Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates

(Redirected from Commons:Featured pictures candidates)
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution—for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Set nominations

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Adding a new nominationEdit

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

VotingEdit

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be politeEdit

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Lužice, zatáčka.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 19:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by T.Bednarz -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - T.Bednarz, would you like to give an explanation of how you find this one of the best photos on Commons? I'm not seeing it, but I'd like to see an argument, if possible, before I vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not satisfied that the technical quality here is high enough to reach featured status. Also, while the composition is nice enough, I'm not really blown away - there's no big "wow" factor.--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Félix, Torralba de Ribota, Zaragoza, España, 2018-04-04, DD 51-53 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 18:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Juvenile Nubian ibex (50822).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 09:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Ikan Kekek: It's small because as soon as I got closer, they ran off (I'm clumsier than they are in a rocky desert), and that's the longest focal length I had/have available to me (150mm, equivalent to 300mm full frame). — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, very small and the lighting not so good. A bit soft. 1/1600 sec/F5.6 not a good choice for a static scene. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If it were a situation when I could've used a tripod vs. freehandling at 150mm (equivalent to 300mm full frame) on rocky ground, I'd agree re: shutter. Perhaps I could've brought it down a little bit from 1/1600 and still be safe, but it was just shortly before I left the desert and the only time I saw kids together like this, nevermind close enough to photograph, so wanted to be safe because there was no shortage of light and they were just so cute :). Maybe a noob move, meh. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not all all 'Noob'. But only a few images aspire to FP! Charles (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me there's no to ways about it; it's not an FP for the reasons stated above.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support overall I was happy with the result of this one, though I understand why some would oppose given the size of it. I do wish I could've gotten closer without scaring them or for different conditions. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe I'm too much of a softy, but although this photo is small, it's well composed and I find it touching. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, lighting isn't all that special and a little bokeh would be good, but I guess under the circumstances presented above this was the best shot possible. Good composition as well. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this very strong composition merits a feature because of the curves on land and the streaming clouds in the sky, though it also has nice details and a pleasant atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There is not really a subject ... sand? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice curve in the beach and a nice sky, but on the whole I think the bar is set quite high for FPs of nature shots like this one, so it would need to be even more extraordinary for me to go "wow". It looks nice, but also fairly ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand, but my contention is that the composition is far from ordinary. I'm not trying to convince you by saying that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose It has the makings of an FP, but I'd crop in on the right and the bottom, and shoot it on a day when there are fewer clouds and more sun. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I notice User:Podzemnik has yet to vote or comment. I'm tempted to withdraw now, but do you have something to say? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Comment I think your nomination stands on its own legs. While nice, it's not really necessary for the author to agree with the nom; if you think it's good enough, there's no shame in bringing it here, even if the author doesn't agree. :)--Peulle (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
My feeling is that if a photographer doesn't him-/herself think a photo merits support, I should withdraw it. After all, as the photographer, he would have the right to withdraw the nomination himself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Streitberg Freibad 7023683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • User:Ermell, what do you think? Is it oversaturated? I figured that that's how it actually looked, because of the light at that time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan and Cart are right, saturation was not added. I just changed the profile to Adobe strong. After bathing and just before sunset, the light and colours were essentially the same as they are shown here. Thanks for nominating Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I think it's an interesting shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know, only a bad perception. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looking at a lawn in a photo is usually a good way of judging if it is oversaturated. The grass here is almost dull (compaired to the church nom below) so I don't see any signs of oversaturation. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You have seen this church: so, you know, saturation (in general) is not necessarily a problem for me. it's just a comment. What is your opinion, you voting for?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On this forum. we can make observations and comments without voting. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. :) The combination of strong red and blue colours with intermittent whites, the composition with the mirror effect and the general curves of the subject are enough for me to overlook any smaller issues with depth, noise or saturation. I also think it's quite cool how the divider in the water is also red and white.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like it, but I think it would be even stronger cropped to the slides. However, that might make it too small for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lincoln Cathedral Chapter House.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 12:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img077 Lake Tana at Bahir Dar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 11:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Drinks
