at full size. I think the beauty of the mural has enough for me to vote to feature. Anyway it deserves a better hearing than it got in some of those previous nominations, so I'll cast a support to keep the debate open on this one. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support FP for me -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 18:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The past stays in the past, this is good enough for FP--BoothSift 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Arion for this nomination --Wilfredor (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't think this small a photo, with not very sharp sculptures on the sides, is an FP in 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Ikan Poco2 17:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others.--Ermell (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but the photo is quite small and not that sharp for relatively an easy-to-take shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:46-101-0548 Lviv Latin Cathedral RB 18.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2019 at 19:57:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
  •   Info created by Rbrechko (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC) - uploaded by Rbrechko (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC) - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support because of the interesting weather and the good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong noise, light and cut on top --Wilfredor (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wilfredor --BoothSift 22:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question How did you make the photo? Is there a taller tower than the cathedral? --Podzemnik (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 13:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support While it's not pixel-perfect sharp smooth noiseless it is very well within FP category in my humblest opinion. -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cmao20. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Support because the color contrast and the view is really nice, weak because of the quality Poco2 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose for the same reasons as Poco's weak support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The image is just working for me really well. If you take a tripod next time, you'll manage to do miracles from up there! --Podzemnik (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I had a tripod but it was difficult to use longer exposure with lower ISO because wooden deck is not stable here. So, any motion of many visitors makes unacceptable sharpness of the photo. This place is very popular tourist destination and it is really difficult to use a tripod here. Also you can catch blue hour just during two months (December and January) in year. In other time tower is closed for visitors in blue hour. One more thing. Winters were not so snowy last years and this place doesn't give nice mood on photo without snow due to dark roofs. I waited for two years to catch this moment :) --Rbrechko (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2019 at 04:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Erotic image
  • Move to   Oppose due to sock nom. --Cart (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose left arm, piercing, scar, composition, background. Charles (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Small note: The scar looks like it was from a caesarean section. I don't think having gone through a difficult birth should be grounds for dismissal. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose basically per Charles --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Since the {{Nsfw}} template is not working at present, I've replaced the thumb with a link. Prior consensus of Commons FP community is that readers of this forum wish to have control over when, where and whether to view images that are or may be NSFW. -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dear lord :-) Thumbnail reduced to 132x132 px like in QIC, otherwise these votes and comments seem to belong to the following nomination above. Also {{nsfw}} added -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That link/comment was totally uncalled for, Basile. Please respect that some people have a different view that you. Being a Swede and more used to nudity than most Europeans, I can play nice on a few of these noms, but on the whole I'm not a fan of a genre that is essentially just a way of justifying men looking at and objectifying naked women. --Cart (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • À chacun son goût. --Cart (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok prude people :-) Sexy lady gone with {{Collapse top}} {{Collapse bottom}}. Wish this solves the problem for everyone, those who don't like erotic photography and those who appreciate a visible thumbnail at normal size while writing their reviews. Now it is "safe for work", very safe to work fruitfully on Wikimedia   Of course not everybody need to be involved in every fields of the project (especially those they have aversion for), but Commons is not censored and unfortunately no pics = no visibility for creative artists like Jean-Christophe Destailleur, Dani Olivier or Spencer Tunick -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Basile, we've had these tired arguments long before you came here. Nothing you say is new and all dismissed many times before. The "NOT CENSORED" phrase gets bandied about by people utterly ignorant of what censorship really is and the limited scope of those policies. Commons does not censor what files it hosts in case someone should be upset (though it certainly censors material that is illegal or uploaded to harass). Wikipedia does not censor its articles content in case someone should be upset. But as WP:GRATUITOUS explains, we also try to avoid deliberately offending others, and find alternative ways to present information or images if possible. If you think for a minute that hiding an "erotic image" behind a link saying "NSFW" or "Erotic image" will cause fewer people to look and reduced "visibility" of those images, you don't understand how the mind works.
The censorship policies on both projects do not extend beyond File space on Commons and Article space on Wikipedia. Forums, user and talk pages and community newspapers are all subject to what grown-ups call "editorial restraint". It was clear to anyone watching Websteralive's account that they were here to provoke and cause trouble, and were likely a sock account. They have now been blocked indef.
Basile, even people who are quite comfortable with such images appreciate that readers should have control over when, where and whether to view them. It is not acceptable to view nude imagery in the office, on public transport, or a library or study hall, for example. Further one does not have to be a "prude", as you put it, to regard such images as problematic. Most feminist opinion regards such images as objectification of women, designed to reward the "male gaze": women are reduced to sexual objects for the pleasure of a male viewer, and often where the image is created/photographed by a man. This is modern mainstream opinion: nobody sticks a Pirelli calendar in the office these days. Wikipedia and Commons already have a problem with being considered hostile and unwelcoming to women. Repeatedly nominating such images here is simply an act of male aggression. -- Colin (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This user, Websteralive, is probably a standard teenager who enjoys smoking weed while watching erotic programs. Well, not the best manner to seduce attractive ladies in the real world, but there's an age for that, and in my view the current disruption is not absolutely harmful. This is more touching and funny than inadmissible "male aggression"   See at least six regular reviewers and respectable photographers supporting this nomination. Several of his QI candidates, reviewed by experienced users, will be promoted soon, some others have passed already. These nude photographs taken by Destailleur are not that bad in reality. This one for example arrived 4th position in the picture of the year.
