Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates 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, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, 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:
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 description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf 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:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories 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 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:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
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:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver 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:
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:
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:
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 policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
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. 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 when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease 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 also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 18:48:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)
Info Clark's anemonefish (Amphiprion clarkii) in a beaded sea anemone (Heteractis aurora), Anilao, Philippines. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Fantastic composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Obviously amazing Cmao20 (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 19:39:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by All Elite Wrestling, uploaded by CeltBrowne, nominated by Yann
Info Skye Blue is an American professional wrestler.
Support I am not a fan of wrestling, but I think this is a nice portrait. I like the make-up. -- Yann (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, this is a nice portrait and the make-up looks great. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The top half of the image is excellent. The area around the boots does not appear to be FP to me, especially since it is a studio photograph. I may change my mind, I'm not sure. I look forward to hearing your opinions. --Lmbuga (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent portrait, in my opinion. It looks like she's standing on some kind of fabric and that the background is also probably of the same fabric. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 19:36:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created and uploaded by Gabriel Hutchinson, nominated by Yann
Info Austin Butler is an American actor, here at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival, France. He was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2023.
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't understand the exposure time (1/2500 s), because the ISO speed is 1250 and only f/6.3. And why Wov? --Lmbuga (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good photo to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 17:42:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created and uploaded by Panpanchik – nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)- why not geocoded? --Gower (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A modest close-up view, which is interesting for its small details. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Екатерина – Julian Lupyan (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 13:02:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Comets
Info I know that at 3.2 megapixels this is definitely on the small side for FP but it is extremely sharp at full size, a difficult shot to balance the exposure correctly, a good example of amateur astrophotography, and irreplaceable given that this comet - a faint, difficult target - will not be back for 700 years. created by Cpayoub – uploaded by Cpayoub – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support very unique --Gower (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support RASA for the win. Also good processing as the comet that day was moving quickly and had faint but extensive coma. --C messier (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)- Impres
sively sharp for its size! JayCubby (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Question It is kind of small, actually less than 3.2 MP at 3,168,351 pixels. Are there any freely licensed professional pictures of this comet that are bigger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I rounded up. There are a couple of larger ones on Commons but they are not of high quality. this is the best picture of the comet I can find on the internet but it is also quite small and more importantly, not under a free license. I nominated this one because of the overall composition, not just the comet. Cmao20 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks. I agree with you about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I rounded up. There are a couple of larger ones on Commons but they are not of high quality. this is the best picture of the comet I can find on the internet but it is also quite small and more importantly, not under a free license. I nominated this one because of the overall composition, not just the comet. Cmao20 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 13:02:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Nymphalidae#Genus : Boloria
Info created by Ermell – uploaded by Ermell – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Love the lighting and comp! --Wobbanight (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 14:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the nom. Ermell (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support along the lines of Wobbanight's comments, I love how the light shines through the butterfly's left wing and the light overall and delicate sharpness of the butterfly and thistle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support per Ikan Kekek and Wobbanight – Julian Lupyan (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 11:50:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Iran
Info created by Hamidespanani – uploaded by Hamidespanani – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful image despite perspective distortion. Юрий Д.К. 14:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It looks like the image was edited by AI. Also, it is not centered. heylenny (talk/edits) 16:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A tiny bit uncentered doesn't bother me, but I echo Heylenny's concerns about poor photo editing technique. The picture looks fine in thumb but at full size there are odd details - the very blurry central area inside the arches surrounded by sharp detail; the oddly distorted figures of the people in the distance, which are often a hallmark of AI editing tools that inaccurately try to reproduce shapes and textures; additionally the uneven transition between building and sky, with some jagged edges and other areas blurry. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cmao20. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2025 at 09:25:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Leiothrichidae_(Laughingthrushes)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting seting. --Mile (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition, quality is okay Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 21:38:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
Info Dune 45 in Sossusvlei (Namibia) at sunrise. Dune 45 is composed of iron-rich quartz sand, whose deepening red tones result from the gradual oxidation of iron over millions of years. The sand grains originated from sediments carried by the Orange River into the Atlantic Ocean and transported northward by coastal currents before being blown inland by strong south-westerly winds. The Namib Desert itself is considered one of the oldest deserts on Earth—at least 5 million years old, and possibly up to 55–80 million years in its broader geological history. The dune fields around Sossusvlei, including Dune 45, are thought to have formed in their present configuration over the last 2–3 million years, shaped continually by wind-driven (aeolian) processes. Although the dune’s crest and slipface shift subtly over time, its overall structure remains relatively stable due to the region’s hyper-arid climate.