  •   Info Glass of unfiltered tej (traditional Ethiopian honey wine) in an eating establishment at Lake Tana near Bahir Dar, Ethiopia ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Probably testy, but nothing exceptional. Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Tej is very good indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image title is not an accurate description of what it shows. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    The title shows its correct location and a seril number for my convenience. As long as we have titles like File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0107.jpg, it's OK this way and a rename is neither desirable nor necessary. --A.Savin 11:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because we have one user who can't name his photos according to the proposed Commons:File naming doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow. If the main subject in a photo is tej, I think it's within reason that it should be a part of the file name, especially since this photo is chosen to represent that particular category and articles. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I've already explained that I don't wish rename of this picture, as I wish order in my uploads and otherwise I would have to do much more renames, like e.g. this picture to "fried fish at Lake Tana" and so on (bottomless pit). There is somewhere consensus from older discussions, that the wish of the author is to be respected, unless the title is fully meaningless and/or misleading, which is obviously not applying here; so I would be grateful if you leave me alone with this stuff. --A.Savin 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This/My discussion was a suggestion, not an order. If you feel so strongly about this, I apologize for upsetting your feelings. --Cart (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grass in the background, with an unidentifiable horizontal object, is not successful. And the top of the bottle, which is IMO the most interesting part of the image, is out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. It was a nice idea that might well have worked with a different background and in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Privatrösterei Schröer, Kaffeebehälter -- 2018 -- 0529.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 10:31:50 (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 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know it's an effect, but I feel like the DoF is a bit too shallow here; even the closest container is not entirely in focus.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Current DoF works for me. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Musée L during civil twilight (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, DSCF4200).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 23:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Belgium
  •   Info "It has so many pretty lines everywhere! And I feel like it evokes a story with the lights and the things poking through the windows. :)" - User:Bubblenymph, by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lighting does not appeal. Charles (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles --Milseburg (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles; just doesn't stand out for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool lines and soft light :) - Benh (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The lighting in this picture appeals. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The sky is very flat to me and the composition in general is good but not great, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bertha-von-Suttner-1906.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 22:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I chose it because it is used in a important number of articles and pages. Ezarateesteban 16:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That might make it a VI, but what's the argument for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good photo without scratches, artifacts and another issues Ezarateesteban 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That reads like an argument for QI, if the photographer were a Commons user. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know it but I like if anyone evaluate the quality of this picture Ezarateesteban 22:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak suppoert I took some time deciding this one. On the one hand, Bertha von Suttner is a very important historical figure, so the legitimacy of the nomination is beyond question. It's also a photo from 1906 (read that again, nineteen oh-freakin' six, it's over 100 years old!), so I think we can forgive the overall lack of sharpness. I just wish the resolution was higher, and I'm also not sure about the quality of the restoration. It looks OK compared to the original, but.. hmmmm..... Well, it's borderline, and I may be a bit taken with it since I basically live and breathe history. If anyone else out there want to have something to compare it to, in order to find the standard set for historical FPs, here they are.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment there's part of the border left at the bottom. I think the border should be either removed completely or not removed at all … --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done borderline removed Ezarateesteban 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly VI and useful, not good enough for FP, even for a picture from 1906. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Basilica Santa Maria della Salute Dorsoduro Venezia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 14:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support and 7.--Peulle (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good at full size, and I'm sure you'll work on the perspective thing Peulle mentions. I might prefer for the building on the far right to be included in full, but that's hardly an important criterion for voting on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Such fine detail, and relaxing cool colors. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I do not really like the shift to the left --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The resolution is outstanding, but the perspective isn't.It´s too close to the building and the viewing angle is too steep upwards to be favorable enough fo a FP. --Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very attractive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for a tripod shoot with ISO 125 surprising noisy (look e.g. at the white fassade). Overall a good fotography that doesn't thrill me. Beside of this: this image was obviously not taken from a public approachable place so we have no panorama of freedom here and I question the rightfulness of this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Freedom of panorama in Singapore is  OK for 3D objects and all the buildings, see this category. The noise is normal for a night shot and the resolution is high enough, compare for example with this FP shot from the same roof -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't say s.th. against the resolution. But the noise is not good, especially for such a camera like the 5D Mark IV. Read the definition of FoP carefully and you will see that this image doesn't fit in. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a definition for FoP, but an explanation. The location where this picture was taken from the observation deck of the Marina Bay Sands Hotel. The access to this point causes costs, is private ground of the hotel and therefore not a public place in the common definition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The existance of a category in Commons is not a valid proof. FoP means in many countries that your place, where you have taken the image, hast to be public. For sure you're able to show me the law of Singapure where this point is not relevant. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Singapore Copyright Act says in its Section 64 : "The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast". You may read Wikipedia to learn more about the freedom of panorama, or ask the Village pump. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Taxiarchos228: I think you are premising German FoP law here, which is indeed very restrictive. The relevant one, however, is COM:FOP#Singapore: there is no such limitation, that the camera location has to be as publicly accessible as the photographed building. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      Comment It is no aerial photo (not taken from an aircraft), I'm going to remove these categories now. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. And i don't see any problem with noise. Nice quality IMO. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, noise is OK, and light is very well managed (that's the most important issue). Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A lack of noise --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I find no reason to hold back. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sweet mangosteen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Concerning these raspberries and these blueberries I see a will for arrangement. This peaches are as boring as this candidate picture. I'm sorry, the image is a solide factual photography. But not outstanding in arrangement and has not an outstanding impact for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mut (Maut, Mout).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 02:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Possibly a QI, but not an FP because of distracting reflections on the left and a distracting message board on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Downtown Toronto in September 2018 (Early Sunday Morning, frontal view from a kayak).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 01:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst: Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have the sensation of being inundated by water, but I wasn't surprised when I saw that this is an iPhone pic - the quality is not good enough for FP and I think it would probably fail at QIC, too, though you could always try. Also, please try to find categories for your nominations. Look through the galleries at COM:FP and request help if you need it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong quality issues at the 100% view --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Looks good as a thumbnail, so with a proper camera, this could probably have been featured.--Peulle (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Nice view but a) we could do without the front of the kayak and b) we need a better camera. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de la Virgen María, Breslavia, Polonia, 2017-12-20, DD 17-19 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 21:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main nave of the Virgin Mary church, Wrocław, Poland. Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO it could be FP, but there are two issues. At the left is more space than at the right. May it is correct. The other is the gap at the tile at the bottom. IMO the gap should horizontal. --XRay talk 10:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    XRay: I haven't undrestood your second comment but just uploaded a new version with a tilt correction and perspective/crop adjustments to improve symmetry Poco2 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    I just added a note. (In deutsch: Die Fuge der Fliesen am unteren Rand ist schief. In den Kirchen ist diese aber in der Regel gerade. Naja, von Ausnahmen abgesehen.) --XRay talk 04:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - This is surely a good photo, but it doesn't feel quite like an FP to me in this rich category, partly because it lacks the pinpoint sharpness of some of the greatest FPs in this class and also partly because this interior itself is not as lovely as others, what with the not so interesting windows in the apse and also the grayish feel of the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Brooms on an open market in Macedonia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 19:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Yolanda - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting idea, and good for you for nominating something different, but for a couple of reasons it doesn't work. First, even given the fast shutter speed and slow ISO, the highlights at the top are still almost searing, and second, there are more broomheads than the image needs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose more or less per Daniel: Good idea, but not quite an FP in composition, nor in execution, as there is noise and CA in some of the shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Caldera de las Cañadas 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 15:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice and all, but I'm not sure I want to vote for it since it's quite similar to this picture; it's the same location and subject, just from a different position and with an additional rock. I'll think about it some more and get back to you.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Significantly different view, IMO, especially because of the effect of having that irregular standing rock in our faces. However, I don't know if we should support a third view including this rock if it's nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info I have no further panoramas of this side, this will be the last nomination from there (therefore there will be no "third view"). I nominated this panorama, for we have a lot of pictures of the "Roque Cinchado" (the rock in the background) on Commons, but as far as I can see none of the nearby and also intersting "Torrotito". --Llez (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Peulle's comment makes sense but this view is better than the previous one, I think. Maybe cutting the fence pillar on the left could even improve. Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done Fence partly cropped, partly cloned out --Llez (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment the sky is replaced by a gradient? We see horizontal lines. This editing is valid?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 for that question. Even though normal clear blue skies can produce banding, especially when making panoramas where the info is sometimes compressed in the process, this one looks very uniform with the same color values across the horizontal plane. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, it is also my experience. In this case I tried to improve with several methods, and it is interesting, that in all cases the banding was not visible in photoshop, but if you open it with another program (like "Windows Fotoanzeige") or if you upload it to commons, a slight banding is visible. I think it depends on the processing by the viewing-programs. --Llez (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mount Stuart House horoscope room 2018-08-25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 12:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Large skipper (Ochlodes sylvanus) underside Sweden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 11:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nürnberg St. Lorenz Sakramentshaus 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 04:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info @Daniel Case: Well, it is a so-called sacrament house, a tower-like tabernacle of more than 20m height, fitted to the pillar of the church. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much that I don't know what it's a picture of, it's that there's so many competing verticals in the image as to sufficiently distract from the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very special work. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. High enzyclopedic value, very good technical work and nice to look at. What do you need more for a FP? The special ratio isn't a problem for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Wladyslaw. Yann (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hannover, die Marktkirche vanaf de Osterstrasse Dm IMG 4453 2018-07-01 09.56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 17:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, yes I have already denoised the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Please look at the pedestrian zone near to the person. There you can see a very noisy area. For me to noisy to be a FP. Very pitty because I like this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I see what Wladyslaw is talking about, but I think it's a relatively minor issue in context and also like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark and the composition doesn't work well for me. I'm maybe too classical in my tastes, but the combination of a shoe shop with a church looks a bit awkward to start with. I don't like the white building on the right because it has no charm and the harsh contrasts are not aesthetic. Also the signs on the left are not very elegant, so this shop is not attractive. But the main problem remains this street which is the way where the eyes want to go, while it is too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin. --The NMI User (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Basile, I have problems with the composition. My issue is not so much the darkness as that the signs up front conflict with the steeple in the back for recognition as the subject of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support even there are a few technical issues I like this view very much. The contrast between classical and modern (and maybe not so successful) architecture on both sides of the street is interessting. Also the contrast between the neon signs and the church is not a conflict but exciting and good in photographically sense. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support interessting composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Amrumer Windmühle (2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 14:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) female underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 11:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vézoles lake riverbank trunk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 10:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For who want that I fix a potential perspective issue, please read the description. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is strong but here it creates a special atmosphere, like in Salvador Dali's paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe I'm at fault here, but this photo is just not interesting me much. I don't find it surreal either, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In Dali's paintings you often find such cut trunks with strong light and shadows like with these swans and elephants for example. There's something surrealist with these trees in the sand of a beach, as if they had grown up here. At least it's a surprising situation in a natural place. Some rocks, shells, or umbrellas would be more understandable, but these trunks having a sun bath in front of the sea remain mysterious enough to me to like it. Your feeling probably differs and is perfectly legitimate. Also the quality of this picture is excellent at full size, so good QI + wow factor = FP, but that's just my voice -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I understand how you could have been reminded of that painting. And definitely agreed that the technical quality of the photo is high, as usual for Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice touch. --Laitche (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Basile Morin: I'm sorry to end the mystery :) but I added to the description the probable reason for the presence of these trunks. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I wondered if that could be Land art, but it seems to be the unintentional result of both human and natural factors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the picture would be better with a tighter framing. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018L0765 - Saint-Malo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 07:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I haven't, I do either color version or b&w. I haven't both version for any photo. --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very well, then. I might like a brighter sky, but really, per Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Peppers in water.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 17:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Food and drink

File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 15:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Asymmetrical cut, obstructing signal traversed in the middle bottom, extreme distortion and blurred on the left bottom border --Photographer 01:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This photo, as with many I took that day, was taken with my Samyang 10mm ultra wide-angle lens. It has an angle-of-view of 109.6° which is as far as you can reasonably take a rectilinear lens. This photo was taken with the camera pointing slightly up, to bring in more ceiling and less boring concrete floor, and then corrected afterwards in Lightroom. Unlike with my stitched photos, I'm far more restricted about where to crop and the sharpness is not as good, though I think still quite acceptable. I tried to position the camera in the middle to get pleasing symmetrical results, but it isn't perfect. One problem is the sign, which you can see in File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 5.jpg (middle-left) and is bright red, white and yellow and very distracting if you saw that in the middle of the scene. I tried to position so it was edge-on and not catch the eye. It isn't the sort of sign I can just lift up and move out of the way, without getting arrested by the transport police :-). You can also see from that photo how the top of the ceiling in the photo has curved over towards me and is quite close. This will cause the wide-angle perspective distortion by magnifying, but I think here the straight lines of the roof don't look unpleasantly distorted. Other things like round windows and people tend to illustrate that distortion in a more uncomfortable manner. I agree it isn't a perfect photo and I'd have liked to have had the time to make a stitched panorama. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your rich explanation and, I understand what is your intention here, however, I think that this photo is not up to your previous work. I hope you can take my negative feedback as a stimulation to do better job (maybe in a combination of nodal ninja photos). Sincerely this place deserves a perfectionist work that you have accustomed us to appreciate and taste, with enormous size and majestic quality. Obviously my opinion about this photo is little shared, or simply people vote positively because we love you --Photographer 23:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Photographer, ha ha, I'm not sure about "love". I hope I've ruffled enough feathers with oppose votes and criticism that nobody should feel bad about giving me an oppose if warranted. I guess this is more similar to my fisheye photos than my stitched panorama photos. Or as a good photo of a great subject, rather than a great photo of a great subject, which would be ideal. I would love to go back and take a better shot but that's quite unlikely any time soon. I live 400 miles away, the weather is not always as good as this, and stations can be busy. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support a very strong symmetrical view may be classic but looks over time boring. A little bit asymmety brings the image alive. The other reasons for this picture are self-evident. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2018 at 22:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

alternativeEdit

 

  •   Info So maybe this one is better? Tournasol7 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much better, IMO, but too different to be an alternate. You could consider nominating that photo separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree this version is too different to be presented as an alt, but it certainly has its chances as a new nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridge of Jacques-Gabriel in Blois 01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2018 at 23:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's easy to forget that because, without checking the image's metadata after reading your comment, I would not have known that. It explains the pinkish sky, yes, but the image as a whole is still kind of cooler than most cityscape-at-dusk images. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but the colours are not very impressive --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michiel. Good but not great photo - please try again in different light/clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sat 15 Sep → Thu 20 Sep
Sun 16 Sep → Fri 21 Sep
Mon 17 Sep → Sat 22 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Sun 23 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Mon 24 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Tue 25 Sep

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)Edit

Tue 11 Sep → Thu 20 Sep
Wed 12 Sep → Fri 21 Sep
Thu 13 Sep → Sat 22 Sep
Fri 14 Sep → Sun 23 Sep
Sat 15 Sep → Mon 24 Sep
Sun 16 Sep → Tue 25 Sep
Mon 17 Sep → Wed 26 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Thu 27 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Fri 28 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Sat 29 Sep

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2018.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.