Now the thumbnails of these QIs are in the archives, and trying to hide them because "they have been nominated by a terrible sock-puppet" would be even more pathetic than the wrong edits this person did.
Youth is nice in general. Young people make mistakes but they also bring new things, new materials, modern ideas. I understand teenagers get bored with repetitive churches, deserted landscapes and austere ceilings. Everybody, males and females, feel usually concerned with eroticism, feminists and machos too  . There's no consensus now to say this image for example is not featurable. So why hiding it ? Several users just vote "oppose" because of the (very bad) nominator, but imagine if this work was promoted ? Now the question of the censorship becomes a real problem. Because such promoted works usually go straight among the other POTY candidates, and should not be hidden.
"Not safe for work" ? Of course this text replacing an image is totally safe for work, because these are just words, not representation. As when we read "cock" or "pussy", nobody sees what is behind these alphabet letters. And when you work at the university, or at the bank, or anywhere, you just don't click on a link saying "erotic image here"   This is how the mind works.
Back to the picture, she really shows sumptuous curves Frankly, after a caesarean (means after pregnancy), such a wonderful body is impressive. Charm photography, very instructive -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I understand the above opinions but to me imperfections like a scar should not necessarily be grounds to dismiss a picture. Human beings don't fit a perfect ideal, that's to be celebrated not airbrushed I think. Also am I the only one who thinks she looks like a young Chrissie Hynde? Cmao20 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course voters may oppose any image for any imperfections. Beauty is subjective. Charles (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying you can't oppose it for imperfections, Charles, it was only my opinion that the imperfections don't matter to me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose scar does not matter, but tattoo distracting, don't like lighting, and she looks bored. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bored expression, tatoo, etc--BoothSift 22:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 16:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Small size, and frankly I think we can do better in the area of artistic nudes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Nominator indef blocked, COM:ANU#Websteralive. --Cart (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nomination by sock account evading block. -- Colin (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per colin. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Piotr Bart (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

File:La vallée de Mont-Dore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2019 at 14:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#France
  •   Info created by S. DÉNIEL - uploaded by S. DÉNIEL - nominated by S. DÉNIEL
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A very beautiful panorama. Resolution isn't the highest but it meets the standard. Cmao20 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per the resolution and per Cmao--BoothSift 01:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 05:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality soso, disturbing trees in the foreground and not a real wowing element in the background that compensates it, just a bunch of houses spread randomly. IMHO not one of our finest panos. Poco2 11:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Christof46 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Nice photo, but on the whole, I agree with Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco a poco. —kallerna (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sunrise at TaniJubbar Lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2019 at 09:52:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
  •   Info All by Eatcha -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 09:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The contrail is a shame. Charles (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A beautiful motif but I think it lacks detail, there's almost no detail in the trees (probably because of noise reduction going too far). Perhaps have another go with less noise reduction applied? Again, the composition and motif are lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is lacking in detail --BoothSift 01:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Tempered   Support - We're looking into the mist at sunrise. This is the kind of photo that's all about light, shade and composition, not detail. Compare File:Monet - Impression, Sunrise.jpg. Would you complain about a "lack of detail" in that painting? I'm guessing you wouldn't, because the artist is so famous now. Eatcha may be pretty unknown at this point, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss a photo that is intentionally about a mood, an impression, and the beauty of the play of light, shadow and fog on sky, land and water, and not about the smaller details that would represent a different style. The only reason my support is currently tempered is that the subtle striations in the sky aren't an effect of nature, but of mild posterization. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan makes a fair point. I have struck my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christof46 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    •   Oppose The reflection and colours are nice and I don't care about detail in the trees. But the contrail is a shame. It is so noticeable and distracting. Perhaps some careful Photoshopping could remove it. I think the almost centred composition isn't great and there's too much height. I'll suggest a crop that I think makes a better image. -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm OK with this change, though I'm not sure I prefer it. But when you make a change, you should ping everybody who's voted or commented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for notifying me. I do prefer this crop, but the image, although very beautiful, doesn't say a lot to me personally. Maybe I've seen too many trees-reflected-in-water shots recently but for me it would need to be really extra special for me to vote for it with the limited detail in the trees, which does still bother me. Anyway, as it stands now it'll become FP so congratulations. Cmao20 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't get to choose when aircraft cross the sky to spoil a clean view, and contrails can hang about for a very long time. They are quite commonly removed in photos, as are dust spots, Charles. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support breathetaking — althought slightly lurid; FPC's let worse through though. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great compo and light Poco2 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Vicugna vicugna Salar de Chalviri.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2019 at 06:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sunrise over Benmore Range, New Zealand.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2019 at 08:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info All by me. I like that the image shows rising sun in the middle and yellow / red on the side. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support on your journey to Mordor?   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin, complete with Eye of Sauron black hole lurking behind the mountains. --Cart (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 10:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Lovely composition, as ever from your photos, but I'm not convinced by the amount of detail preserved at full-res. I'm not sure it matches up to some recent FPs in terms of sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Will cast an unpopular   Oppose because there is a very visible halo over (parts of) the mountain and also the light levels of the field/mountain is just off. Too light, too washed out. (eta: cmao20 is also correct about lack of details full size) -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@KennyOMG No worries for the oppose. I think people should be encouraged to oppose more :)