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and well-timed lighting. JayCubby (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear winner per Jay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The stark two-part composition creates an almost abstract, distinctly graphic effect. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Magnificent. Wolverine X-eye 07:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good spot, but i saw better when you zoom into that sqaure. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion but I prefer the current crop because what I like very much about the image is the sort of "S" shape that the sun is creating in the dune -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Light and shade Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great.--Lmbuga (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 20:38:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info Marksburg Castle in winter, with the striking chimneys of the Braubach lead and silver smelter, one of the oldest industrial monuments in the Middle Rhine region, to the right. Created by Rolf Kranz – uploaded by Rolf Kranz – nominated by Zquid -- Zquid (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Zquid (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting motif and juxtaposition of old and new, on a wintery hilltop. --Paracel63 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very interesting composition but uncomfortably noisy, and what is that big semicircle that looks like posterization? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Banding (sky) and mistakes around tower. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Amazing landscape but color banding... Юрий Д.К. 12:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral until colour banding issues are fixed Cmao20 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Proposed edit I have done my best to address the main flaws within the jpeg limitations: reduced banding, smoothed sky gradients, rolled back oversharpening, treated noise, and gently re-sharpened to retain structure. Since the original cannot be replaced (first-prize winner WLM Germany), it would be helpful if the nominator or another participant could upload the improved version as a derivative (see example). Here is a direct link to view and a download link via SwissTransfer. The banding in the original was quite pronounced, and I have tried my best to reduce it using my old manual techniques. Of course, any experienced colleague with more advanced ideas is warmly invited to further improve the image. In the spirit of teamwork, you are welcome to use the image for uploading a derivative, as I will have very limited internet access in the coming days. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's a great picture and almost looks like an infrared image. But unfortunately, the (initial) post-processing wasn't very successful, even though the technical basis for good raw material was there. To me, it looks as if the image was taken in JPG format, which is simply not a suitable basis for further processing. Without questioning your efforts, Radomianin, which have already led to progress in some areas, I believe that a JPG is always irreversibly final. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful and fair assessment. You are absolutely right: a jpeg is never an ideal basis for serious post-processing, and many of the limitations we are seeing here are irreversible. The original post-processing already pushed the file very far, which unfortunately left clear traces in the sky gradients and local sharpening. The remaining banding is indeed what bothered me most as well. I tried several manual approaches, including work on individual color channels, selective saturation reduction, and additional masking, but I could not eliminate it completely. While I have managed to rescue many heavily compromised jpeg's in the past, this particular file appears to have been processed so aggressively beforehand that the limits are reached very quickly.
- I still felt it was worth attempting a cautious improvement, as even damaged jpeg's can sometimes be stabilized slightly with enough patience. I re-uploaded a revised version today after applying an alternative technique; the links provided above have been updated accordingly. I believe this results in a small but real improvement, even if it remains imperfect. Had the original, less-processed jpeg been available, I am confident that a significantly better result would have been achievable with sufficient time and care. Thank you again for the constructive feedback. If anyone has further ideas or tools to push this file a bit further, I would genuinely welcome that. In the end, the motif itself is beautiful - it is purely the technical quality of the available file that holds it back. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 18:35:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Familia: Dasypodidae (no FPs of this family yet)
Info created and uploaded by MartinKlippel – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful light, but not sharp enough in my opinion, especially the eye and the rest of the face. Compare File:Nine-banded armadillo (13578).jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- This one you are referring to is not a FP, IMO... heylenny (talk/edits) 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is in fact a QI, whether it should be an FP if nominated or not, but the animal is sharper, demonstrating in my opinion why this one should not be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever. The background here is better. heylenny (talk/edits) 14:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a nomination to consider this one of the best photos on the site, not just "Photos with Best Backgrounds." It should be hard to pass FPC, and many good, admirable photos should fail as not among the very greatest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I know that. And I think this one, because it has "a better background," is better than the other one you mentioned. heylenny (talk/edits) 16:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a nomination to consider this one of the best photos on the site, not just "Photos with Best Backgrounds." It should be hard to pass FPC, and many good, admirable photos should fail as not among the very greatest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever. The background here is better. heylenny (talk/edits) 14:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is in fact a QI, whether it should be an FP if nominated or not, but the animal is sharper, demonstrating in my opinion why this one should not be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- This one you are referring to is not a FP, IMO... heylenny (talk/edits) 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Despite the non-natural background, I prefer the one Ikan links Cmao20 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nominate it, then... 🤷♂️ heylenny (talk/edits) 14:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I already have two active nominations, and I can find many pictures I want to nominate more than this. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- What a pity! Maybe next time... heylenny (talk/edits) 16:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I already have two active nominations, and I can find many pictures I want to nominate more than this. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 18:35:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
Info created and uploaded by MartinKlippel – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support That's quite pretty. I was thinking it was black & white, but I'm seeing a bit of brown and green, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Underexposed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 15:47:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany#Hesse
Info The Untertor ("lower gate") , also called "Jerusalem Gate" in Büdingen, Hesse, Germany. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Pretty gate, nicely photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 13:11:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Genus_:_Acinonyx
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing. -- Kingshuk Mondal (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive!--Milseburg (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support! JayCubby (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support We so often see footage of house cat-like behavior of captive cheetahs online. This great photo is a reminder that all cats in the wild are fierce hunters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Really excellent portrait of a wild animal being wild. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Fierce!!! Wolverine X-eye 07:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support of course Cmao20 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 09:43:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Alaudidae_(Larks)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Good photo of what looks like a small bird, and may indeed merit a feature, but do you have any that are sharper? I don't know how hard it is to photograph this bird, but its conservation status is least concern per w:Indian bush lark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I do have other photos which I might nominate later but I find this frame beautiful with clean background and feather details are good too, that's why I have nominated this one. This one is not too hard to photograph but they always don't pose like this. Mostly they forage on the ground so it's not too easy to get a pose like this in my limited experience. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would crop more, on many of your photos. They dont need so much space around. --Mile (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your view, but I like a little bit of space around, not very fond of tight crops. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2025 at 07:45:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Asia
