Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Deutsche Benutzeroberfläche Diese Projektseite in anderen Sprachen: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC

Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten Springe zu den aktuellen Abwahl-Kandidaten

Dies sind die Kandidaten für die exzellenten Bilder. Beachte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um das Bild des Tages handelt.

[edit] Formalien

[edit] Nominierung

[edit] Leitsätze für die Nominierung

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

• Auflösung – Fotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,93 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.

Grafiken auf Commons können auch in andere Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.

• Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.

• Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.

• Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.

• Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.

• Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{RetouchedPicture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen aktzeptabel.

• Wert – unser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
  • nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
  • Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
  • schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

• Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.

• Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.

• Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.

• Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Aperturen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Aperturen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

• Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.

• Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.

• Farbe ist wichtig. Übersaturierte Farben sind nicht gut.

• Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.

• Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.

• Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.

• Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.

Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.

• Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.

Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

[edit] Eine neue Nominierung aufstellen

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in diesen Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.

Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

[edit] Abstimmung

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

• {{Support}} ( Support) (Stimme zur Unterstüzung des Exzellenz-Status'),
• {{Oppose}} ( Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
• {{Neutral}} ( Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
• {{Comment}} ( Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
• {{Info}} ( Info:) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
• {{Question}} ( Question: ) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

[edit] Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellen

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten war, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit {{Keep}}  Keep (das Bild verdient es, exzellent zu sein) oder mit {{Delist}}  Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht, exzellent zu sein).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:

In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

• Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
• Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
• Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

[edit] Richtlinien für Exzellenz-Kandidaten

[edit] Allgemeine Regeln

1. Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
4. Stimmen von anonymen Mitwirkenden werden nicht gezählt.
5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
6. Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jeder Zeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
   oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
7. Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
8. Bilder werden vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen, wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt („Regel des 5. Tages“).
9. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.

[edit] Regeln zur Wahl und Abwahl

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
2. Mindestens 5 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
4. Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Für Anweisung, wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

[edit] Vor allem sei freundlich

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß bei Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

[edit] Siehe auch

• Zum Bearbeiten der Liste mit den Nominierungen klicke auf: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• Für eine chronologische Liste, siehe Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• Für ein Archiv vergangener Nominierungen, siehe Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• Für eine Anleitung wie man Nominierungen beendet, siehe Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist

• Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder
• Kritiken von Fotografien

[edit] Inhaltsübersicht

Contents 1 Formalien 1.1 Nominierung 1.1.1 Leitsätze für die Nominierung 1.1.2 Eine neue Nominierung aufstellen 1.2 Abstimmung 1.3 Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellen 1.4 Richtlinien für Exzellenz-Kandidaten 1.4.1 Allgemeine Regeln 1.4.2 Regeln zur Wahl und Abwahl 1.5 Vor allem sei freundlich 1.6 Siehe auch 2 Inhaltsübersicht 3 Exzellenz-Kandidaten 3.1 File:Gallivare dundret 2005.jpg 3.2 File:Electricity pole.JPG 3.3 File:Raitersaich SK DSC 0028.jpg 3.4 Set nomination: VFA-204 River Rattlers 3.5 File:Sokółka - Town hall.jpg 3.6 File:Tarn Shelf Mt Field National Park 2.jpg 3.7 File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg 3.8 File:The Four Stones.jpg 3.9 File:US Navy 051111-N-9362D-012 A U.S. Navy Sailor mans a .50 caliber machine gun mount on the Khawr Al Arnaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT) during sunset.jpg 3.10 File:Kos priests.jpg 3.11 File:AmbewelaFarms-April2009.jpg 3.12 File:Malnurished Afghan Child.jpg 3.13 File:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg 3.14 File:Estómago.svg 3.15 File:Laughing Kookaburra Gravestone.jpg 3.16 File:Oxbow Bend outlook in the Grand Teton National Park.jpg 3.17 File:.50 BMG-caliber machine gun ammunition - ID 070628-N-7981E-027.jpg 3.18 Image:Pinball Dot Matrix Display - Demolition Man.JPG 3.19 File:Katta in Berenty.jpg 3.20 File:Chamäleon1.jpg 3.21 File:Abbazia di Melk - Fontana all'esterno.jpg 3.22 File:ŽS class 710 between Jasenovik and Vrelo.jpg 3.23 File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg 3.23.1 Alternative 3.24 Image:Frauenkirche Dresden Detail.jpg 3.25 File:Sossusvlei sand dunes.jpg 3.26 File:Spitzkoppe 360 Panorama.jpg 3.27 File:Plaza del Coso de Peñafiel.jpg 3.28 File:Artcarfest in San Francisco.jpg 3.28.1 edit 3.29 File:Fundamentfuss-Stuttgarter-Fernsehturm-beschriftet-de.png 3.29.1 Alternative 3.30 Skyline of Toronto 3.31 File:At close grips2.jpg 3.32 File:TautropfenRose2.JPG 3.33 File:Maro stern.jpg 3.34 File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg 3.35 File:Fumarole solfatara 2005.jpg, not featured 3.36 File:Granada, 1970.1.jpg, not featured 3.37 File:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg 3.38 File:Petra Jordan BW 43.JPG 3.39 File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg 3.39.1 Alt version 3.40 File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg 3.41 File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg 3.42 File:Petra Jordan BW 36.JPG 3.43 File:Phellinus igniarius Oak 2009 G2.jpg 3.44 File:Flag-map of the world.svg 3.45 File:Hoodoos in the Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg, featured 3.46 File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg 3.46.1 Edit 1 3.47 File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968 Cropped.jpg, not featured 4 Abwahl-Kandidaten 5 Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung) 6 Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)

