Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Cirsium vulgare. Uitgebloeide Speerdistel Cirsium vulgare in verval.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 07:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aspen groves in Öhed.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:44:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Árbol muerto 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Reminds you of Ansel Adams. Note that BW does hide unsharpness, and the foreground grass would look like a blob of fuzzy green carpet if it were a color image. -- King of ♠ 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me to much of Yosemite to say no. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH basically. Any chance to redevelop your raw? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus cucullatus) female.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 15:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santorin (GR), Fira -- 2017 -- 2598.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I can try it, but I don't think it's moiré. --XRay talk 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to demur on this: it's certainly a good photo, but I don't think it's special enough to warrant a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support The angle, the Greek national colors ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Marina Exomitis-Vlychada -- 2017 -- 2812.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:21:45 (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 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fishing nets usually make for interesting photos but they don't work too well here. The colors are too bland in the flat light to make sufficient contrasts, half the scene have harsh shadows and the other almost none, it just looks messy. Sorry, I think you should have gone in closer. --cart-Talk 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This works well for me as an abstract form. I would enjoy a painting that looked like this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart, who sees exactly the same issues I do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Turnau Hochanger Panorama 20171014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 13:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info 240° panorama from Hochanger mountain (1,682 metres (5,518 ft)) near Turnau, Styria, Austria. ATTENTION: this file is really huge! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome piece. I was wondering if it was a little overexposed but on second thought I don't think it is. The sharpness is good and the depth is amazing; you can really see everything from birds to bonfires, from ravines to logging tracks. As for the size, well, you know it's a big image when I have to open it on my gaming rig. :) --Peulle (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Brilliant technically I'm sure, but it crashed my PC. We need a better way to assess these panoramas. And why so much grass in the foreground? Charles (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose to cut off the lowest part with the unsharp grass --Llez (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, though I'd like to see how it looks with some of the grass cropped out. Charles, did you use the zoom viewer? I used the non-flash one and didn't have a problem this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik (edits) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive size. A pity that it is not 360°. The unsharp bottom ruins FP to me at the moment. --Milseburg (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Past a certain point, you can't get more resolution (due to diffraction) without having the foreground being unsharp. There's always focus stacking, but technologically we're not yet at the point that we should demand it for all such FPs. -- King of ♠ 00:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support crazy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Kormoran, poletuvanje, Golem Grad.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 08:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pogled od Crn kamen Jablanica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 08:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Altenstein-Kapelle-Ruine-266191.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 21:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2013.05.18.-24-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:MB&F HMX Black Badger Blue.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very clean photo, but please add to your file description the fact that this is a watch, because it's not clear just by looking at it, and I think supplying just a link isn't optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For description. I had to see official page what am i looking at. Can anyone read what time is it !? Otherwise good commercial shot. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others about the description. Documentation for an FP should be just as good as the photo. Regarding the photo, it is no doubt a very good photo but I simply fail to be wow-ed by yet another advertisement using black on black to make their product look cool. It looks rather flat and clinical. --cart-Talk 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a clear FP photography-wise in my book, but   Oppose per the others re documentation. It really is necessary to get these things done before nominating.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support per Ikan pending better documentation. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:MB&F Arachnophobia Black.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, but again, please add a prose description to the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient description Ezarateesteban 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above...seems like copying Jeff Deboer. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 06:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Lycosidae (Wolf spiders)
  •   Info Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia), size of body bellow 2 cm. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Background is "busy", but I have to support you for getting such an amazingly clear larger-than-life picture of this spider, and I mean every visible part of the spider is in focus. That's really impressive. Is this a single shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great light and I really like how the grass and leaf gives a depth to the overall photo. This could be an illustration in a childrens' book, the kind a parent would read and point out all the little details to their child. --cart-Talk 09:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Ikan Kekek Its stacked shot, if you mean for composition, i have 2 more shots, but as cart said, light and background/composition is best here - for childrens book. --Mile (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, unfortunate background, but the sharpness and detail with this impressive depth of field is outstanding. Charles (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info For background, this is their habitat. They don't spin webs and don't catch their prey in them, they do that on the ground. Actually, I am very happy with background, isnt so easy to capture it. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I should have said the leaf is distracting, and as I said, an outstanding image. Charles (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the leaf is part of the story. - "...and so Peter the Spider walked along the grass straw, down to the curled up brown leaf where Amanda the Ladybug had hidden the treasure." That's all for tonight kids. Goodnight and sleep tight. :) --cart-Talk 19:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:École Marcelle-Mallet.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite striking, but there appear to be stitching errors just above and to the right of the central cross. If they're not stitching errors, they're something else that needs to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the photo slightly off-center? -- King of ♠ 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching problems, need PD corrections. --Mile (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main building is too gray-- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is too unnatural. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I can see what you were thinking but it just didn't come together. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sure what projection this is, but it isn't working for me. Perhaps just too wide-angle? I can see why you want to keep the upper-clouds but the sky is a bit inconsistent with some parts dark and less good to look at, and I think this unbalances the composition having so much sky. The building hasn't got great light on it, which would really help make it pop with some raking sunlight. As others noted, the viewpoint is off-centre in a way that doesn't quite work, and the sky has some stitching glitches. There's quite a lot of gravel foreground, which isn't that interesting. A square crop of the central part of the building would avoid the perspective issues. I think it needs to either be centred closely or else much more off-centre. Is there no way you can get further back to photograph it? -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. This place is located on an island, I need to take a boat to get there, however, I think I can do it again. It is not possible to take a picture in the morning because of the children there, however, I could try to make an HDR to mitigate the shadow on the facade. I added the sky because I found it dramatic and to do a balance with the foreground--The Photographer 19:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Auguste Mariette photography.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nadar - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I mildly   Oppose, because as good as this is, I think the restoration process isn't complete and the dark shape just above and to the viewer's left of the man's head is probably just a product of the damage shown in the original scan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Kasir for choice. I did my best with this very difficult restoration. I think perfection requested is not of this world...--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Why would it be so difficult to make the dark area about the same as the rest of the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the best version --Kasir (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's an argument for VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. I agree it was a spirited restoration, and you started from very far back, but I don't think the result is up there with our other featured restorations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Parque del castillo de Goluchow, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 13:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View of the arboretum surrounding the Gołuchów Castle, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The arboretum is the largest landscape park in Greater Poland and also on its own a registered polish monument. Poco2 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love this composition, but the lack of DoF IMHO. My recomendation is take two pictures to use a merge image technique or use tripod if the light conditions are very low, however, maybe it´s not the case.
  •   Oppose I was thinking the same thing; too few of the trees are sharp, IMO. Good composition, though.--Peulle (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition --Mile (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shallow DOF helps create an organic, three-dimensional impression. Absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice light, but shallow DOF is imho very distracting, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Κίονας Αθηνάς - Ακαδημία Αθηνών 1186.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Photographer, I assume you don't consider it sharp enough (although it is in focus), but can you please add notes at the dust spots?--C messier (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting does it no favors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of Saints Cyril and Methodius on Radhošť.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 11:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support--Peulle (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2017 img47 Church on the Blood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 08:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bird's eye-view of Church of the Savior on Blood and Griboyedov Canal in Saint Petersburg, Russia - all by A.Savin --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The overall tone is too grey-- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 09:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think this should be rotated into portrait. Perhaps anticlock. --Mile (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for the general composition.--Peulle (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image. Birds' eye views are always awesome to look at, even if (according to a photographer I was chatting with the other day) they're often judged as a fad in more "serious" photo competitions. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, good job. --Selbymay (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite visually arresting. But I wonder whether it would look better with a bit of noise reduction. What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
      Comment I did my usual portion (for Phantom always more than for DSLR) in Lightroom. Some remaining noise in darker areas is inevitable, but I'm eagerly awaiting a Phantom with more megapixels, less noise, and not much more weight and price... )) --A.Savin 09:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Unsual view and it works. --C messier (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Because it looks like some kind of weird steampunk machinery. :) --cart-Talk 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. It has the technical shortcomings of most drone pictures, but it's an arresting view that only the drone could have gotten. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië) 46.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 04:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sparragus pickers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 03:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bit of noise, but I like the composition and the documentary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan, I also like that the seemingly random people form a sort of symmetry in the photo. --cart-Talk 09:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik (edits) 17:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please look at the note, what is it? --Neptuul (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It looks like some sort of weed stem. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you please provide a geocode or at least the place where this is taken? The file page says nothing about this. --cart-Talk 04:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was taken in the valley of Maneadero, south of Ensenada, Baja California... but it could have been taken anywhere... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, not anywhere. The asparagus pickers where I live, lie in a sort of vehicles when they pick or sit. I have sorted out the categories for you based on the new info. Thank you! :) --cart-Talk 09:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent composition, need noise reduction --The Photographer 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I know they were hard at work, but the poses ... almost make them look like a dance troupe. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agricultural workers are a special breed... They work in what amounts to inhumane conditions. Stoop labor is backbreaking labor, which generates terrible medical conditions later on in life. Migration, on the other hand, and an aging population puts the food supply at risk. This happens because of work conditions and the attractiveness of city jobs. We´ll see what happens... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for share this image and history, very kind documentary work. I hope see more pictures about the illegal situation and modern slave work on US border. --The Photographer 19:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support But can we fix the spelling in the filename? -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Weissfluhjoch Panorama winter labeled.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Swiss Camp (Greenland), aerial photography 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Capricorn4049
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing the quality I expect from an FP; the detail is just not high enough.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This photo is pretty noisy in the sky and last time I checked, it had apparently been declined at QIC for technical reasons. I'm not seeing anything about the photo that's so outstanding in other ways as to prompt an FP designation in spite of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support – Interesting composition, very good colors, sharp enough, for me not too noisy -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very harsh environment, technically too cold to fly a drone, extraordinary location. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Faust tower - Maulbronn Monastery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 20:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - As a musician, of course I know the Faust story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just focus on the picture. Its story has nothing to do with me. -- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 04:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a QI for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:House of Perkūnas, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 18:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment: The shadow in the lower right corner -- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 03:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadow in the lower right and the crop on the left both bother me too much. Perhaps FP with different framing -- Thennicke (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment: @Thennicke: @Clear Sky C: Nothing can be done about the shadow because the street where this exceptional building stands is a narrow old town street with another buildings on the other side. This image does not have any shadows on the building itself and I think that is the best you can have in this place. I think the crop on the left is fine as well because this is the place where the ancient wall of this building ends and new modern gates starts. Examine this place by yourself: here -- Pofka (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't get "wow" from this image. It's a good QI though -- Thennicke (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Reluctant oppose per Clear Sky C. If he hadn't pointed it out, I might never have noticed it, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Pernegg Kloster Turm 20170128.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 09:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
  •   Info Enclosing walls of the former monastery Pernegg, Lower Austria. This was taken at a temperature of -18° Celsius. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment -18° Celsius and sunshine would have been nice. Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the mood and don't need sunshine for it. This is a very rugged type of beauty, and the cold is more palpable in the dark mist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jaw-dropping. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't like the twoo cropped bushes - they interfere with the composition. Can they be cropped out or cloned? -- Thennicke (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I would clone out the bush bottom right. --XRay talk 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice juxtaposition of the bright, almost fractal branches and the dark rectilinear tower. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @Thennicke, Thennicke: New version uploaded, where the partly visible bushes are cropped and retouched out. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Köttmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Drau Ferlacher Stausee Matzen Ferlacher Horn 09102017 1434.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 05:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're very welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks awesome but there's a black spot on the dark green hillside on the left. Please fix it.--Peulle (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done Black spot was being removed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit fuzzy at distance, but I don't think much could have been done about that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yes, Absolutely -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good image, good composition, nice place Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support GOOD choice/nomination/picture/composition/framing/colors/place. Vielleicht vergesse ich etwas, Entschuldigung.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Rdeča mušnica (Amanita muscaria).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 05:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created & uploaded by Mile - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Awesome amanita picture! The depth of field is about as close to ideal as possible, and the level of detail is outstanding. There's also a tiny little insect on the mushroom's shaft - can any of you identify it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Johann. I especially like how the background fades to black (making the mushroom stand out), and yet the lighting is even -- Thennicke (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanx Ikan Kekek for nomination. And true, Thennicke, i was looking for a mushroom which i can dissolve with black background, so object become more clear. --Mile (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, I just wish this would be in portrait format --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Excellent @PetarM:, but portrait format for me too. Charles (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Interesting question Charles, Uoaei1, more topic for me. I asked myselve while ago, why people use mostly panorama and not portrait at mushrooms. Probably because of T form, otherwise i even tried portrait; i didnt even shot, what i saw on viewfinder was enough to abandon portrait. And mostly they do it in panorama. So answer here is no. I dont tell that is always necessary, but in my case was. And probably in most FPs on Commons also. For checking more see Fungi photos. Google can admit that. I saw situtation for portrait shot, as they grow like that. Someday i will try. --Mile (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well it would be silly to not vote when anyone wanting to use the image cropped can crop it. Charles (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