Info created by Geographical Publishing Co. – uploaded by Rosemania – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support High resolution, clean map of historical value. Yann (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Yann. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I love maps, and this one has really strange geopolitical divisions, with Sumatra in the same color as the Federated Malay States and Sarawak but different from Java and British North Borneo, etc., etc. Only weak support because though everything is very readable on this map, it's a little out of focus, and that affects my viewing experience. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 21:18:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)- 2 questions: Is the steeple tilted in real life, and why do you think the church pictured in this light is special? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice stormy light and good quality Cmao20 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 15:47:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Musicians with instruments
Info created by Julia Kennedy – uploaded by Meganenohito – nominated by Meganenohito -- Meganenohito (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Meganenohito (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support We're lucky Ms. Kennedy gave this photo a Creative Commons license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 15:02:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Vultur
Info To give an idea of the size of the condor, the caracaras in the background are the size of a red or black kite. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Why is there a blue X spray-painted on the sheep? JayCubby (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- All over the world, owners mark their livestock. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JayCubby (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Fine photo. Do you know what killed the sheep? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- No idea. The guides said a puma kill would be unusual so close to the main road, but is probably the most likely. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Not nice but it is important to see nature in all its forms Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 14:53:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice composition, a good szene. But the image has
Level of detail too low, is tilted ccw and – from my point of view – lacks anything outstanding to become FP. --August (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment If you have a chance to take another photo of this sculpture, please include the whole reflection. However, I'll bet the sculpture is under copyright, and the U.S. does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice composition but it looks like the building is tilted and the quality is typical for a smartphone which is not quite sufficient for FP especially at relatively low resolution Cmao20 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I have decided to withdraw this nomination. --Wobbanight (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 13:32:03 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Rallidae_(Coots,_Rails_and_Crakes)
Info An Eurasian coot (Fulica atra) swimming – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support: natural and well-composed shot with good feather detail. Just one other FP of the species. JayCubby (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Jay, but with the significant caveat that the black shape at the left edge of the picture frame is quite distracting, and I would recommend sacrificing some of the lead room to crop it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alexis Lours, what if you lightened the shadows in that region, sort of like this? JayCubby (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Managed to reduce it a fair bit with a slight crop and bit of messing with temperature/shadows and a radial gradient mask. Let me know if this works for you both. @JayCubby @Ikan Kekek -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ye
s, it looks great! JayCubby (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like it, too. Thanks, Alexis! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ye
- Managed to reduce it a fair bit with a slight crop and bit of messing with temperature/shadows and a radial gradient mask. Let me know if this works for you both. @JayCubby @Ikan Kekek -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alexis Lours, what if you lightened the shadows in that region, sort of like this? JayCubby (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 13:23:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Sterna
Info A common tern (Sterna hirundo) in flight with a fish – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 17:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 10:12:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Uzbekistan
Info Allakuli Covered Bazaar in Khiva, Uzbekistan. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Some frames are more noisy than others, but this is a really large photo and quite a good picture of a striking structure. Your photos have made me want to visit Uzbekistan more! Side point: The category has what I'd call a misspelled city name that should be changed, but of course that has nothing to do with this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Ikan Kekek Lifted shadows in that corner for about 2,5 EV, was pretty dark there. Xiva or Hiva (Хива) so Khiva in EN. Some problem with Uzbeks passing to latin. --Mile (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2025 at 06:08:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info The Frick Fine Arts Building in the University of Pittsburgh is a landmark building that houses a library and a few departments of the university. Created and uploaded by Dllu – nominated by Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I usually find symmetries broken up by off-centre viewpoints interesting. Here, however, it is an interesting game against boredom to find the differences in this image. Otherwise, the image is a very accurate piece of work and there is no FP of this location in its category. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Solid photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 08:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as creator. thanks for the nomination! dllu (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2025 at 23:59:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tk833 -- Tk833 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tk833 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 08:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2025 at 22:53:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Strophariaceae
Info Sulphur Tuft (Hypholoma fasciculare) in the Bruderwald in Bamberg. Stacked from 11 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition and high detail. --August (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per August – Julian Lupyan (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per above. The spiderweb's preservation is a testament to the quality of the stack. JayCubby (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice capture of that cluster and very well done! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per others, especially August. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Syntaxys. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2025 at 20:04:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Finland
Info The Wrede passage is a historic passage formed by the Wrede house in the corner between Pohjoisesplanadi and Mikonkatu (Pohjoisesplanadi 35) and the Central house in the corner between Aleksanterinkatu and Mikonkatu (Aleksanterinkatu 46) in central Helsinki, Finland. The building entity represents Renaissance Revival architecture and was designed and partly commissioned by architect Karl August Wrede, and built in 1888 and 1892. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good photo. I didn't realize this style was considered Renaissance Revival. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 08:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support very good, well done --Gower (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 23:16:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Others