[edit] Exzellenz-Kandidaten

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: den Cache-Speicher der Seite löschen

[edit] File:Gallivare dundret 2005.jpg

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: - Created and uploaded by User:Eino81 --Eino81 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

[edit] File:Electricity pole.JPG

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 19:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Please credit as Rubinstein Felix) - uploaded by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - nominated by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Raitersaich SK DSC 0028.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 15:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Simonizer (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A powerful image! The composition strongly focuses on the power lines, no disturbing stuff around. Thechnically OK. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Set nomination: VFA-204 River Rattlers

Voting period ends on 1 January 2010 at 13:31

2 Mixed formation of F/A-18s and F-15 Eagles

4 Eight Hornets in formation

• Info: created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John P. Curtis (US Navy), uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's been a while since we've had a set nomination, and I think all of these pictures are worth promoting. They show some interesting formation flying by VFA-204, the Louisiana-based 'River Rattlers', who fly F/A-18 Hornets and F-15 Eagles.
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Why is everybody against ammunition or machine guns because they are war propaganda and glorify the war, but nobody is against jet fighters for the same reasons? --Kabelleger (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I can answer that, but the answer would be highly unfavourable to some people. Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Welcome to one of the thorniest issues of Commons:FPC...Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yay, airplanes! Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: (and sarcasm at the same time, as courtesy to the nominator ) Would it be possible to make the filenames even longer? Wolf (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going to rename them like you asked, but based on the wait times from previous renaming efforts, I would have been here until February, and like a kid with a cool toy, I just couldn't wait. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: How does set voting work? If they were individual I would oppose number 4 for composition (planes not symmetric, and too far down the image), but would support the others. What should I vote? --99of9 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Really? That's my favourite. Well, each to his (or her) own. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain As 99of9 mentions, how should set voting work ? I think the guidelines should have a section about it if we should use it. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the set. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sokółka - Town hall.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 12:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Yarl -- Yarl ✉ 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Yarl ✉ 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose obvious CA visible at thumbnail size (watch the downspouts). It's nice you could take the picture without any cars in front. But one should crop the parking slot markings. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tarn Shelf Mt Field National Park 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 11:53:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It didn't go too well at enwiki so may fail miserably, but the Tarn Shelf circuit is my other favourite day walk. It is a pity that many people visit Russell Falls down below without driving up to Lake Dobson and walking up here. --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2009 at 10:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Simonizer -- Simonizer (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great view, nice light and good quality-- Simonizer (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good, but I really would like to see more stuff on bottom (it should be wider). —kallerna™ 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The panorama was taken from the top of a cliff. The "path" up is rather steep as well. You would not be missing much except some rock in the foreground. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support-- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support One of my favourite walks. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• За Very good, well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As I was going to nominate it myself at some stage, it would be rude not to support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great Nikopol (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, very nice. --Aqwis (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Oh yes! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support lovely. --99of9 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong support. Nice image notes, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Four Stones.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 22:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Pianoplonkers - uploaded by Pianoplonkers - nominated by Pianoplonkers -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment A little more info about the stones would be nice. I imagine they're more than just "stones"... Kleuske (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversaturated green --Simonizer (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kallerna I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:US Navy 051111-N-9362D-012 A U.S. Navy Sailor mans a .50 caliber machine gun mount on the Khawr Al Arnaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT) during sunset.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 17:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by US Navy - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The sunset makes the composition great, Machine gun is sharp, colors are beautiful.-- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: There's a dustspot to the left of the soldier's head. Wolf (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry but that is really too much of military romance. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Romantic! :D Diti the penguin — 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I find this glorification of war simply disgusting. -- H005 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yet another sunset... The fact that there's a gun in front of it doesn't help. Kleuske (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Haven't we got enough A.S. armed forces pictures already? MartinD (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kos priests.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 17:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karel (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Composition would be much enhanced if cropped to the porch (Wall and window add nothing), although it may then be too small for FP.--Garrondo (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment You know, I was thinking about cuting image, but from my point of view this blue shutter and other things are typical for the atmosphere of Greece. But of course, this is just the matter your feeling... --Karel (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too bright and bad crop. --.dsm. 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Nice, but too many compromises in the composition: bench cut, arch cut. Also, the perspective should have been corrected. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:AmbewelaFarms-April2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 12:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Rehman - uploaded by Rehman - nominated by Rehman -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, poor quality, now wow. —kallerna™ 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I can't see anything very noteworthy in this picture. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kallerna, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Also there should be no watermarks. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination I understand your points. :) Thanks for your time.