*  Support -- Giancarlolozza (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Giancarlolozza, thanks for dropping by this board and for your vote. What's the rule in terms of eligibility to vote? I don't see 50 prior edits, but he's been a Commoner since no later than 9 July 2008, so does he become eligible by virtue of length of membership, providing he signs in and doesn't just vote using his IP address? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    That IP address is an open proxy. LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • So I guess the vote is invalid. Why can open proxies be blocked on sight? Only some of them that have a history of trolling or vandalism, I think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
IP not allowed to vote. -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect!--Ermell (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I, too, would prefer it in portrait, but I accept Mile's reasoning for why he kept it this way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great sharpness, a worthy FP. Also a VI, I think.--Peulle (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Peulle so far just Italian Wiki has article for this variant of mushroom, but enough for VI i think. I will put it.--Mile (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 06:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp! Mile, what lens did you use? --Basotxerri (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Its macro lens-Zuiko 60 mm. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great stacking shot -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me it is not a FP. The quality of the mushroom is very good. But not more. There is no composition at all. The background is just black. I have no feeling when I look at it. --Hockei (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2016R1442 - Київ.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 17:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 08:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
  •   Info War memorial monument ("Kriegerdenkmal"), Hofgarten, in front of the Bayerische Staatskanzlei, Munich, Germany. The monument is composed of an open crypt, that consist of 12 stone blocks, lcoated in the middle of a rectangular pit. The crypt just contains the statue of a dead soldier, a work of Bernhard Bleeker. The monument was inaugurated in 1924 but the origintal statue, that was replaced by a bronze cast in 1972, and is now exhibited in the Bavarian Army museum in Ingolstadt. All by me, Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, that was on my bucket list as well... well, too late. Good, important nom. But why didn't you use a tripod? Technically the image could be better. Considering that it was taken handheld, it's awesome, of course, and it's certainly good enough to pass here. But it's not that the monument is so crowded that using a tripod is impossible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I shot it without a tripod, checked the quality, I found it pretty good and came to the conclusion that a tripod wasn't really required. To be honest I didn't expect then to nominate it for FPC but when I saw it on the monitor I really enjoyed the lighting, so, here we're...Poco2 17:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little distorted, but maybe since it was handheld that can't be helped anymore than it might have already been. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not the sharpest but quite good for the conditions. -- King of ♠ 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I'm neutral because the size of the photo is probably great enough for the noise and unsharpness of the statue and closer foreground to be OK, but I really don't understand why several of you think that we should relax our standards ("considering/since it was handheld") because Poco chose unnecessarily not to use a tripod. Why should we take into consideration that a tripod was not used in a situation in which it could have been used? The more I think about that in particular, the more tempted I am to oppose on that basis, but I will not, because of the aforementioned file size, and also the excellent composition and combination of light and shade. It may be good enough to feature - but without consideration of how it was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan: I totally disagree with your comment and the direction it goes. The main reason why we all take our cameras and go out is because it is fun. I cannot agree that anybody takes away my freedom to take the pictures the way, when and how I want. If a picture deserves a FP star it should get it, independently whether it could be even better. If your point would be considered valid the next one would say "why did you use that lens instead of that other one, I am sure the result would have been even better for this scene" or "why where you there at 2 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. the ligthing then would have been even better" or "why didn't you used that day your 50 MPx camera and just the 40 MPx one"? Sorry, but we are talking about freedom and about fun here. Pictures have to be judged the way they are. If somebody tops one we can always start a delist and replace process but that's a different story. Poco2 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it isn't good enough to feature; I'm saying that we shouldn't judge the photo by lower standards because you didn't use a tripod. That's what it sounds to me like some people are doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And by the way, it's extremely common for FPC nominations to fail because of criticism that the time when the photo was taken wasn't as good as it could have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan: the question hier ist the "even" before "better". If a picture is over the FP bar, than it should become FP. If the picture is below it shouldn't, and if the reason for that is the timing, the equipment, whather, then that's perfectly fine. But my impression here was that you consider that the picture deserves FP status but you didn't support because it could have been managed even better. Poco2 07:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm genuinely neutral. I think it may warrant a feature, but I'm not sure because the noise and unsharpness in the foreground give me some pause. And I wanted to express my opinion that we should judge the photo as it is, not by handicapping it on the basis of it being a hand-held photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, got you, Ikan. I missunderstood you. Poco2 18:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but the main subject is not sharp enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for the wow factor despite the technical shortcomings.