Info Following the input provided on the previous nomination, the picture was improved in two ways. Firstly, it was cropped vertically in order to get rid of the overexposed sky in the top right corner. Secondly, a version with warmer and more vivid colours was uploaded. I think this is a much better version than the previous one. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm glad to see another Photopea user in the wild :) FYI, Photopea messes up the metadata (at least on some browsers), I removed the problematic bit of the file's EXIF. JayCubby (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's a pity about the metadata, and I oftentimes forget it. I've transferred the metadata from the original unprocessed file. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 05:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose OK maybe for QI but not as extraordinary for FP, sorry --Gower (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree... Poco a poco (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Tight crop ke rekov. Treba pojke mesto vnizu i gore. --Mile (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as on the previous nomination Cmao20 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting to a point but not an FP to me per others. Also, the upper crop feels too close, and that might be contributing to my feeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 21:52:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Türkiye
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Julian Lupyan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I took this picture with my former camera, and am aware of the moderate lack of detail. I'm hoping the composition and local noise reduction would make up for this. Perspective is corrected, however some of the building's vertical features seem to be naturally misaligned, which I unfortunately cannot account for. The image is one frame, not a composite. Thank you! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Needs perspective correction at least at the outer pillars (I have hard time believing that pillars and lamp posts in both sides happen to just lean in irl) and highlights recovery. --C messier (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Done @C messier: Additional PC applied and highlights recovered. Another matter of note is that both the columns and the lamp posts taper, which may read as if they are leaning more than they are. Thank you very much for the advice! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Interesting framing and depth creates a sort of Piranesian effect of classical collage. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent choice of composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 20:21:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Facade of Big Theatre (built 1856) in Moscow, Russia. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment This image is very sharp, however I am noticing barrel distortion. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Too tight and inaccurate crop and CCW tilt. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)- I will try to fix. Юрий Д.К. 07:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've made some fixes. I agree that the crop is tight but I've wanted to shot only the Big Theatre with minimum distracting elements. It is my intent Юрий Д.К. 15:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Reasonably tight crop, sharp, well-lit, distortion corrected competently. JayCubby (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The pillars increasingly tilt to the right and left, but that looks natural to me, and I find that this is a satisfying photo of a beautiful building with pleasant details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Still not much pleased with slightly asymmetrical crop, but okay at all. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 20:20:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Russia
Info Grand Kremlin Palace (built 1849) and Taynitsky Garden in Moscow, Russia. My photo Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful lighting and good composition. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Julian. A hulking, domineering building, shown as peacefully as possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, that's undoubtedly a QI but the composition with the two annoying white vehicles (bus + truck) does not make it FP for me. If cars are unavoidable like here I suppose, just wait to capture a moment where there are at least just dark vehicles, as they usually are not that prominently highlighting. Additionally, it is in the end a usual frontal photo of a building. The light conditions are not that great, either. The architecture in itself is much less interesting than many other 19th-century palaces in Russia (it is known that Thon as architect was a bit... overestimated, to say it least...) --A.Savin 12:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- En-wiki: Konstantin Andreyevich Thon was a Russian architect who was one of the most notable architects during the reign Nicholas I. By whom he was overestimated? Юрий Д.К. 17:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The Soviets hated him and sought to destroy as many of his buildings as possible, but that might be a positive for his memory, not a negative! Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, makes sense for me. Юрий Д.К. 12:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Unfavorable lighting. The entire facade is in shadow. --Milseburg (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The facade "looks" to south-east but the sun sets on the west. I think the FP of this building taken at sunset also has a right. But the facade will be always in shadow, I can't fix this. Юрий Д.К. 17:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think the morning is here a better time for a shooting of this side then the evening. Milseburg (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- The facade "looks" to south-east but the sun sets on the west. I think the FP of this building taken at sunset also has a right. But the facade will be always in shadow, I can't fix this. Юрий Д.К. 17:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It is indeed a nice, sharp and clear QI. But what it does hold from being FP is the slightly un-centred POV. Horizontal PC was applied to give the appearance of a straight centred shot, but it wasn't. Additionally I have to agree with A.Savin and Milseburg about the lighting conditions. --August (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good lighting, good composition, good angle of the building. FP, IMO. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 18:46:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Photo techniques/Composites and Montages#Composites (Multiple images merged into one)
Info created by A.B. Phelan – uploaded and restored by Jay – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. This is an example of both a photomontage (overlay) and forced perspective. -- JayCubby (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Love that the New York World Building is in the background. --Wobbanight (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Wobbanight, nom. Shows how experimental and radical photography could be 115 years ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. Yann (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 14:06:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Indonesia
Info created by LukeTriton – uploaded by LukeTriton – nominated by TheBooker66 -- TheBooker66, but call me Ethan (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- TheBooker66, but call me Ethan (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The quality is not great probably because it was taken with a mobile phone, but the nice composition compensates for it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, a nice motif, but processing is not good, sorry. Shadows are too dark, sharpening halos visible and detail is not really at FP level. Poco a poco (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Posterised sky. Really falls short in quality. --C messier (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. //SHB2000 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree with the others. Pity. It's a striking, beautiful composition, but this is FPC, not merely beautiful compositions irrespective of technical quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose nice but per C messier --Gower (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately image quality is not sufficient for FPC despite lovely composition and colours Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 09:59:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Greece
Info View of the village of Zinta in central Crete. The village dates from the medieval time and retains a fortress like appearance. Also from this viewpoint the structures visible are mostly old building, giving a similar impression as a viewer of the previous centuries would have, rather rare for most Greek villages which were massively rebuilt in the post war era. Unfortunately, after the 2021 earthquake pretty much every stone-built house in the image has either collapsed or was heavily damaged (the image is from 2017). All by C messier.