---

[edit] File:Malnurished Afghan Child.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 11:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Severnjc - uploaded by Severnjc - nominated by Severnjc -- Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Photo of an 18-month old Afghan girl who weighed 14 pounds when presented to doctors. Currently the only extant photo for wikipedia articles Telogen effluvium (hair loss due to malnutrition) and, amazingly, malnutrition itself. Exposure is slightly on the high side, resulting on some burn-out on the white packaging materials in the lower right (I stepped the exposure up slightly to avoid using the flash to fill shadows, which the medics felt would be distracting). Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Severnjc (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think the high value of this image overrides its technical merits. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: How about a crop at the bottom? I'd say that it would be a good idea to crop up until the flag on the shoulder. It would get rid of some overexposed fragments and make the composition less "traditional". Wolf (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Kleuske (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This version. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative

• Info: Cropped per Wolf's suggestion. Seems to help focus more attention on the child, but on the other hand showing the packing materials and medical equipment demonstrated the medical emergency nature of the child's malnutrition. Both have their merits and I support either version. Severnjc (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I find this one a lot better. It's far from perfect in terms of quality, but a good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Wolf (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Works for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2009 at 02:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Wolfgangbeyer - uploaded by Wolfgangbeyer - nominated by Dude1818 -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Could a higher resolution version be made easily? --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes it would be possible to create the same image in much higer resolution. To be exact, it could be as large until Wikipedia reaches the filesize limit. --Niabot (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. Given the nature of fractals, I would like to see a higher resolution version before supporting this. You might also want to consider a lossless image format. --MattiPaavola (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Estómago.svg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 23:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Danilo94 - uploaded by Danilo94 - nominated by Danilo94 -- Danilo94 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danilo94 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Dude1818 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laughing Kookaburra Gravestone.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 23:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Oh yes :) I like this one a lot. Good image of the bird, DOF etc with a great setting. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, IMO far too soft. —kallerna™ 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oxbow Bend outlook in the Grand Teton National Park.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 18:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support White balance may be slightly off, but what a composition! --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - WOW --Pudelek (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nice picture, but it does not WOW me. The things that would and in the background and partly obscured. Kleuske (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The background is stunning, sadly the foreground is too intrusive for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Odd colours, small problems with quality, composition doesn't work for me. —kallerna™ 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose colors look not natural, unsharp, quality is too bad --Simonizer (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree about the colors, they look a bit bleak. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per MattiPaavola. --.dsm. 20:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Foreground is not that convincing, but IMO the background sufficiantly makes up for it. Nikopol (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per MattiPaavola Je-str (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:.50 BMG-caliber machine gun ammunition - ID 070628-N-7981E-027.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 14:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by US-Navy - uploaded by D-Kuru - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition with batch of bullets at the front and a soldier preparing the machine gun in the back.-- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Inappropriate form for this matter. This is not a packshot of your favorite fruit-tea brand. It should just be informative and technical. This is military gear and this kind of moody, positive-feelings depiction is manipulative. Any suggestion that high caliber machine-gun rounds be used for nice-afternoon walk on the waterfront is supposedly against Balanced approach. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, you want the image to contain some blood ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Read once again. --Blago Tebi (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment, military propaganda pictures have been promoted to FPs numerous times in the past, and I see no reason to make an exception for this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yay, war propaganda. Wolf (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing special --AngMoKio (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support High quality picture of ammunition, regardless of propaganda effect. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per AngMoKio --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too shallow DOF. —kallerna™ 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutrale It's not inappropriate, I'm regardless of propaganda effect, but I don't like it enought to support for FP --Phyrexian (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination I hope this is only because of the absence of wow...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Image:Pinball Dot Matrix Display - Demolition Man.JPG

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 10:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Large (gas discharge) matrix display used in pinball machines.
• Info: created by ElHeineken - uploaded by ElHeineken - nominated by ElHeineken -- ElHeineken (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ElHeineken (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good demonstration on what DOF means, but no WOW enough for a FP status. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like it - I like the EV, I like the concept and composition. Wolf (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per MattiPaavola --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Should be sharper. —kallerna™ 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Katta in Berenty.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, poor quality. —kallerna™ 10:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because backlit subject, poor quality

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--ianaré (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I withdraw my nomination 91.13.222.87 08:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] File:Chamäleon1.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby

- nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, but IMO too noisy and too shallow DOF. —kallerna™ 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Abbazia di Melk - Fontana all'esterno.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2009 at 09:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Dongio - uploaded by Dongio - nominated by Dongio -- Dongio (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dongio (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice image but I don't see anything that makes me think it is "featurable", sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - distracting background, overexposed sky --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing spectacular. --Aktron (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ŽS class 710 between Jasenovik and Vrelo.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 21:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the view and these Swedish railcars :) -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry - nice image but nothing that makes me think it is "featurable" --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture. Vrlo odlično. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Herbythyme. -- H005 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 21:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: On November 17, 2009 30 feet chunk of the cliff below the apartment building fell to Pacific Ocean. Residents were given 20 minutes to evacuate the building. Now the workers are trying to save it.Here's view from a balcony of the next building and here is the crane they used to throw boulders under the cliff
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good image with a very high EV given the event (& events in the world as a whole!). Even more focus on the erosion would be equally appropriate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Or this one --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frauenkirche Dresden Detail.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 20:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Can you add some more description, i.e. which face of the dome, geocode, date of exposure? -- H005 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • O.K. - see description Je-str (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice shot. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I foresee many complaints about the crop, but I like tight crops from an unusual perspective. -- H005 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • But does this unusual perspective do justice to the Frauenkirche? Or you care just about your picture and not about the subject? --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not meant to depict the entire Frauenkirche, is it? It shows details of the work, which is helpful in this particular case where old structures have been rebuilt using modern methods. And btw it's not my picture. -- H005 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the composition, quality is also nice. I don´t think images of buildings do always have to show the whole construction, architectural details are also fine with me Nikopol (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• За great composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Congratulations for the courage to shoot such an unusual perspective. In terms of sharpness and exposure this is also a good image. However the documentary value is low. Why? We do not see a full capital, it's cropped on the right. The cornice is interrupted on the left bottom. And we do not see an interesting part of the roof construction. The image could be much better when it would focus on one or two architectural elements. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sossusvlei sand dunes.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Winfried Bruenken (Amrum) - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The simplicity and colour/composition is very appealing --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I support this as it is, but wonder if it is possible to crop a little wider on the right to get nice jagged corners as you have on the left. --99of9 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nikopol (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Herby Je-str (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spitzkoppe 360 Panorama.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:42:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, absolutely terrific. --Aqwis (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support 99of9 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Amrum (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support maybe a bit to black in the stone area but what a view and sharpness! --Simonizer (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and skillful stitch. Nikopol (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• За Well done. Excellent result --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Sebman81 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Etincelles (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Plaza del Coso de Peñafiel.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 14:01:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Rastrojo. Panorama composed by 5 images of a traditional Spanish bullring. Maybe it seems a little bit tilted to left, but it's the real appearance of the square -- Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed sky. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose It is so unfortunate about the sky, because this is otherwise a wonderful scene. Well done. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support La foto es sobre la plaza, el cielo es lo que menos importa. Lourdes (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Matti, plus the wow is limited (although it's an interesting image). @Lourdes: Not only the main subject of the image should have good quality for it to become FP. -- H005 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition. --.dsm. 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as H005, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support La foto tiene un aire misterioso que la hace magnifica y el color del cielo ayuda a ello. --MarisaLR (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Artcarfest in San Francisco.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 13:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Isn't it a bit too red? Wolf (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I discovered the thing after sunset, so I had no choice as to use time exposure. The colors are original. I did not ajust them in PS, but here's a new version:

• Question: What about the artist? I think the least you could do is credit the artist who decorated the car; featuring a work of art without crediting its author would really be unfair. –Tryphon^☂ 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, but I do not know the name of the artist. I even went to their website and emailed them, but they never responded. If I knew the name, I would have removed my name from the desription at all. Could you please give me an advise what should I do in such situation? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have friends in the police department, you could ask them to run the license plate number :) –Tryphon^☂ 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have friends there, but it is a good idea. Maybe, if I explain to police what I need it for they will help me:) In a meantime I believe I deserve to be awarded with "unfair FPC contributor" barnstar  :) BTW here's a side story about police. Once my car was broken into, and my camera was stolen. Few weeks later on the same parking lot I saw two men standing next to the broken window of another car. Except the two men parking lot was deserted, no people only few empty cars here and there, yet the men parked their van right next to the car with a broken window. The glass from the window was on the ground. The break was fresh. When the men saw me they got back to their car, and left. I was able to take few images of them, and their car with my new camera. I went to police, but they explained to me that as long as I did not actually see how they broken that window, nothing could be done about the men. They refused to run any check on them at all. I called my insurance company, the one, who paid for my stolen camera, but they were not interested either--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment The description of the image was changed to the best of my ability. Thank you, Tryphon, for pointing it out to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I was told I cannot do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Kleuske (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the edited version Dude1818 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much stuff. The "wow" was lost with the modifications. —kallerna™ 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to support original :) --Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Definitely of interest. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The main subject contains many details. Therefore, I would prefer a very simple background to keep the balance. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fundamentfuss-Stuttgarter-Fernsehturm-beschriftet-de.png