The halo was caused by sharpening. Even though I think it was acceptable, I've reduce it a bit. The mountains might have been too light, I reduced shadows. Sharpness - I honestly think it's sharp enough. It's a dark mountain at night basically, there was no source of light. If it was taken during the day then yes, I'd say that it's totally unsharp. But I respect that you think the opposite. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It's more like a halo that's usually introduced by Clarity in PS (or equivalents). More visible on the left side than other parts. Overal levels still bother me in ways I have difficulty expressing, it almost feels like an "uncanny valley" sort of situation. Sorry but will keep my vote; only thing it will do is delay the FP confirmation anyway. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Stunning composition, but some technical issues (the halo, and there is some lack of detail) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 01:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per the halo--BoothSift 04:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, that kind of sharpening halo in landscapes is a huge turn-off for me (even after reducing it). --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo It's pretty much gone now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
That's something I can definitely live with. --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment@Podzemnik: Not an oppose or anything, but the new version makes the halo a bit more visible in the thumbnail? Might be just me. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#New_Zealand

File:Notre-Dame de Paris roof apostels evangelists.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2019 at 07:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
  •   Info All this has gone with the 14 April 2019 blaze - Photo by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I was wondering when a nom of Notre-Dame would show up. This is of course a very good and detailed photo of the roof, but for many people, emotions are running high right now and I think this might interfere with how we vote. It could simply be too soon to judge this kind of photos in a normal analyzing way and for that reason I will   Abstain from voting on this. --Cart (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for your comment. I had this recent photo (there is already the scaffolding installed) which I wanted to share to see what we lost in the blaze --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. This high resolution picture is indeed valuable, but I don't think it would even have been nominated last week. The spire is cropped, the scaffolding unfortunate, and the light very ordinary. At a later time we can perhaps judge better, and worth comparing fairly with other photos of this very highly-photographed building. -- Colin (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO, the whole point is that we won't see that part of the cathedrale again for years, if ever, i.e. how similar it is going to be after reconstruction... --Yann (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That makes it a very valuable mage, not automatically an FP. It's too soon to decide things like this, IMO. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, sorry. --A.Savin 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I am probably guilty, as Cart says, of voting based on my emotions about this beautiful building. But I believe it's FP nonetheless. Of course the image is not perfect technically - it's distorted a little at the edges - and I quite agree that it wouldn't have been nominated last week. But it now has value as a historical shot as well as a documentation of an extraordinary piece of architecture. When Our Lady of Paris is rebuilt, there's no guarantee it will look exactly the same, and I think an FP of the cathedral as it was before the fire is a good idea - to document what we've lost in the fire. Thanks for the lovely picture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Here you go: Category:Featured pictures of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. --A.Savin 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing me to the category. Many of those are lovely, but I stand by a support for this one. To me, the point of this image is that it specifically depicts the spire and roof, the parts of the cathedral most severely damaged or destroyed by fire. Cmao20 (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "Thanks for pointing me to the category". You should have already looked, though it doesn't help that category link is to Italy! We are judging "the finest on Commons" which requires researching the existing category of Featured Pictures of this (and/or similar buildings) and our existing extensive collection of images which may not yet have been nominated here. While some images that are not photographically/artistically good have other merits that make them superb, the main things going for this one is the great detail of the 50MP image and recentism. Regulars here will have seen this many times after tragic events, and nearly every time the nomination is rejected without prejudicing a later nomination. This building is one of the most photographed subjects in the world. So, the standard required for FP is high. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I do try to look for existing FPs, Colin, I had already found some using the FP galleries, it's just the category I hadn't come across before until A. Savin showed me. But, looking in that category, I see five generic shots of the outside of the cathedral, one of the interior, one of the ceiling, one of some stained glass, one of the towers, two of a façade, and three historical shots from the C19th. Nothing that depicts the exact parts of the cathedral that were destroyed in the fire, and certainly not at the resolution of this picture. And regretfully, we’re not likely to get anything better until the cathedral has been rebuilt – which could take 15 years, and may not look the same as it did before. Maybe it’s a better argument for VI than for FP, but that’s my rationale anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- the fire is truly sad but this is not an FP. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I have great affection for this cathedral and felt sick yesterday, but this is a VI, not IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--BoothSift 04:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others: possibly a VI, but no FP. --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shows much of what was destroyed in the fire. More of Viollet-le-Duc's spire would have made photo better, but now this photo is historical as it's very unlikely the spire replacement will follow Viollet-le-Duc's design. Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Such reasoning usually indicates a VI but not necessarily a FP. --BoothSift 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A VI perhaps but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agreed valued image --E.3 (Talk). 07:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)