Support -- C messier (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the picture would benefit from slight dehazing, but the lighting is great and the overall composition works. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I miss wow here, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I like how moody this picture is. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. --Milseburg (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco a poco --Gower (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 17:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Poco. I think you did about as well as you could with the composition and execution, but there isn't anything really amazing to see in this village, seemingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 09:15:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info Catholic branch church of St. Anna in Priegendorf. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 10:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Lmbuga (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The highlights are well-handled. JayCubby (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 05:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Who threw a pebble into the water? The reflection isn't perfect, but good enough for FP. --Milseburg (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Light and mirror effect -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:43:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info Porte de l'Aude in the historic fortified city of Carcassonne, Aude, France. The concentric yellow circles that can be seen from exactly this POV is a project from 2018 called "Concentric, eccentric", a work by Felice Varini to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the inscription on the World Heritage List of UNESCO. Founded during the Gallo-Roman period, the citadel derives its reputation from its 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) long double surrounding walls interspersed by 52 towers. The medieval citadel, situated on a hill on the right bank of the river Aude, was restored at the end of the 19th century by the theorist and architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)- In my opinion, this is an act of vandalism that destroys a historical monument. Similar circles could be created using lighting (spotlights) without damaging the historical appearance of the monument. However, i
Support this image as being of excellent quality and high educational. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I find this kind of expressiones too bold. The strips are composed of temporary thin aluminum and therefore should vanish soon, but it's probably gonna hold longer than they expected. Poco a poco (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support An interesting art form on a more or less historic building.--Ermell (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Well documeneted, also nice light.--C messier (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Magnificent view JackyM59 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment There's probably a bird next to the spire atop the pyramidal roof in the background (see the note). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski: Yes, definitely a bird. Not sure what your expectation is, do I need to remove the bird so that you can support this image as FP? To be honest, I don't really think that a birdfree sky (especially if they are so small) is required for the FP star. Poco a poco (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn’t entirely sure what it is even though it didn’t look like a dust spot. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I really like the angle and the ambient with the great winter morning light. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Great composition, nice detail. But the lighting does destroy any wow for me. --August (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 05:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per George. Absolutely vandalism, but a fine photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, main subject is in shadow, but it's not bothering here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding composition and quality. Light isn't immediately impressive but it grows on you, I find it pleasant and calming Cmao20 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:14:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae
Info Fallen over (Lepista flaccida) decaying on a compost heap. Focus stack of 113 photos.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Exceptional detail, good composition --Tagooty (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Tagooty above.
Question: Do you forage, or just photograph? JayCubby (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
*:Answer: I love nature (and I'm very concerned about it). I enjoy photographing the usefulness of transience, like this photo, which is ultimately what nature is all about. But don't eat mushrooms..--Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)- Thank you! I have the same sentiment about mushrooming (it's too easy to find a toxic lookalike). JayCubby (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Some of the bokeh looks strange to me close up, but who can argue with those great details? The mushroom is well placed in the picture frame, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:14:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info The Württemberg Mausoleum in the Rotenberg part of Untertürkheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Created/uploaded by Julian Herzog – nominated by Syntaxys -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support As far as I could determine, there is no FP of this motif in its category. In my opinion, this image is very well done in terms of technique and composition. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment From the four images of the monument by the uploader (Julian Herzog), IMHO this is the one with the least wow factor. --C messier (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to the other shots, the image lacks a certain wow factor, but it is better in terms of technique and composition. In the shots taken in the evening light, the subject is a little too small or there are distracting elements in the image (which could be cropped out). Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- The frontal symmetric shot has a much better composition. Wouldn't mind about the edges being slightly blurry given the wow factor it has. C messier (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite simple: if you think it's a good picture, then support it. If you think I'm wrong, vote against it. I look very closely at the images I nominate. It doesn't matter whether they are my own images or those of other photographers. The images should at least be well done in terms of technique and composition, and stand out from all the other images in the respective category on that basis alone. Otherwise, I let my intuition guide me. A lot of images are awarded here without the wow factor; it's not the only criterion for me. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:C messier, though. This is certainly a technically good image and the composition is fine, but all of the other QIs in this series (01-06, of which this one is 02) are more striking. C messier, would you like to nominate one of the other images? I might do so, perhaps, if you don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, or you could set it up as an alternative to this image. But please decide for yourself, I've already made my decision ;-) Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see that the image I prefer has already been nominated and the nomination was withdrawn. C messier (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think some of the other photos in this series are striking. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:C messier, though. This is certainly a technically good image and the composition is fine, but all of the other QIs in this series (01-06, of which this one is 02) are more striking. C messier, would you like to nominate one of the other images? I might do so, perhaps, if you don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite simple: if you think it's a good picture, then support it. If you think I'm wrong, vote against it. I look very closely at the images I nominate. It doesn't matter whether they are my own images or those of other photographers. The images should at least be well done in terms of technique and composition, and stand out from all the other images in the respective category on that basis alone. Otherwise, I let my intuition guide me. A lot of images are awarded here without the wow factor; it's not the only criterion for me. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- The frontal symmetric shot has a much better composition. Wouldn't mind about the edges being slightly blurry given the wow factor it has. C messier (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to the other shots, the image lacks a certain wow factor, but it is better in terms of technique and composition. In the shots taken in the evening light, the subject is a little too small or there are distracting elements in the image (which could be cropped out). Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Flat light, the low viewpoint means that the lower part of the building is obscured by the hedge. --C messier (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasant lighting and satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too distorted and looks unnatural due ro heavy PC. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 21:08:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the picture because it shows how deeply rooted religiosity is in everyday life. A church or chapel can take many different forms.