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 11:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, nominated by -- Niabot (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Niabot (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support high EV, nice diagram Wladyslaw (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice and clean, especially the numbered version. ElHeineken (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question: is this a photo or is a some kind of rendered image? The DOF is a bit low which could get fixed in a rendered image, I guess. In general I agree it is a nice diagram. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is an rendered image. I increased the DOF from 0.8 to 1.1 --Niabot (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it your intention to have the inner parts of that fundament slightly out of focus? --AngMoKio (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes it was. I wanted the points with the explanations inside focus, so it is a slight bit before the center. --Niabot (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Wouldn't it be better to make it language independent by numbering the parts instead ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Informative, illustrative and well composed and rendered. Kleuske (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I support the numbered version instead. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

A numbered version is also available. --Niabot (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support for the numbered international version only. - Well done! --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This version. --99of9 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline of Toronto

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 10:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Wladyslaw - uploaded by Wladyslaw - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks great, but could be a little bit sharper (counts for every image). ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbing foreground, unsharp too. --AM (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hätte man sich das Bild genau angeschaut wüsste man, dass es kein Schiff ist, was da am rechten Rand zu sehen ist. Wladyslaw (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well done HDR, good perspective and comp. --Ikiwaner (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good technical quality, but I'd like to see the boat been either fully shown or cropped away. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The part you see at the right corner is not a ship but a part of the wharf. Wladyslaw (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I anyway think that the mast and the related equipment should be either fully shown or cut away completely to meet the very high criteria of an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Matti. --99of9 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not up there with our best skylines. -- JovanCormac 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment seems a little underexposed to me (perhaps brighten it up?) Noodle snacks (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at this picture with my TFT-Monitor under good conditions this picture glow positivly. You may adjust your monitor if you think it is underexposed. I have also made a brighter version: [1], but this candidate is closer to reality. Wladyslaw (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Good image but I agree with MattiPaavola, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:At close grips2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 04:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by H.D. Gridwood - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:At close grips.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The best digital photograph I've yet found of WWI: two US soldiers charge a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers against a desolate background.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yay, war propaganda. Wolf (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• A favor Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is there any documentation to show that this is indeed an action shot? Anyone familiar with First World War photography field equipment would know that this shot would have been incredibly difficult to do during a battle, especially outside the protection of a trench. No information of which battle, formation or unit involved. The un-restored original certainly appears to be a stereoscopic image, which means two cameras would have been employed to make the unrestored image? I find such a photographic achievement hard to believe. Why has the image been split given its a stereoview? My primary concern is that the image is staged, a common propaganda practice during the First World War (Ex: Image:Going_over_the_top_01.jpg). The lack of back story on the image or any info on the author make validation extremely difficult. If promoted it should be on the basis of it being a staged image nut a battle image.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment You don't need two cameras to take a stereoscopic view. At that time, they had already stereoscopic cameras (i.e. one camera with two lenses) which were not particularly bigger or heavier than a 'normal' camera. However, that doesn't mean that the image is authentic. In this case it's very difficult to judge whether it is a real battle view or a staged one. -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it isn't a battle photo. It is a war propaganda. --.dsm. 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's basically a fake which lost the third dimension during restoration. I would be curious to see early stereographic images here on FP however. Is there a simple way to watch them? --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Labattblueboy. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TautropfenRose2.JPG

