Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:African buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer) male with cattle egret.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2018 at 09:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info As many of us know, our hair thins when we get older. There are several reasons why this buffalo has rolled in mud: for cooling; to acquire a sunscreen; and to keep parasites off his skin. Mud is his mineral-rich face pack - and when it dries it will fall off taking embedded ticks with it. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good light, good compo and an excellent -"Monday, this must be Monday..." photo. Getting rid of a few pixels up top for balance and cleaner background would make it even greater. See note. --Cart (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Good idea. Charles (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach Zehnte Oktober Strasse 65 Sonnenblume 12082015 1340.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 22:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Andoin - Cascadas de la Tobería -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 20:08:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus cristatus) Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 16:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I'm afraid not. Size is around 13cm, so I'm actually about 6m away. Charles (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img100 Ertale.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 09:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   I don't think it is possible to get such a photo tack sharp. I got blurry heat haze on a summer's day, just imagine what this place must generate. --Cart (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vernazza dal Sentiero Azzurro.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 03:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by me -- СССР (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, severe CAs (see for example at the masts at the mountain and at the white bands at the floor on the right, but also everwhere in the picture) --Llez (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez, and I also wish there were more room to the right, so that the cape weren't cut off, if possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez.--Peulle (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Measured oppose In addition to the CA noted by Llez, I would say that the light just doesn't quite work. Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --СССР (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Pirogue and tiny wooded island reflecting in the water.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 01:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img103 Ertale.jpg, withdrawnEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 20:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi, The reason why I didn't choose the other one is, that the lava streams are not as well identifiable there (IMHO). No tripod or other additional equipent. --A.Savin 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not for a poster. Dark and blurry. (And I prefer the previous suggestion too) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I support the other one. This one ... it's just not very clear what's going on.--Peulle (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 11:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kranhäuser Cologne, April 2018 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 20:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Słonecznik (Mittagstein, Polední kámen) in the winter 2018 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 16:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Śnieżka (Sněžka, Schneekoppe) - view from Słonecznik (Mittagstein, Polední kámen).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 13:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor composition and small size --The Photographer 13:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak support yes, the size is rather small - but the compo isn't poor at all, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Not perfect, but makes up for it with great winter atmosphere. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The motif is well chosen and the composition is very good. The little size is a very small drop of bitterness. --Milseburg (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:McClures Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 11:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

those rocks are impassable, usually birds stay sleeping in the same positon or jump directly to fly --The Photographer 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. To me the left crop is at an awkward place, and the large rock formation in the middle is too centered. -- King of ♠ 17:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it looks oversharpened --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it looks a little oversharpened but I'm forgiving that as a byproduct of the long exposure. Otherwise, I love it ... reminds me of a Roger Dean album cover, perhaps Drama, with rocks hitting the same angle as the ice on that one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sure, there's some randomness to the left and right crops, but I love what's there - the tall rocks with a pair of gulls on them and the profusion of mussels, in particularly -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Cinque dita 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 06:22:02 (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) 06:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good but also a quite common mountain portrait. The mast on the right side is leaning in. --Milseburg (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done The mast is vertical now --Llez (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, the tilt of the mast is gone but the problem is retouched badly. This becomes clearer while comparing the mountain station in the current version with the former one. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • You are right, there was a mistake in the correction. I uploaded a new version, please have again a look on it and compare with the previous (bad) correction --Llez (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit soft but it looks like this was the best that could be done. Lovely colors and light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely composed and an interesting subject. Technically it's all you can get out of the 500D as far as I know from my own experience. --Code (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Entzia - Paisaje -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2018 at 17:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've chosen B&W for this because lack of interesting colours, the sun was already quite high and it was hazy. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice atmosphere. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite good, very nice undulating landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I understand the situation, but nonetheless: B&W for this kind of landscape doesn't work for me, sorry. --A.Savin 23:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No problem, that's a matter of tastes. Thank you for your opinion! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support It could be stronger if you lost that cloud from the upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent!!, please try remode the upper left cloud --The Photographer 13:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Theatinerkirche Munich, March 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2018 at 07:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Ahhh... clear skies. :) --Cart (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great composition and mood, but could something be done about the oversharpening? Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks, Daniel. I honestly don't think the image is oversharpened, though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Onça do Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 21:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I've got this lens and know how better it can be at 400mm, handheld with the stabilization. But the subject is interesting enough to strike my vote -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support a great, possibly iconic shot that just shouldn't be overly pixelpeeped... honestly, I don't know what could have been done better. Equipment and exif look perfectly fine to me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've seen jaguars in the Pantanal and they are not that colour. Charles (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree the sharpness is an issue. The technical quality seems fine for a 400mm telephoto. At 6MP it looks completely sharp and would print A4 just fine. Charles, what specifically is wrong with the colour? Do you think the white balance is wrong? Surely the colour will change somewhat depending on ambient light. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Colour is too orange - check out the colour of the eyes - no other images on Google show this colour. Charles (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If you take away the ambient soft yellow light and make the WB totally neutral (I did that in PS), you can see that there is something orange reflected in the jaguar's eyes. Orange is a preferred color to wear among some game keepers (and hunters) since many animals are color blind and they perceive it as grey while we humans can see each other even in dense foliage. This might be something like that reflecting. --Cart (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No it's not a reflection. 400mm lens. It's a false colour. Charles (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, along similar lines as Martin. This reminds me of an illustration from "Where the Wild Things Are", except that it's a real wild thing and a real photo. Also reminds me of paintings by Le Douanier Rousseau. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a picture more than a photo (and those are rare here at FPC) so composition and wow overrules technical pixel-peep-perfection. The overall light in the pic is warm, creating an ambiance, so it's normal that the jaguar gets a hint of that tone too. --Cart (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart -- P999 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Mood makes me think of the cover of Fleetwood Mac's Tango in the Night. It has imperfections, yes, but those imperfections are what gives it its impact. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, yet close to it --A.Savin 23:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Granada (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951), Sète.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 18:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Vistas Alcazaba Almería.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 14:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Retrato de una niña, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles: yes, of course, I explicitly asked the father of the girl, who was present, for permission. We were actually in the middle of a Wiki Takes and the girl was photographed by many of us. Poco2 17:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Charles (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good child portrait, but not much more. --A.Savin 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The WB is too blue. When you do a portrait where the light is not a special feature, you should try to get that right so she gets her right skin tone (as well as the whites of her eyes). --Cart (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Cart, ok, I see, there was some room for improvement, I just uploaded a new version with a "warmer" WB, thanks! --Poco2 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paisaje cerca de la mina de Collahuasi, Chile, 2016-02-10, DD 16-21 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Poco a poco: Which makes this image all the more extraordinary ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - How many degrees is this panorama? It would be good to include that in the file description, too, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan, it is aprox. 200 degrees (the road on left and right side is the same), I added it to the file description, along with the geodata (middle of nowhere) Poco2 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Helleborus orientalis, Zaaddozen zwellen, Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 05:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Helleborus orientalis #Family Ranunculaceae
  •   Info The seed pods of this Helleborus orientalis begin to swell and to ripen. The petals change color to beautiful earth tones and look like parchment. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting. Works better because it's not in sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Straßburg Pöckstein 1 Schlosspark Monopteros 11102016 4827.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 44th edit. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:River Cuckmere April 2018 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 09:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United Kingdom
  •   Info Pastoral English landscape with the river Cuckmere. East Sussex, England. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely landscape. The image might seem fairly ordinary, but it captures a certain mood. There's just something about it that makes me want to sit down by that stream and relax.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, it is a peaceful moment but I still miss something here, a more pano view could help, there is definitely too much grass in the foreground and also a bit too much sky IMHO Poco2 12:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Missing nothing for me. It's beautiful and reminds me of really good 19th-century English landscapes by people like Constable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support but see note: a tighter crop might be even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Turneresque. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But a bit more "panorama-crop" would be even better --Llez (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Techelsberg Sankt Martin Winterwald 31012015 750.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Still oppose for me; it's nice, but just not very ... "niiiice".--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I preferred the original version with the different trees and the shades of tones -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current version is better but I still miss more image on the top Poco2 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Thanks Martin! --Cart (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anything really interesting in this and the tree bottom right (see note) doesn't help. Charles (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Sharpest part seems to have been cropped out, but overall it makes a nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful composition, and the crop resulted in a big improvement. I frankly don't care about the degree of sharpness of the trees in a photo that's so based on the rhythm of the eyes moving around the picture frame that that abstract element is much more important than the details on the individual trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no wow for me, per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Karelj --Milseburg (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately even very small things can disturb a photo. Might be hard to clone these out though. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice blue hour shot. --Code (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. The yellow flag looking like a ghost is more disturbing than the garbage bins, but both attract the eyes immediately after the ship. They're located in front, just in the middle. Also I wonder if this saturated blue is not overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, the subject is though FP-worthy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to take the image from the front Poco2 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Once you see those, you can't unsee them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 03:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info : No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight! 😉 It is a 1.9 millimetre long shell of a tiny sea snail.
    Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Impressive for a photo of such a small shell. How did you even see this to collect it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info For such small shells I take a handful of sand at the beach and then I search under a binocular microscope sand grain for sand grain for several hours. --Llez (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is not there, but the similarity with the "object" is amazing and very funny. Nice find -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Basile, this one is far below the quality you usually present here. Clearly it is more challeging to get there for tiny objects but I believe that there is room for improvement, sorry Poco2 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree that the quality of the shell photos I usually present here is better. But I please you to note, that such tiny objects can not be photographed with a normal camera. All my photos of tiny shells, see for example the Caecidae or Rissoidae photos, are made with a binocular microscope, which does never reach (and is also not comparable with) the quality of pictures of a good "normal" camera. --Llez (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, I strike through my vote as I've no experience in this kind of photography, and therefore I don't really feel qualified to judge the result Poco2 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've that lens (and in that cat there are a few QIs of mine) but so far I just used it outdoors, which is really hard. I'll try to take some studio images of tiny objects with my 5DS R, I didn't try that yet. Poco2 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info For the shell photos I normally use a 60mm Tamron Macro objective, which is comparable to the Canon lens mentioned above. This objective is useful for objects (e.g. shells) down to 6 mm (of course I made this photo with the 60mm Macro). All objects, which are smaller can't be photographed picture-filling any more, for you can't go closer to the object. This means, the smaller the object, the smaller is the object on the photo and the more empty space you have (and the more quality loss you have). Therefore I use for objects smaller than 6 mm not a normal camera with macro lens but an UCMOS 14000KPA camera (4096 x 3288 px) in combination with a microscope or a binocular mircoscope respectively, which allows picture filling photos of objects from 6 mm down to 10 μm (!), an object size, which is impossible to photograph with a normal macro lens. All my photos of shells, of which the size is below 7 mm, are made with the UCMOS 14000KPA. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I've added two categories : Pareidolias and Condoms. If not in the description, what makes this picture special should be mentioned somewhere on the file page, I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I question adding category:condoms, since this is not a condom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • True, but shall we create the new category "condom-shaped objects", considering this will be the only file in this sub-cat, and will probably remain as it for quite a while ? This is not a condom, but this is not a "condom in art" neither, nor any other existing category-related file. If created, "Condoms in nature" would sound strange  . Also, "Condoms" seems very general here, and all the pictures of condoms are more in this sub-Category:Condoms_by_sex (male and female), that's why I think "Condoms" is a good choice for now. But any better suggestion ? welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to have categories for everything that looks like something else. Basic shapes are enough. We also don't need to put every object that might look like something into a category for that, otherwise you would have to put every elongated object, obelisk or structure into Category:Penis-shaped objects. --Cart (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I totally disagree. What makes this picture special, in my opinion, is that it looks like a condom, more than a shell ! Kind of prehistoric condom at first sight :-) The resemblance is amazing, and the illusion is so strong that the author mentionned it straight at the top of their nomination :"No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight !  ". Exactly the same impression I had when I discovered this shape of a shell : it clearly looks like a male contraceptive. Not only an elongated shape that would make it approximately similar, but also something hollow on the base with a roll aspect, and the most caracteristic detail, a kind of reservoir on the top ! That's just awesome for a coincidence. This definitely creates a good pareidolia, that means a "psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus being perceived as significant". Sorry but I can't look at this shell without thinking to a condom (not my fault it's a sexual-related subject), as I can't look at this rock without thinking to an elephant. Same degree of proximity, and that's perfectly normal to read "elephant" in the description of this file. Would be ridiculous to remove the appropriate category and say "Well, it's just a saltwork formation in a desert in reality, not an elephant" ! In Thailand, there is a famous site in Koh Samui with two rocks displaying a phallus and a vulva. This site attracts a lot of visitors every day and Wikimedia has a Category:Hin_Ta_Hin_Yai which is of course included in the categories Phallic symbols and Vulva symbols. That's the logics. Concerning the Category:Penis-shaped_objects, it's perfectly legitimate to find inside these knockers, but what would be worth the picture without mentionning this particular aspect of the metallic object ? Insignificant. I've uploaded a stain on Commons a few years ago File:Pareidolia_stain_on_wall_as_map_of_France.jpg and this work would lose absolutely all its content if the illusion of the map of France was not mention anywhere on the file. We would just see this spot like another ordinary stain, and above all quite a bad photo ! I'm not saying Llez's shell is bad (the only reason I don't support the nomination is because I find the quality a bit too low, however the picture is really great, and fortunately we also have great pictures on Commons which are not necessarily featured). Just what makes this photo awesome, in my opinion, apart from the fact it is a very small object, it is that it looks like a condom, and this is exceptional, yes. The Category:Penis-shaped_objects would fit approximately, and Condoms too, but this last one is more precize in my opinion. Most of the examples of pareidolias on Google are heads and faces with eyes and mouth. When they're not fakes, such objects resembling to other objects are really very rare. Here we're confused by the reality and need to look at twice ! This file is then an excellent example of this kind of illusion, and should thus be promoted as such without ambiguity. It doesn't spoil the shell characteristics, it just brings an extra value, which may attracts more views to this tiny specimen among its huge collection. This shell definitely generates a pareidolia, and as part of this phenomenon, which object does it evoke ? A condom. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh! And here I thought it was a dildo, with a bunny-ear-tickler on top and a switch for the vibrator at the bottom.   I guess men and women are used to using different things and we see things differently. I think you have become a bit fixated with this. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Llez's response to Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Guéthary - Port -BT- 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 21:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Three buffaloes heads above water in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 15:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, these water buffaloes got their name from this particular behavior. They're often cooling themselves in the water (or in the mud), when the weather is hot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very strong oppose These working animals have ropes inserted through their noses and we should not be celebrating this abusive (though traditional) practice. Charles (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, that's a point. It seems that I'm too urban to see this. Charles, did you notice that you've put 'support' in your oppose? --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For now this vote is more a green support than a strong oppose   but to answer your comment, Charles, these domestic buffaloes are not enclosed and then free to graze and move where they want. I think such practices are more respectful than to park them in a small enclosure like in other areas in the world. But these are not wild animals, contrary to what it seems ! And concerning the rope in their noses, Wikipedia says "Bulls, especially, are powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals which, if uncontrolled, can kill or severely injure a human handler". Also I don't encourage any practice just taking this picture, I was passing by this river bank, and met these animals starring at me like big sharks, that made me shoot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes an innocently-taken image can reveal animal cruelty. Could I suggest you have a look at these online comments on what's behind this photo: one; two
  • Charles, are you ok? You vote with the wrong symbol, you confuse wiki-link code with external link code and you don't sign your comment. I have fixed the links for you though. Hope you are taking care of yourself, --Cart (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm just committed to animal welfare and I hope we all are. When I'm cross, I make more mistakes! Sorry. Charles (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while. The Wiki-project needs good photos of everything. Remaining neutral when judging good photos or good text in articles can sometimes be very hard when the content goes against our own feelings on the subject. Good photos are supposed to extract emotions from us and make us think. --Cart (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You are right, but this well-composed image was taken in good faith just to be an interesting shot, which it is. A close-up of the ropes piercing the animals' heads would be very acceptable if the caption described what was being depicted. To give another example, it would not be acceptable (in my view) to nominate a pretty picture of very young children sewing colourful carpets without mentioning the abusive practice of child labour. Charles (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well then, the solution would be to add neutral information about this part of the photo, since it is possible to extract closeups from this photo (one of the reasons why FPs are in hi-res). Let's see if I can fix that so that all parties will be satisfied. My edit can of course be removed or tweaked. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree to mention this nose rope in the description. I also added a link to the Bubalus bubalis, which is the main subject. However, I don't think this picture is the right place to debate about the nose ring, the Wikipedia article is much more appropriate to the discussion (in favor or against), and a link to the page might be enough, I think. Then I changed the description accordingly to the vision I have about this image. Thanks for the contributions -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's ok, but in the new edit you instead inserted a personal comment and veiwpoint ("At this bank, starring at the camera like three sharks, or like three attentive observers, they're rather funny to look at, as if they were expecting something from their group photograph.") That should be removed since it doesn't belong in a neutral image description, please do so. Let the viewer form their own oppinion about the photo. Like if this photo was to be used in an article about nose ropes, that's not the sort of comment you'd want accompanying the picture. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I took the liberty to write it's funny because I'm not the only one to find so, reading the others. And concerning your idea about nose ropes, reading the Wikipedia page, there is not (yet) people against -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because there are at least two people finding something funny, does not mean it is so for everyone. I for one don't find this funny at all. But it's a good picture. Image descriptions should be neutral, that's how encyclopedic material works. If you don't like to have other people's values in an image text, you should not impose your values either. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)~
  • No problem, I'm fine with the description now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, it would be best to add the new descriptions in French, too, when you have the chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, slowly, slowly... First get a consensus on the text in English, then translate -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I saw once one water buffalo gone berserk... and out of control. In this case, better not to stay close... The rope in the nose is a necessary security feature for every one. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)