I'm sorry, I prepared a new nomination without checking the current list first. It just so happens to be on the same theme right after your nomination. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The light is exceptional, elevating this rather mundane motif. The frame is however rather tight. --C messier (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning contrast JackyM59 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent light. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per anderen.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support agree with Syntaxys' thoughtful review Cmao20 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 09:53:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Russia
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 09:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 09:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Info Рекомендую, еслу солнце, диафрагму на ф/3.2 или ф/4. А обязательно EV (експозиция) на -0.3 или -0.7. Я сейчас пользую только RAW формат. Проблема с ДЙИ, отсутствует защитная бленда про бокововой свет. Потом надо коректироват хроматическу аберрацию + повысить резкость + повысить EV. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Спасибо, на будущее учту. Хотя, с дронами проблема в том, что пока настройки меняешь, он разряжается, а ещё тогда уже можно было получить проблемы с полицией за полёт над телебашней...
Красный wanna talk? 14:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Спасибо, на будущее учту. Хотя, с дронами проблема в том, что пока настройки меняешь, он разряжается, а ещё тогда уже можно было получить проблемы с полицией за полёт над телебашней...
Oppose Only the view of the tower is interesting but it is too small in the overall compo Poco a poco (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I've calculated the JPEG QF at 85--substantial artifacts! Red, can you export at a higher quality? JayCubby (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't store RAW files after 2-3 weeks after the uploading here. It would be too much disc space. Красный wanna talk? 20:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't get rid of your Raw files, it's the equivalent of throwing away film negatives: you lose the only real proof of authorship, and will no longer be able to benefit from future demosaicing algorithms. External hard drives (plural, so you have at least a backup) are cheap compared to the cost of photographic gear. Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't store RAW files after 2-3 weeks after the uploading here. It would be too much disc space. Красный wanna talk? 20:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and subject, although agree the JPEG compression is too high Cmao20 (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 20:51:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Kind of grainy. Probably opposing for FP but willing to hear an argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good imho despite some noise Юрий Д.К. 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Yuriy. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I think the noise/grain is below the current standard of FP building ceilings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment This has to be rotated by 180° --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A bit grainy, agree, but still pleasant Cmao20 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 19:56:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Tunisia
Info created by Skander zarrad – uploaded by Skander zarrad – nominated by TOUMOU -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Good photo, may support, but it looks like there's a dust spot in a cloud top right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment It might not be that easy for some people to see, but clearly, no attempt has been made to get rid of it. Skander zarrad, please make the improvements suggested in this thread. Your photo is very good and worth a feature, but you need to be responsive to this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think Skander has any responsibility to us to be responsive in this thread, since he was not the nominator. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- They do if they want the photo to be featured. If they don't care about that, no problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think Skander has any responsibility to us to be responsive in this thread, since he was not the nominator. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support But you should fix the dust spot. --C messier (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I do agree that there is FP potential here but I would only support with a more interesting lighting (golden hour?) Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose lighting subpar for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I do think the lighting is fine, but the quality is subpar, and there is some light
chromatic aberration on the far-left pillar. --Wobbanight (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Wobbanight can you show where is CA, i cant find it. Pic isnt so bad, just normal Sony overract on yellow-red. So orange was overdose for me. I put one option, without Ikan Kekek dust spot. Might be Alt if not to late, up to Skander zarrad, TOUMOU. --Mile (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- On far-left pillar, however it is VERY light so I don't think it's the biggest issue with this image. --Wobbanight (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A little dark but honestly I like the effect. Not seeing any CA on the pillar at all. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)}
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:41:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1930-1939
Info created by Fairfax Corporation – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Question This is not merely restored. Why did you choose to crop out a lot of the original photo and give this version a portrait orientation instead of the original landscape orientation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because you don't write on parts of the image that you intend to be part of the photo as cropped, so there's clear indications of the photographer's intent to crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: To give a bit more: This is a genre of photographs from the era when travelling by boat was common. Since passengers generally had to wait some time to disembark, newspapers would send photographers onto the ship to photograph anyone famous that was on it. This got you a chatty society article about all the people who were on the ship, and, if they did anything, you had a photograph for the paper. I believe that portable historical cameras generally were rather biased towards shooting in landscape. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the explanation, but you included some parts of the photo that had writing on them, cloning out the writing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, I'd like more insight into your specific choices of where to crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: My general rule is use the guides to see intent, but go a little more generous because this firstly maximises reuse potential, and secondly, it helps avoid historic usage from interfering with modern usage (If you look at an image marked for cropping, the crops can be exceedingly tight for newspaper use where the limited size of reproduction and low resolution of halftoning can make a huge difference. Reusers can make secondary crops, but these can only remove material, not add.
- I did consider adding more of the shoulder - the only cropped part in focus - but it made the image really unbalanced: There are certain rules for how portraits get cropped, and including all of the far shoulder at a one-quarter turn.... is not in line with them. To understand why, consider File:Learie Constantine 1930 03 - uncropped.png - the left (for the viewer) shoulder is three to four times the width of the right, vastly unbalancing the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks. I find myself agreeing with you on these matters of composition. I still think the file description should state more directly that part of the original has been cropped out and is not merely at different dimensions from the original, but it's ultimately probably clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I've clarified it a bit: put the original dimensions in the more standard width-by-height order, added a thumbnail of the uncropped original, and calculated the approximate dimensions of the crop on the image. Think that should clarify it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, I'd like more insight into your specific choices of where to crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the explanation, but you included some parts of the photo that had writing on them, cloning out the writing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ezarateesteban 17:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent photo of a good man Cmao20 (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:31:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionidae#Genus : Iphiclides
Info One FP of the underside of this species which I have nominated for delisting. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good Sharp (in two ways) photo. Detail down to the scale can be seen. CJS, I tagged an area on the wing, is it a hot pixel or a reflection? JayCubby (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Done Some artefact, thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. JayCubby (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I was hoping more of the butterfly would be sharp at full size, but still good enough for FP and a nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Merely a fight between background vs DOF. But you had bonus to f/8-9. Interesting that camera put so much tolerance, i thought its Manual Exposure. --Mile (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I seldom use fully manual exposure. Not enough time! Here I would have selected 1/1250 shutter speed and auto ISO. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose beautiful but significant part of front wing is not sharp and the head, posterisation visible on the left --Gower (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Your version is of course vastly better than the one being nominated for delisting Cmao20 (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
File:Segelfalter04.JPG (delist)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:30:15
Info This was promoted with 6 positive votes and three negative. It would struggle at QI I beleive. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist also for procedural considerations. One of the ‘support’ voters, Idiot, was a one-day account (20 June 2008) which has been blocked only a few days later. Idiot’s contributions suggest to me that this user was just an alias of some long-time FPC regular – no real newbie makes 6 edits to their user page and then heads over to FPC voting. Idiot’s vote should have been deleted after the block and the votes on this nomination should have been re-counted. Of course the FPC rules of June 2008 were a bit different, they required only “[a]t least 5 supporting votes”, but they also required a “[r]atio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority)”, just as today. If we consider Idiot’s vote as invalid, we get 5 pro, 3 contra votes, so that the nomination does not reach the two-thirds majority. IMHO this candidate should be delisted also for that reason. – Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist --Wobbanight (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep 2008, sorry, in 2100, we're shit. Why do we need to declare that the above are not important?--Lmbuga (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Lmbuga, for the sake of the FPCBot, on delist nominations we don't use {{s}}. Please change your vote and use {{keep}} instead. For details, look at the rules at the top of the page. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Changed. Thank you. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Are we judging this by current-day standards? It's an interesting composition, though definitely not tack sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist This should not have been promoted anyway. Yann (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- True, and after all a good reason to
Delist . -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- +2.
Delist . --SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- +2.
- True, and after all a good reason to
Delist per Aristeas's argument. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Compared to other images in this category, this is a well-executed photograph. It is atmospheric and beautifully composed, even if the resolution is somewhat low by modern standards. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep FP for me Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Lmbuga. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist too dark and not very detailed --Gower (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist per Yann -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak delist A difficult case. It's reasonably sharp and nicely composed but the resolution is not that high and I can see some CA. What tips me into delist is first the fact the fact that the initial nomination was not a legitimate promotion, and second that this is a very common butterfly (despite the name!) Cmao20 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 09:02:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by User:JackyM59 – uploaded by User:JackyM59 – nominated by JackyM59 -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but on the right, only a few pixels are missing to include the entire building in the image, as shown here. I think the composition would be better then, even if it's just about the lighthouse.--Milseburg (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that composition is better. Also, the sky is a bit noisy in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I cropped the photo to remove a tourist's hair. Here is a new version cropped to 16:9 with the entire abbey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyM59 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Full agreement now. --Milseburg (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better. I saw directly this new version, and I was not understanding the comments, indeed. Statisfactory composition, imho. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support For me, the compo is well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's not just noise that you see in the sky and the rest of the photo. Oversharpened IMO. The image lacks natural detail. --Lmbuga (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose As per Lmbuga, noise is a little high for me. I don't think a good composition of something stationary like this without great technical achievement is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose excessive noise for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)- At full size the noise is low and the image gets my
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 15:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too noisy. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent perspective, very good light. Considering that we have recently promoted images with worse detail resolution, I cannot deny my support to this one, and honestly I prefer a little bit noise to mushy details. – Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Maybe slightly oversharpened but I'm not seeing any real technical issues honestly Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 06:09:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
Info created by Sumit Surai – uploaded by Sumit Surai – nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I thought others might like this photo a lot. Nice fall colors, to be sure, but no great composition to me, though it has some makings of one and thus I understand why you nominated it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice compo IMO. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful Юрий Д.К. 15:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lupe (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice colours and pleasant bokeh Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 20:13:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Chroicocephalus
Info Black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) vocalizing in London. Debated nominating this one, which has maybe a little more detail, but I prefer to see it calling. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The other one has a cleaner background, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I really like this gull, but the blurred bird in the background is too distracting to me. Were it further to the right and more separated from this gull, I'd be fine with it. I'd support the other gull picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agree, background is killing the subject. Especially that blue. Compo could be better. --Mile (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support the other one! Cmao20 (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Mile --Gower (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 18:27:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I didn't even know Bielefeld existed ;-) But seriously, it's a very beautiful portrait of the old town. The tree stands proudly in spring despite the bad weather, and the composition is very well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but neither subject/compo, nor lighting nor Detail are extraordinary in my eyes, Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special here. Also, the sky is not the best. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The gray light decreases the chance of wowing at least this viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Syntaxys. I like looking for the beauty in the world even in this dull grey-blue light, and I think this photo finds it. The rain even brings out some pleasant colours in the stone floor. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I am very sorry for the tree that is forced to grow in such unnatural conditions, but this is not a reason to support this image as a FP. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 08:49:00 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Iran
Info created by Abdolahimehr – uploaded by Abdolahimehr – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: heavy
perspective distortion, noised sky with moire, low quality overall -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive composition and great use of wide-angle view. --August (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Type of photo where talking about PD is senseles. Good for me. --Mile (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- What does PD mean in this context? Perspective distortion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Yes, since mentioned above. --Mile (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I would love to support this if at least some of the distortion is corrected, but the leaning building and wall is a bit much. JayCubby (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I’m sorry to see the opposing votes here, all of which focus on perspective distortion. From my point of view, this is a rare and outstanding example of the intentional artistic use of perspective distortion. It is a well-considered part of the composition and contributes significantly to the impression of extreme spaciousness in the depicted site. --August (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point about distortion. However, there are also quality issues in general. Look at the sky at 100% zoom. It's very noisy and has moiré. In my opinion, the quality is too low, as i mentored earlier in my vote. -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The birds make the difference. Yann (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It is over-processed in my view. For example the clouds around the arch look weird. Also the extreme distortions severely impact the proportions -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per George Chernilevsky & others. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose In my eyes intentional artistic use of perspective distortion isn't working here. --Milseburg (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment You have to experiment with everything, especially in photography. But in the vast majority of cases, it's not very satisfying.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per George. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Milseburg --Gower (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Per August. However, image resolution is rather low — Erika Dauði (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Rearding this vote please see this discussion. – Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very striking effect but I personally suspect that the image is a composite and the sky has been replaced. The processing is poor and the colours do not look realistic. Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 02:59:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1900-1909
Info created by the Kolb brothers – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support An interesting (suspenseful?) scene -- JayCubby (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)- Great photo, but maybe should be digitally restored for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've got it Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden, if you want the PSD, it's at https://files.catbox.moe/sgyer8.psd
- I don't use layers, and save my JPEGs at 100%, so it's not a huge deal either way. JayCubby (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've got it Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per above. --heylenny (talk/edits) 04:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per which comments above? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose At least the dynamic range should have been restored for FP. --August (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Augustgeyler, thank you for the feedback. I struggle with tone/exposure adjustments. If possible, could you send me what you want done? JayCubby (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Support can always be replaced later by a restored version Cmao20 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Mon 08 Dec → Sat 13 Dec Tue 09 Dec → Sun 14 Dec Wed 10 Dec → Mon 15 Dec Thu 11 Dec → Tue 16 Dec Fri 12 Dec → Wed 17 Dec Sat 13 Dec → Thu 18 Dec
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Thu 04 Dec → Sat 13 Dec Fri 05 Dec → Sun 14 Dec Sat 06 Dec → Mon 15 Dec Sun 07 Dec → Tue 16 Dec Mon 08 Dec → Wed 17 Dec Tue 09 Dec → Thu 18 Dec Wed 10 Dec → Fri 19 Dec Thu 11 Dec → Sat 20 Dec Fri 12 Dec → Sun 21 Dec Sat 13 Dec → Mon 22 Dec
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.)
- Add the template
{{Assessments|featured=1}}to the image description page.- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
com-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}} - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On 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):{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
featured=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with{{Assessments|featured=2}}. - Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive 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 must not be removed from the chronological archives.
- 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 section above. 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 nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