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment --Well nice, clean, saturated and with high visual impact photograph. Unfortunately the main droplet should be in focus and very sharp, which isn't the case. May be a DOF too shallow ? Sting (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the water sphere so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Amrum (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too shallow DOF. —kallerna™ 10:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Its nice, but as Kallerna said, DOF is extremly narrow and somehow the image is not wow enough. --Amada44 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good. --Karel (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. --99of9 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Maro stern.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2009 at 00:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Keta - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great colours and composition --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 10:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Quite a lot of drama in this one. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 21:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Antonio de Leon y Gama - uploaded by Garrondo - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1.jpg by Garrondo and Durova-- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Illustration of the Aztec calendrical system from the first major work of Aztec archaeology, published 1792.
•  Support as conominator. -- Durova (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as conominator.--Garrondo (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - Why the long file name? ZooFari 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Eighteenth century book titles tended to be long. Durova (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I recently complained that a lot of the FP restorations don't have much visual impact. But this one does, well done on the find. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - yes - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• A favor Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fumarole solfatara 2005.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 20:22:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Kleuske - uploaded by Kleuske - nominated by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Difficult to see what it is, it gives no sense of scale or direction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Pieter + JPEG artifects --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose somehow a bit dull --Amada44 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Granada, 1970.1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2009 at 16:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Schnobby - uploaded by Schnobby - nominated by Schnobby -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Could you add more info about this picture? Granada is a big city - was this nice shot maybe taken in some part of Alhambra? Also, info about the camera used would be nice - I guess you didn't have a D90 those days? :-) I think that the original photographer should also be mentioned in the Author field. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This picture was taken in the Alhambra at night in 1970. The camera was a Linhof Technica 4x5 inch, lens f=90 mm, operating at F 11, converted with NIKON D90 in JPEG, it is a detail from sheet film. I already mentioned the original author Hans Bernhard in the Author field, who is my husband. --Schnobby (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding the details in the description. I got confused concerning the author since the Permission field says "Reproductions of works by Ingeborg Bernhard".
•  Neutral This is obviously a very good shot. I'm assuming that the moon was used for backlight and the front is covered with tungsten filament. Taken that into account, the white balance is controlled nicely. The combination of yellow and blue light just add to the image. On the minus side, the crop and the perspective aren't perfect at top right and there is the film grain which, however, is alone in tolerable limits IMO. Therefore, neutral from me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 18:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Diliff - uploaded by Dilif - nominated by --190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--190.31.27.15 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentTwo things : first, the original version seems to have a better white balance. The current one looks blueish to me. Second, i find the bottom part of the picture somewhat too dim -- yet i understand that you had to get the whole hall in the same frame, from the brightest arches to the darkest nooks, and this is no HDR. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ridiculously perfect as usual. -- JovanCormac 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  wonderful 99of9 (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Takabeg (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• A favor Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support impressive image, high res., properly applied tone mapping. --Ikiwaner (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful! --.dsm. 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 43.JPG

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2009 at 10:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This crop is much better then the other one! --Leviathan (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Ceridwen (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent foto. --Korman (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Bit soft but otherwise fp. —kallerna™ 16:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• A favor Look at people! :O Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neither composition nor pixel-quality of this image is impressing. Too little of the ground is visible on the favor of sky — what is the reason for this? Beside, the sharpness is nowhere near satisfying — I can see you tried to use USM, but to no avail. Also, your description sucks big time. What in Petra is this object? Petra is not just 1 sqm big. You should be more precise. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much sky IMO. The light is really harsh. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Harsh light is to be expected in the desert. Kleuske (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Kleuske (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 17:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This images shows the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth on the River Dart. There has been a training centre for naval officers here since the 1860's but this building was completed in 1905.
•  Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - nice picture --Pudelek (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the composition and the detail could be much better. As a side note, the large size of the thumb fools the reviewer into thinking this is a panorama, which is not. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I apologise for any apparent "fooling" - it was certainly not my intention. Any larger crop would have brought in unnecessary detail. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors, very beautiful scenery, good EV and very good quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not detailed, blurry at the lower left corner and some of the trees, some blue artifacts at the houses in the front. A panorama would have been much better with higher res, more details, corrected levels and sharpness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Couldn´t find a decision right now. I like the light + the colors and the composition would be alright with me, but there´s these brightly lit houses in front. Also, level of detail/resolution is low not amazing. Nikopol (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure how far you zoomed it but I can count the sheep in the field to the right and the rear...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Better formulation? I think Alvesgaspar was right, you are somehow disappointed when you discover it´s not a panorama. Any chance of taking one? And as I stated, I´m not decided yet. In general, for me technical issues are all in all less important than the overall feeling of a picture and I might well approve in the end Nikopol (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey - one of the reasons for doing this is to get feedback and I appreciate it. I will definitely go for a panorama next time I am that way but it won't be for a while yet. As I said I had no intentions of misleading with this but I had to crop the foreground or I would not have supported it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral Composition & resolution. Because you have such great elevation, I think even the front houses would be better cut out. But of course then you would need a high-res panorama to get details on the College. Definitely potential at this location. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, looking at it longer, I think the resolution is sufficient, so maybe a crop will be enough? --99of9 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can crop it (& will) if that is what folks want? The resolution shouldn't be an issue really. Not sure what is best - an "alt" one? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to see (and I think support) an Alt, though I can't speak for anyone else. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeAn impresive building, but the houses in front distract too much. They are also partially cropped which doesn't help either. It might well be that it is not possible to take a FP which shows this building entirely without using a helicopter since I'm afraid that the composition will collapse if the bottom part is just cropped away from this image. A very valuable image with nice colors anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alt version

Available if this is of interest to people :) Thanks.