--Peulle (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Yixian Hongcun 2016.09.09 18-00-34.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 11:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info w:Hongcun, a World Heritage Site in China, created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I like the composition and colors, but it's just too unsharp in the background, even accounting for the mist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is extremely blurry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think the blurry background is a aisadvantages.Instead. it can ruin the artistic conception if the background is too clear.-- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support blue hour, peaceful atmosphere --Neptuul (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Inside 118 inch HDPE pipe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 03:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite interesting and different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting but not wowing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool shot, I like the cable snaking its way towards the camera. :) --Peulle (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yesss! More black on black. Very 'Der dritte Mann'-esque. :) --cart-Talk 08:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Shot is good, but i would crop right side and some above, to bring center of light more to third rule. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 20:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would be perfect if the persons were in focus--Ermell (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And the page history says that the above vote was made by Ermell but you have to sign it to make it legit, please. --cart-Talk 08:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --B dash (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice idea, however, the people border look soft --The Photographer 23:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Saslonch udu da Mont de Seuc.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 21:15:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Skeppsbrokajen Gamla Stan from Skeppsholmen Stockholm 2016 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 19:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
  •   Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 19:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a view I know by heart so I'm very picky with how it is depicted. It has been painted thousands of times and photographed even more and this is one of the best depictions of it I've ever seen. The light, going in a gradient from left to right, shows off the curve of the quay very well. For those who may not know this area; this is the east side of the small island that is the heart and origin of Stockholm. The foreground with its promenade is just as important as a historic landmark. -- cart-Talk 19:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Oooh yes. Beautiful light. Like a painting. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Irresistible --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely colors, like a painting --The Photographer 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support artwork.--Ermell (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, normal shot for me, more people are disturb --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great lighting, especially with the clouds on the left, though composition on the right could be better. -- King of ♠ 22:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like an old painting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think some of Julian's other recent uploads are far better than this one, and more deserving of the star -- Thennicke (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree, good, cold tonality, but people could be out. --Mile (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The 3 persons are not disturbing at all, they make this image more natural --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • +1 Cities and towns are places built by people for people and they are a natural part of the scenery there. In this case I think they add to the composition by giving it more depth. --cart-Talk 08:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • +1, I can't to be more agree because people are important in a certain type of photography, it makes the composition more human. It would be kinky to think that in a city there is no one there like the land without humans. --The Photographer 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The couple walking and the man with the red hat both add a little to the picture. The lady obscured by the street pole is unfortunate though. Many of the very best urban photos feature someone in the frame, and often when you read about how they were taken, the photographer set up their camera and waited patiently for someone to come along and add the necessary life to their picture. I don't think that's quite the perfect moment here, but without people at all it would be a sterile photo. We are perhaps used to photos without people at FPC (vs the real world that is all about photos of people / with people) because it is the next level of hardness to get right. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that positioning people in a photo is harder but it can be worth the wait. You could also get some other living thing in the scene. In this painting of the same veiw, the artist has added two birds in the same place where we have people in this photo. --cart-Talk 08:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --B dash (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wedding ring with heart shadow.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 16:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
  •   Info Wedding ring with heart shadow. Pretty much original, just croped some. My shot. --Mile (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool setup.--Peulle (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like your light experiments. Pretty and useful, especially for projects like Wikiquote. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --B dash (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I don’t understand why the score, and not a book with a text or pictures.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought is was a version of a saying we have in Swedish and that there were similar sayings in other languages: "Två människor möts, blir kära och ljuv musik uppstår." (Two people meet, fall in love and sweet music arises.) --cart-Talk 14:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This is getting to be a common wedding picture ... the rings making these heart-shaped shadows in a book. Depending on the couple's preference it's either a religious text open to a section with text relevant to the couple (usually 1 Corinthians 13:4–8) or (like this) music used in the ceremony. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really love it! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition due to an original idea. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Orthotomicus laricis (32330826995).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 18:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose Will remove as soon as very obvious processing errors corrected. @Christian Ferrer: Charles (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --B dash (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods