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 documentsEdit

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."

PhotographsEdit

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 audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

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:Dehnbare Helmling Mycena epipterygia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Biguatinga Tomando Sol.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'insurrection des vaisseaux L'America et Le Léopard (6 septembre 1790).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 10:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 09:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info This photo has 3rd place in WLM 2018 in France. A bit similar to this photo, which is FP. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But im not sure this is the best result you could get by such a scene: the right part is too bright, too much detailed and too much colourful. The central part, which is meant to be the main subject, is not as bright as the right part, which should be a secondary part in the composition. Vignetting and a slight darkening of the whole right part would be a great improvement to an already excellent composition with flaws about lightening.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment No added vignetting please! --Cart (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    A good vignetting would hide the evidently too much bright right part of the composition which is not intended to be the main subject but comes out clearer thn the subject. That right part is killing the whole photograph IMO,Paolobon140 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Paolobon, the entire right, up to the road edge, needs to be cropped out. I can understand what the photographer wanted to show us, what he saw, but it was more than the photograph could handle. But the church by itself could be featured. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The view is beautiful, but with all of that on the right of the church and nothing on the left, it feels unbalanced. The linked photo has a different kind of balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg Cafe Rondo am Schönleinsplatz 9201807.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 08:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for infor; this one has a 1st place in WLM 2018 in Germany. --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very delicate light. --Cart (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Travel-guide worthy (or let's try it auf Deutsch: Reiseführerwürdig). Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very rationalistic picture, as rationalistic the buidling is. Rationalism was not a big fan of trees near buildings though, and I think that tree on the left is quite "a punch in the eye":-) I wonder if there was a way to avoide the presence of the tree.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Vanha voimalaitos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 22:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created and uploaded by TeuvoSalmenjoki - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Has a lot of elements that by themselves would work but altogether overwhelm the viewer. Perhaps at least if you cropped in from the left a little ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good management of the light colour.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is techically very well taken, with good balance of colours and light. Did you use a tripod? But i agree there are too many object in it, starting with those trees which are more disturbing than pleasant in my taste. The reflection is too heavy, with hese kind of compositions based on such a heavy reflection i would rather try to avoid any object which is not the main subject, the buidling.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:White noise - Horn loudspeakers at Brastad soccer arena.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 18:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Always wanting to explore things that are normally frowned upon, I think I've found a subject where an overcast sky actually adds to the composition. -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe a useful VI, but I don't get what you found compelling about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support – While those horns aren't anything super gorgeous, these ordinary infrastructure elements can definitely make for a somehow interesting composition. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose An interesting idea, but I think it might have worked better if you had had just the speakers ... the tower has different forms that sort of clash with the curvilinearity and gradients of the horns. Also, you need to rename it to eliminate the superfluous "r" in "loudspearkers", and there's a bit of CA on the rims, too. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Title and CA fixed. Thanks for noticing that. --Cart (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Uhm, no. Sky is uniform grey and dull and I cannot see a subiect. And if there is a sublejct it is not enough WOW or interesting to me, IMO.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any non-uniform sky would just make the whole thing messy. Of course the subject is the horns. As usual I make compos of everyday objects, for me their forms and colors are just as photographically interesting as art objects. I like all the shades of white in the image. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand your point ov view, but im sure you have much more WOW pics in your archive. Why choose such a difficult subject? A question might be: would you ever print this pic and hang it on your living-room wall?:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would make a rather cool canvas in a hallway or an office. I don't confine art to a living room and neither should Commons. Imagine this in the reception of a sound studio. :) It's true that I could do just easy pretty subject, but where is the fun and challange in that? The Wikimedia project needs good photos of all kinds of things not just pretty flowers, churches and birds on twigs. I chose dificult subjects because almost no-one else does. --Cart (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eternal Procession.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 02:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
  •   Info created by Marctoso - uploaded by Marctoso - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 02:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It looks like a wonderful modern painting. A painting which paints an older painting:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It may look like a modern painting, but its elements are too discordant for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support spectacular composition --Neptuul (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Neptuul. Too visually arresting for me to care about anything prosaic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good motive but unfortunately not very well implemented technically. The sky should be darker so that the noise is not so disturbing. Besides, the horizon is quite sloping.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really can't see the reason for the tilted horizon. Also the merge of what I think are two photos, one of the rocks and one of the sky and lights, is not very well done. The sky is too noisy in comparison to the land. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Image:20180819 Panorama ReutteBerge DSC00900 cut PtrQs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 01:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Evocative and beautiful. You half expect to find some vertical lines of kanji characters somewhere on this "scroll". --Cart (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight for me at the bottom, I miss the valleys. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there were reasons to cut the lower 600px of the original stitch. Below the frame you see, the shadows drop and the contrast vanishes. So instead of graded silhouettes like in the peaks you only see areas with few contours. As this happens especially on the left side and there the edge of the effect looks rather sharp, I'd call it unbalanced. So I decided to crop it like this. --PtrQs (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose useless for encyclopaedia Pan Tau (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"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."
FPs are not just for the encyclopedia, they are also for all the other WikiProjects (take a look at the list at the bottom of the main page) plus those we don't even know about yet, so ALL sorts of really good photos are welcome. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My rating is my personal opinion. So don't proselytize me. Pan Tau (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks for teaching me a new English word: "proselytize". I didn't know that one. :) --Cart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  Support Beautiful landscape. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. Doesn't really work for me structurally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 & Pan Tau --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for a web banner but format is absolutely a problem as a photograph.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I've read that you are satisfied by 20x30 cm handouts. But in this format every picture of a full mountain range would present only some millimeters of rock and a real lot of sky above. So maybe you could spend some time and look up the definition of 'panorama'? --PtrQs (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, well, assuming that an Italian speaker like me must know what "panorama" means (and most probably a greek speaker even more) I perfectly understand that you might love this kind of format. Personally I do not appreciate this format unless is used as a web banner or printed and hanged on a wall. But still, even on a web banner or sticked on a wall i do not appreciate this photograph, I find it too panoramic, too large and not enough high. I gave my explanation which seems to be similar to others who wrote "Doesn't really work for me structurally" (i must imagine its more or less what i worte too). Techincally it is a well done work but still i dont feel to vote it as a Featured picture for the reasons i said above. I appreciate a lot the smothness of tones and the different tones. But i also find the mountain on the right too visible and dark, catching much of my attention, while in a panoramic picture i expect to let my eye go around without being captured by a single detail.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) Carattere fiero-Anima gentile 3 (1912).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 19:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- One of the masteripeces of sculptor Adolfo Wildt; yellowish tone is typical of Wildt's way to treat marble, I chose to divide the pic in 2 area, keeping the lower one as negative space; vignetting is natural, and given by illumination on the scenePaolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Do we really need all of the pedestal? It's dark and doesn't really add anything to the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, in my opinion: the picture is evidently formed by 2 distinct parts: a bright golden one with the main subject at the top (eyes start looking at one object from the top, usually) and a black one at the bottom which creates a large negative space which emphasizes the top part by giving more strenghth to the sculpure and visibility. Tha lower part might even be seen as a kind of "bust" of the head, with shoulders and body. The sculpture itself is quite complicated to be framed becasue of its shape and this picture doesnt want to be a simple description of the sculpture, but wants to create a kind of atmosphere around the sculputure. No square composition was allowed here, so choice was one only. Vignetting and bottom black part area intended to focus atention on the sculpture. Paolobon140 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A "heavy" compo, like something you'd see in a Batman or Marvel album, but such a compo needs to be flawless and the cut corner on the top is the pedestal really bugs me, even if you probably aren't responsible for how the sculpture was displayed. Also technical quality is not up to what might be expected from a static shot, lots of red CA, chromatic noise and a bit too short DoF. Camera settings might not have been optimal. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I will not discuss about composition, that is the composition i chose becasue it was the one i liked the most and your taste is most respectful. Only thing id say is that the heavy composition fits the heavy expression of the face...For the quality i often have the sensation, here, that commenters are putting an over attention on the pixels. Digital photography produces large files which, when printed, become much smaller than the file itself. Many of the small details you can see at full size disappear in a normal format print. Just for information: one picture of the same set (different sculpure with different marble tones, same sculptor, but same camera settings, same place, same day and same hand of the photographer), is the cover of one quite good book by a well known editor. The editor didn't find any flaw in the file and printed it with a perfect result. When we had to print from films it was the opposite way and small flaws on the negative would look more evident in prints. A kind of photograph like this gives its best if printed at some 20x30 cm. Paolobon140 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are much more fastidious here than most publication editors. If the technical level can be improved in post-processing or by re-shooting the photo, we would like it too be. We can overlook such things if the "wow" is so great that the situation/composition overrules the technical issues. Regarding the "heavy" compo, I never said that it was a negative thing, just commented on what kind of compo it was and as such I'd like it to be flawless for an FP. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, googling "Carattere fiero-Anima gentile" I see that the marble is a bit yellowish, but not as much as in this photo. This saturation makes it look almost waxy and not like marble. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is much more stronger than you see in other pics; i think other pics are taken with those cameras that balance everything till it gets white. Wildt was famous for his yellow marbles, obtained by shining marble with urine and tobacco. This picture is very close to the original tone but the museum, in tht occasion, chose a yellowish illumination to enhance the golden tones of marble. I reproduced exactly what the human eye was seeing in that exposition. It was a choice by the light designer. In the book cover you will see a less yellow tone becasue that sculputure is less yellow itself and light was chosen whiter.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - This is one of the cases in which our tastes differ. A photo that's utterly pitch black in the lower half doesn't work for me, or at least this one doesn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Snowflake macro photography 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Is this real? --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Real, but very heavily processed and the flake should be rotated. Charles (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - When you say it's heavily processed, do you think any of the colors were altered? I'm inclined to support but would like to read your answer (or anyone else's answer). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Snowflakes don't have any color, so the color comes from the light source which is rather pleasant here. The enthusiastic processing is from noise reduction and amplified contrast and such things. Compare with this. Although I suspect that some of the very smooth edges comes from it starting to melt a bit. There are also a lot of small bubbles on it, suggesting that some liquid is present. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks.   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info The author hasn't been active for years so I took the liberty of rotating the flake. Please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per rotators. Thank you, Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Baby Huwae, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Tati Photo Studio, restored and uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I would vote to support, but are watermarks allowed in historical photos? I hope so and would like for it to remain in the photo, but I think it's important to resolve the question. Normally, no copyrights or watermarks are allowed for featured photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Gaura lindheimeri, prachtkaars. (actm) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 17:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Gaura lindheimeri, 'Whirling Butterflies' #Family Onagraceae.
  •   Info Elegant small flower between the flower buds of the Gaura lindheimeri.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support In many shots like this I would complain about the bluish whitebalance, but with these flowers and setting I think it works for the photo in a melancholy way. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart; the bluish tint nicely counterbalances the hot pink. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment too noisy at the moment. Charles (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is very distracting and the main subject gets lost in it. A shallower dof would be better.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Lauenstein Burg 9302266-Pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 21:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Could you possibly add more to the left? The crops feel unbalanced to me because there are many more trees to the right of the fortress than to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done I had an inch left. Actually I didn't miss anything but with the additional piece it really looks better.--Ermell (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it as it is with the spire on rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - That edit made the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Me too. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more space on the top and left but OK :) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know it actually is not, but it looks tilted to the right; i think due to the shape of trees.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
  •   Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is actually the back half of an unintentional slow delist and replace. After my 2015 version was recently demoted due to the discovery that its margin of promotion had been due to one now-banned user !voting twice with one of his sock accounts, I looked at it and decided against renominating it as it was since a) I'm not totally sure as it was that I would have voted for it if someone else had nominated it and b) I have learned more about editing my images since then. I also realized that some of the oppose !votes in the original had had some points.

    So, instead, I dragged out the original raw file and started from scratch. The result is an image that I would definitely support if someone else nominated it ... less brightness on the building and the clouds and thus easier on the eyes, its perspective slightly corrected, and not cropped in as much at the left so we can see a bit more of its locational context. (I would also like to thank Cart for one last tweak she suggested).

    I see this as not just a worthy candidate but a testament to how regular participation in this forum can help us grow and improve at our art. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. The Star Trek building is definitely better than before, so here is my vote. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lower part of the picture is quite messy. The guy on the left and the cut-off signs on the right do not belong in on the image, the lamppost on the left is not vertical. That' s no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, to live in a world where all lampposts really are vertical. I never assume that a lamppost is perfectly vertical IRL. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. Of course I don't think that all the lampposts are vertical, but you can see here that the image is distorted, which is nothing unusual with the focal length used. But one could try to change that. Just because the building has no horizontals or verticals nobody is bothered by it.--Ermell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermell: I have cropped the image at bottom and left to eliminate those two things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, but the guy with the camera doesn't make any sense at all.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But the guy is annoying! Charles (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I agree that this is a better composition than the 2015 version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite some unsharpness in the corners --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a messy composition, too many things, too many objects, too many clouds, too many colours and mainly, no depth.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 14:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
  •   Info An L-class steam locomotive in operation at Bologoye-2 railway station, Tver Oblast, Russia ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice old Soviet lady! The little platform in front is a bit disturbing as it partially hides the wheels. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI if that were sought, but for me it has too many distracting elements—not just the platform, but the buildings, trees and tracks, for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rich in detail. --Milseburg (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm with Daniel here. The light is also rather glary, making it unpleasant to look at. --Cart (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose platform. Charles (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sublject and poor composition, the trains gets lost in the building in the back.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 07:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:M81.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 07:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Young girl smiling with teeth in sunshine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Evocative.--Peulle (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good portrait, almost too detailed at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow, no depth, too much dof, dull light and a simple composition. This pic might have been taken enywhere in the wordl, nothing that adds that special feeling about a distant country. That prt of her right arm really look like a disturb and the tree above her hada shoud not be there. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "...that special feeling about a distant country." There are no distant countries on Commons, we all depict what we have in "our own backyard" on equal terms, and the Wikimedia project is way past orientalism, thankfully. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i dont know what Orientalism is and actually im not much interested in knowing what it means as I have spent years all over in Asia. We are commenting on a picture that you have selected to be a Featured picture. Im an italian, and when i see a close portrait of some person who seems to live on the other side of the world, id like to see what is around that person, how she is dressed, what makes her look different from the people i see around in my country, how is the world around that person. I want to see something "special", "particular", "different", i want to see a small piece of Asia in a picture. If not we are obliged to judge your pic for what it is, a very close portrait of a smiling little kid. Your choise to shoot a close portait, cutting everything which is not the face of the model (you even cut her 2 arms), and then let's judge the portrait without talking about Orientalism. Close portraits have rules, and i think you didnt follow any of those rules for a good close portait. She might be african, esquimese, american, albanese, chinese, but it remains a dull close portrait. We can then comment on the techinque of your portrait and I find it quite a dull normal portrait with no depth that anybody with a mobile phone can take. What did your photographic art or skill add? For me you didnt add anything. Should i comment on the beauty of the subject? She is not a particulr beauty in my eyes, she has an average childish siling expression which is cute but can be seen on the face of any child around the world. Should i comment on the lighting you chose? There is no lighting, there is a frontal single light (the sun) that makes a heavy shadow under her chin. Should i comment on how good this close portrait is composed? I see one tree above her hair which shouldnt be there and a large spot on the right side of the photo, just near her hear. What elese should I say? When i see a close portrait [http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/arte/2016/01/15/foto/ragazza_afgana_steve_mccurry_foto_all_asta-131322463/1/#1 i would like to see a picture like this becasue the photographer chose the model and found the way to make thta model look extraordinry. Ew are selecting Featured pictures for Commons, why should i be contented with a simple portrait? Lets try to make something better, this is what i expect personally.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not Cart's nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Man in paddy fields plowing with a water buffalo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see what struck you—the way the buffalo and the man are sort of echoed by the trees above them—but the light here is too harsh and flat. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see it flat, with a flat light, flat colours, no depth. You should try to dare more and put some creativity. The biggerst problem i see is that the trees above the animal and the man have the same shape of the anumal and the man. IMO.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Bubble Nebula - NGC 7635 - Heic1608a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gallina de Guinea (Numida meleagris), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 48.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 19:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

+1 Daniel Case (talk)   Support now. 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Charles, Daniel, Martin:   Done --Poco2 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Ceriántido, Aquarium de Ciudad del Cabo, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-19, DD 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 17:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Affresco di Gioacchino Martorana Palazzo Butera Palermo quadrato.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2018 at 16:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors#Italy

File:Cumbre dorsal - Teide.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2018 at 08:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely layers and a cloud plume in the right place. --Cart (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It had the potentials for a good photo but in my opinion there is no subject: the picture is correctly divided in 4 areas: sky, the background mountain, the right part with clouds and a foreground with anther mountain. It is a kind of composition that might give great resutls if only one of the 4 areas contained somethng notable, but as you can see none of the 4 areas of the pic contain anything interesting to watch and contemplate. Actually one subject is missing, and the dull sky doesnt help with those few small clouds. It looks like an empty scene where no subject comes out to catch the eye of the observer.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Frozen drop.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 18:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Thanks, Daniel and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very cool  . Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like it, but surely, this is shot live and not animated, so do change the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ooops, strike 'support' per El Grafo, I watched the video on mute and didn't realize there was music. It is totally redundant for this. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Still shaky. Second reason for refusal remains. Not excellent. --Smial (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Nocturne Op. 9, No. 2 (Chopin). Kruusamägi (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but is it free ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as long as proper credit is not given for the music, keeping in mind that there may be separate copyrights for composition, performance, recording etc.. Also, the music is cut off abruptly at the end. Personally, I would just get rid of the audio track completely. --El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I added the information about music to the file description. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes that is good, it says which piece it is, but not who is playing or from what recording it is. How do we know the recording is free or is it the author of the video who is playing too? --Cart (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Maxim didn't remember who's piece it was, but he had checked that it was definitely in PD. I told him to upload a new version without music. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done No more music. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. There is lots of free licenced music available (cc-by-sa, artlibre...) in the WWW. Also the tripod appears to be not rock solid. --Smial (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per objections about the music. As a musician and composer, I should care about the use of recordings without permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Macro portrait of a housefly Musca domestica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 18:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
  •   Info created & uploaded by Irina Petrova - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very impressive, but the top crop is really tight. --C messier (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose really doesn't work as a composition and close up the quality is not great. Charles (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support very good caotic composition. Habitator terrae 🌍 23:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles; we have better FPs of insect heads in closeup. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop on top is too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me! --PierreSelim (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High quality image on the technical side, but the crop just doesn't work. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File:1858 Gustave Le Gray la batterie Royale à Brest.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 16:14:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • C’est l’une des photos de la série que Gustave Le Gray a fait dans le cadre de la visite de Napoléon III à Brest lors d’une tournée des ports français. Cette tournée a été marquante et a fait l’objet de nombreuse peintures et gravures [[1]]. À cette époque Le gray est photographe officiel du Second Empire (cf biographie). Il a du coup accès a ce site militaire, cette batterie Royale dont c’est la seule représentation (vue sous cet angle) que je connaisse. On y retrouve son style très descriptif, hérité de la mission héliographique et on peut donc observer un état des lieux de "l'art militaire" (architecture et artillerie). Le gray n’est pas seulement un pionnier de la photographie (pensée comme un art à part-entière) il est aussi un des premiers à mettre son travail au service du recensement des monuments historiques … un encyclopédiste à sa manière.
  • Please add that explanation to the description on the file's page. Also, again, please remember to sign everything you write here. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I added information in the description --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Wie met de heele wereld wil verkeeren, moet eerst Esperanto leeren!.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 23:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2014.07.17.-16-Zadlitzgraben Pressel--Schwarze Heidelibelle-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 17:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ganzenveer bedekt met dauw. (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 16:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds A feather of a goose.
  •   Info The geese are in the moult. Quill pen covered with dew. (Nature created artwork on the grass.) Location, The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Whitebalance is just little, little too blue for me (could be fixed), but at any larger size the feather is stunningly beautiful. --Cart (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the idea but the background is a little noisy ... could that be fixed? Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done. Correction white balance and noise reduction. Thank you for your comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Unusual... and great! --Yann (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Field with mixed intercropping of oat and rye.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 13:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info In 2018, farmers around here tested different versions of mixed intercropping. Unfortunately most of it was lost during the drought later in the summer. -- Cart (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way the rye(?) on the right (rye-t?) makes a nice golden summery haze (Was there a slight breeze at the time?). Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On the right side is the mixed oat and rye field. There was very little wind that evening but we sometimes get hazy evenings anyway due to the proximity to the sea. That evening, the hazy light was almost magical as you might see in this photo, not sure the ambience I felt then comes across in these photos taken from the same spot. (The photo with the golden dry grass is fonder for me, but I don't see it as having a chance here since I put the focus on the grass instead of the rest of the scene since the landscape was hazy anyway. Such artistic choices are usually not well received. ;) ) --Cart (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support To my eyes this image represents the perfect landscape photography. BRAVO! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes it so good? I ask not to challenge but in hopes of learning something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment First of all it is a matter of personal taste. I love photos with distinct presentation of foreground-middleground-background and the road just leads the eye from near to far. The bended road devides the image into two halves and gives the picture certain dynamics. The low standing sun models the objects by the shadows and gives nice contrasts. The decent colors of green on the left side and the yellow-green on the right half give joy to my eye. As I mentioned above, it gives me good vibes; but that is a my personal point of view. DE GUSTIBUS NON DISPUTANDUM. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, Cart is a an artist with her camera, just to repeat her own words: "Such artistic choices are usually not well received." I do receive them very well. Cart, you visualize the spirit (peaceful Scandinavia) of the landscape. Thanks for contributing delicate photos to QIC like this. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull, uninteresting and without a subject; horizon is too much up in the composition and gives the feeling to be tilted. rule of thirds is not respected. Sky is not interesting and the green fields are not enough interesting to be shown. Overall this picture has no WOW at all.Paolobon140 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is interesting when someone who speaks so strongly about artistic freedom when it comes to vignetting, wants to impose the 'rule of third' as a law and take away artistic freedom in regard to proportions. --Cart (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • But rule of thirds is automatically recognised by a human eye like "pleasant". It is a matter of how our brains is used to look at reality. Yes, you can avoid using the rule of thirds but must find something extremely interesting to brek the rules. Actually rule of thirds is one of the few and basic rules which is tought in any photographic lessons, even the basic ones. Try to imagine your picture with more sky and less crops; try to imagine moving yourself a bit on the left and shoot from a different angle and you might see a much better result, Cyan dull skies are never photogenic (usually a wrong set camera, with too much cyan); trees on the horizon always make the horizon look tilted; a road making a curve always needs a subject in it, even someone walking, an animal, a bicycle, whatever. This picture is an empty frame; some ignetting would have added some little more interest.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh! Thank you for you many wise advice and comments, I will certainly remember what you said the next time I take a photo. --Cart (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to see if I understood you correctly, is this photo better: File:Field with mixed intercropping of oat and rye 2 - edited.jpg? I tried to follow your advice; step to the left, road and sky at thirds, more dramatic sky, vignetting. --Cart (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I love it: it is a very balanced composition, with brillant tones and the curve of the road ends in the bottom right corner of the photograph, escaping from the composition. Pity for those white buildings in the background. Vignetting adds much giving depth to the view, rule of thirds adds dynamicity to a very static composition. I wonder if you could wait for sometone to pass on the road and shoor when he was in some interesting position on the right bottom part of the photograph. It would add more dynamicity. Those clouds on the top left part are perfectly placed (who knows if the were on the right part to balance the trees?) I would suggest to burn parts of the clouds to make them a bit whiter. Thank you for the interesting conevrstaion.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is always amusing reading certain writers. I have even read an american historician who wrote a book where he swears that the ancient egiptian pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, but it remains his own point ov view. Caravaggio used the rules of thirds constantly, for example here. No, I will not consider that writer. The rules has been used for centuries by painters and has been adopted by photographers. You can give a look at the figures here: you will find nice ways to use the rule of thirds also in portraits.Paolobon140 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My father, who was a well-known painter in his day, taught me a lot about how to read space, perceive a linear arabesque and lots of other aspects of visual arts. He never once mentioned a "rule of thirds" to me. And in the 21st century, after we've gone through over a century of avant-garde art and come out the other side, to insist robotically on a "rule" is IMO inane and contemptible. Just look at the photo and judge it by how it strikes you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering that the "Rule of Thirds" was invented by an Englishman several centuries after Caravaggio, the Italian painter was not even aware of this "rule" and certainly couldn't have consciously applied it. Not one notable painter or photographer has ever claimed to have composed their work according to this so-called "rule". Paolobon140, the image you linked is notable for having no key features on any of the "rule of thirds" lines or intersections, nor on the Golden Ratio either. It does have the face on a "rule of fourths" intersection, but that's a "rule" I just made up. -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The only significant composition element in old-school painting that has the number "3" in it is the triangular composition. Well, after that, the next number up was "4" for cubism. --Cart (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Left side leaning out, lack of detail in many areas --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a fjord land where most parts of the land are leaning, not a flat land. The left side is sloping down towards a small stream, not much I can do about it. --Cart (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question What's the black stripe above the horizon on the very left side? --Milseburg (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a telecom mast, probably the one at (58.410864|11.518983). I honestly hadn't noticed it and I have no idea why it seems a bit crooked. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll fix it later tonight at home. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Mast is now ok plus a small perspective correction. I must have accidentally nudged the mast when I was de-bugging the photo. There were a lot of creatures of all sizes out flying that warm evening. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's nothing special. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Chiesa della Martorana Palero mosaico Cristo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2018 at 14:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why does this have to be photographed off-centre? Charles (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak support The bar is very high for church ceilings and the light could have been better, but the sharpness is very good.--Peulle (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, I still don't think this is up to FP standards. It may not be your fault that the best viewpoint is inaccessible to the public, but as noted the bar for church ceiling photos is very high and this, to me, does not clear it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment If the best viewpoint is ineacessible better not take a picture. Or choose a different viewpoint. If there is no good viewpoint, then just choose a different subject.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Well then never take a picture of a shark’s teeth since the best viewpoint is from inside his mouth--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Dülmener Pferde im Merfelder Bruch -- 2018 -- 1541.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2018 at 05:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Equidae_(Equids)
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 05:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Special. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment At thumb this looks like a dream-horse poster for any young girl's room, but at any larger size the pus in the eyes is very off-putting. Any chance of getting rid of that, or is that too much manipulation for some voters? --Cart (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
For me it is too much and not natural. The horse is a wild horse without any care by humans. So it would be wrong to manipulate the image in the way you proposed. Sorry. --XRay talk 10:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, and I find the stump a bit distracting. Per Cart, the pus is also a deal-breaker when viewed at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ordinary picture, not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Mon 12 Nov → Sat 17 Nov
Tue 13 Nov → Sun 18 Nov
Wed 14 Nov → Mon 19 Nov
Thu 15 Nov → Tue 20 Nov
Fri 16 Nov → Wed 21 Nov
Sat 17 Nov → Thu 22 Nov

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

Thu 08 Nov → Sat 17 Nov
Fri 09 Nov → Sun 18 Nov
Sat 10 Nov → Mon 19 Nov
Sun 11 Nov → Tue 20 Nov
Mon 12 Nov → Wed 21 Nov
Tue 13 Nov → Thu 22 Nov
Wed 14 Nov → Fri 23 Nov
Thu 15 Nov → Sat 24 Nov
Fri 16 Nov → Sun 25 Nov
Sat 17 Nov → Mon 26 Nov

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/November 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/November 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/November 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.