•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Less sky in this version please? --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok, good for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even better.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the vertical balance of the composition isn't perfect IMO. Very valuable image anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• За - very good for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 07:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Mila Zinkova - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• За - WOW! Strong support! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment this one which looks very similar is already featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Daniel's right, the nomination is here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - duplicate of an already featured image.--Avala (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Avala. —kallerna™ 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because The nomination is useless as the same image, with a different name, is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

•  Oppose per Avala. --Korman (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За Nice and rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 08:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice how far you can zoom in Nikopol (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Impressive, but I would have preferred it without the coast line drawn over it. --Eusebius (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Amrum (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 36.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 15:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support "Only the penitent man will pass" -- JovanCormac 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Afaik this was Al Khazneh  ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Though the "inner" part with the two lions doesn't appear to exist at all in reality... -- JovanCormac 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, the crop is too tight IMO. —kallerna™ 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture apart from that. Nikopol (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose tight crop --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tight crop. It's a long walk to get up there; the least you could do is show us some of the sky over the building. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you crop it like this? Nikopol (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Even worse. --Leafnode✉ 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Avala (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Phellinus igniarius Oak 2009 G2.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 11:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: All by George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: False tinder fungus (Phellinus igniarius) on a dead Oak.
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, bad light (shades), no wow. —kallerna™ 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad lighting and a kind of straight forward composition --AngMoKio (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose VI --Leafnode✉ 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flag-map of the world.svg

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2009 at 05:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Transparent 6lue - uploaded by Transparent 6lue - nominated by Transparent 6lue -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Transparent 6lue (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not so sure Greenland is correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great idea, and beautifully executed. Correlations that I wasn't aware of until now can be seen at a glance, e.g. that most African countries have green as the predominant color in their flags. Greenland is formally a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so it looks OK to me. True, they have their own flag, but so does Alaska which is also shown with the flag of the "parent state". -- JovanCormac 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the Greenlandic flag shouln't replace the Danish, Alaska's relation to the United States is to my knowledge no different from that of any of the other 50 states - Greenland, however, is far more autonomous than any other area (possibly except for the Faeroes) under the Danish crown. --Aqwis (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have only shown the national flags here, regardless of how autonomous any of their subdivisions are. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment, I would suggest replacing the Norwegian flag on Svalbard with a uniform red colour. --Aqwis (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Although this would certainly make it look a lot better, keep in mind that it could be confused with the red of Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The status of Svalbard is special - not really Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, Norway's surely the most accurate national flag that you could apply to it. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway, see en:Politics_of_Svalbard#Spitsbergen_Treaty. --Kjetil_r 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I would prefer the sea to be non-white, because it merges with some of the flags. Perhaps a very pale blue? --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The black outlines should not make the ocean a problem. However, if anyone wants to change the ocean to very pale blue (or perhaps very pale grey), someone else will have to do it because the finished file makes my computer lag too much. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The black outlines aren't enough for my eyes. But I'm an idiot... the sea is transparent in the svg, so I can have whatever background I like - no need for a change.  Support --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Clever idea and quality implementation. PS could you make the Finnish flag slightly smaller, the same size as the Swedish flag. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish flag is bigger than the Swedish one because if you look up the proportions, the Finnish cross is much more thicker. The shapes of the countries are also a factor in how they turned out. --Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. After checking the sources, I have to shamely admit that I didn't know my and my neighbor's flags. :-) Thanks for the explanation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Whatever the background colour, it's simply great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Econt (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm not convinced by this idea --Leafnode✉ 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - the map is inconsistent. It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way, it shows Kosovo but doesn't show Palestine, flag proportions are strictly kept for Finland and Greece but not for Japan and South Korea, no clear criteria over which island nations were included and why etc. So even though the idea is fine there is still a lot of work to do.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Alaska and Greenland being "the same way", but I'll answer the other points. I have updated the map to reflect a new criteria, which is the UN member countries plus the Republic of China. As for the proportions, I decided that the designs where the field was distinctly divided into several areas should be kept as close to the original as possible. On the other hand, I decided that the symbol-on-a-background designs could be resized if it would help recognisability. I have added all islands now. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I agree with Avala. What are the criterias about selected countries? --.dsm. 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN member countries plus the Republic of China. Transparent 6lue (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Western Sahara the UN member state? Why would you add the Republic of China which has less recognitions than Western Sahara and also why not add Palestine which has more reconigtions than any other state? It's obvious there is no criteria for this map.--Avala (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the situation, I wasn't sure about how recognised certain places are. In any case, I have taken Takabeg's advice and now the map shows only the UN member states. Also, I'm still confused about your statement that "It shows Alaska and Greenland the same way", could you please clarify what this means and what you would recommend instead? Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the status of Alaska and Greenland is not the same. Though this is the matter not so important and can be viewed differently so I will change my vote to  Support now that the criteria is set.--Avala (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment - I recommend you change as the map of Member States of the United Nations. Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment If his is the map of Member States of the United Nations, the name should be "Flag-map of the United Nations member states". Because all recognized states of the world aren't here. --.dsm. 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Conditional support - When did Morocco annex Western Sahara ? When did People's Republic of China annex Republic of China ? I think they must be shown in white (blank map). Takabeg (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN's official position (to the best of my knowledge) is that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, and that Western Sahara is part of Morocco. Also, if I changed those two to white, it'd start up arguments and debates about which places should be white and which ones shouldn't (for example Palestine, Kosovo etc.). So, although there is no perfect solution to the problem of "which countries should be shown on this map, and how?", the current version seems to provoke the least arguing so it's probably the closest to "perfect" that it can get. Feel free to suggest any more improvements, though. Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - A great idea--Pianoplonkers (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support – nice idea, well done. --Kjetil_r 10:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hoodoos in the Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 23:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great color changes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great capture! When I was there, sadly the phenomenon was not to be witnessed. Looks really ghostly Nikopol (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful creatures of the nature. BTW, was there some additional artificial lighting used behind the rocks or is this all natural? Support anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: I took this image without flash or other additional artificial lightning. This is a contre-jour shot. The hoodoos are illuminated by reflected sunlight coming from the hoodoos in front of them. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• За --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Beauty. Tiptoety ^talk 07:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose scenery is great, but image is terribly noisy and unsharp --Leafnode✉ 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Leafnode, what happened to you? You gaved today 26 oppose in the time 11:18 - 12:01. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't have time to vote progressively, so I voted en masse for all active FPC votes - that explains amount. And why so many opposes? Well... I just think those images were not good enough. I know my point of view might seem extreme, but recently I've decided not to hesitate to oppose if I see major flaws, even if the image is generally supported. --Leafnode✉ 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• A favor Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Technical quality is OK on full screen. Excellent mood and lighting. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Etincelles (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 17:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Info: We have no single meteor featured I believe, so here it is: Multicolored w:meteor w:Orionid is exploding over Death Valley National Park
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It really is much too noisy, consider using lower ISO than 1600. I suppose you used a tripod, why didn´t you take ISO 100 and a long exposure time? Nikopol (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess, you've never taken a picture of a meteor.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn´t realise the meteor is the important thing, must have somehow skipped this part of the explanation. But IMO the capture of the meteor does not quite make up for that amount of noise. Nikopol (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nikopol, just check the date when this photograph was taken: 22 October 2007. As you can check out from this table, Mbz1 apparently planned this photograph carefully by journeying to the Death valley exactly when an Orionid shower was to be expected and where, given the extremely dry air and the absence of artificial light, you get fine conditions for photographing the night sky. Given the speed of the meteors, the selection of ISO 1600 (at an exposure time of 8s) sounds quite sensible to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When I was taking the images I was mostly thinking about capturing as many meteors as possible even very faint ones because the images are used for recerch. I used fisheye in order to capture as much sky as possible. The lens aperture is 3.5. To capture faint meteors with such a lens and such an aperture I should have used ISO 1600. I did not care about noise. My bad, how I forgot about FPC That's OK I should have learned a long time ago never to nominate for FPC something that is special to me :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Nothing featurable here, either the quality or the rarity -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, what could be featurable in the only image of a meteor to be present in FP images :) If it is feutered, it will be so lonely :) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination should have kept it to myself :)

---

[edit] Edit 1

•  Support reduced noise and lost some stars in the process :(--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination should have kept it to myself :)

---

[edit] File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968 Cropped.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 16:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Created by the Bain News Service (Original image is located here) - uploaded by Etincelles - nominated by Etincelles - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cropped version of File:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33968.jpg, digitaly restored to remove scratches and dust by Etincelles.

•  Support - Etincelles (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional  Oppose. Documentation is essential: please give detailed notes of specific edits performed and please include a link to the unrestored version directly from the nomination. Remember: curators look for good documentation practices when institutions decide whether to digitize. Don't cut corners! Durova (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment LoC does not create images, they just archive them; this is from the en:Bain News Service. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abwahl-Kandidaten

[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)

Fri 18 Dec → Wed 23 Dec
Sat 19 Dec → Thu 24 Dec
Sun 20 Dec → Fri 25 Dec
Mon 21 Dec → Sat 26 Dec
Tue 22 Dec → Sun 27 Dec
Wed 23 Dec → Mon 28 Dec

[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)

Sun 13 Dec → Wed 23 Dec
Mon 14 Dec → Thu 24 Dec
Tue 15 Dec → Fri 25 Dec
Wed 16 Dec → Sat 26 Dec
Thu 17 Dec → Sun 27 Dec
Fri 18 Dec → Mon 28 Dec
Sat 19 Dec → Tue 29 Dec
Sun 20 Dec → Wed 30 Dec
Mon 21 Dec → Thu 31 Dec
Tue 22 Dec → Fri 01 Jan
Wed 23 Dec → Sat 02 Jan