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 edits 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 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)
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)}
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)
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)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 21:08, 6 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)
Support 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)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:00:09 (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/Food_and_drink#Vegetables_(raw)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Lmbuga (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 17:12:02 (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/Food and drink#Nuts
Info created by Lmbuga – uploaded by Lmbuga – nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC).
Comment So many silent voices creating silent art to defend their lives. Sale of chestnuts from the Sofragal cooperative in Rúa Nova street. --Lmbuga (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice arrangement, beneficial soft light, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Each fiber is visible. Nicely lit as per Aristeas. chestnut blight is an interesting read. JayCubby (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 11:19:01 (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/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Saarland
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 09:09:58 (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/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Equidae_(Equids)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice and nice composition. --Lmbuga (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Request Very nice photo, i will support. However, i can see some color residue. Can you convert it to pure black and white? -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do it tonight or tomorrow morning -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 04:06:47 (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/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Edward Lear – uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 03:33:36 (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/Religious buildings#China
Info all by 瑞丽江的河水.
Ganden Sumtseling Monastery is a Tibetan Buddhist monastery established in 1679, which is located in Shangri-La, Yunnan, China. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author.-- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support The composition and lighting are beautiful. --Wobbanight (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The photo is interesting, but I doubt it could be FP, especially with those plant spikes sticking out at the bottom. At least the ones on the left half of the photo could have been removed. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Despite what has been said, I find it impressive. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 00:49:05 (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/Cityscapes#France
Info I love the use of light and shadows in this French street scene. created by Tournasol7 – uploaded by Tournasol7 – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Many shades of yellow JackyM59 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice presentation of oldtown -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It’s often quite difficult to take a representative photo of these charming lanes; this is an excellent example. – Aristeas (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 00:49:11 (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 Extremely high quality astrophotography from an amateur astronomer with an account on Commons. created by Cpayoub – uploaded by Cpayoub – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 21:13:21 (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/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 21:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 21:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Intricate and interesting. JayCubby (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Sorry, why wov? --Lmbuga (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't that ultimately a matter of personal taste? --XRay 💬 08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I was just wondering if there was anything special about the artistic design of the door. --Lmbuga (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support
- I've always liked geometric shapes. Here, minimalism and geometry come together in an appealing color scheme. I find that quite special. --XRay 💬 12:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you, your opinion encourages me to value it. The Portuguese text ‘Mundial sapatarias’ is very charming, surprising and expressive. Provides context. Now I like it much more. And ‘wov’ for so many silent voices making art to defend their lives.--Lmbuga (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 16:01:30 (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/Sports#Individual sports
Info A hiker on the last meters before reaching the summit of the Schneespitze in the Stubai Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the picture is very well done, especially the composition. Perhaps the view into the background could be improved a little, but I know such situations too, it's difficult. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Impressive. --Lmbuga (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 14:33:59 (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/Anseriformes#Genus : Coscoroba
Info No FPs of this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasant composition and nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 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)
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)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 02:32:23 (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#India
Info created and uploaded by Arjunfotografer – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)- Beautiful composition, but the sky is noisy with disturbing artifacts and a large apparent dust spot behind the central spire. I'll probably have to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support @Ikan Kekek, Wobbanight, Arjunfotografer, pic was worth to save. I removed CA, noise, some black spot and bird? above-left. CA was quiet heavy, but angle was such (border). --Mile (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It's an FP now, but User:Arjunfotografer, do you approve of the edits? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Petar, great work! JayCubby (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Excellent perspective, beautiful building. Many thanks to Mile for the repair! Detail resolution etc. is not that great, details are a bit mushy, hence the ‘weak’. That’s not Mile’s fault, of course, the problems are already in the original version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 20:18:28 (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#United_Kingdom
Info Surprised how few FPs we have of Buckingham Palace. The only one which shows the full exterior is this one. So figured I'd give this one a try, taken during the Captain's inspection (hence the band playing and the crowd watching). In trying to retain detail on the building, I overexposed the sky a bit, but I decided to embrace the intensity of it on an otherwise gray day. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Per the same reason I promoted this image to QI status. --Wobbanight 02:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too many people. Yann (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The blow highlights are excessive, in my view. In this case HDR imaging seems essential for the management of the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too much overexposure, too many people Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose QI, but not extraordinary. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 6 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)
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)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 17:21:57 (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#1980-1989
Info created by Sheila Rock – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Unlike so many publicity photos, this was scanned from the original negative, which was, per Janke, from a Hasselblad (and for the record Adam, you work wonders with prints). Fantastic detail and lighting. JayCubby (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed an excellent reproduction of a well-done publicity photo. Comparison with the only other photo by Sheila Rock on Commons shows a quality difference like night and day. – Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 16:49:42 (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/Others#Historical
Info created by Rembrandt, scanned by Google Art Project, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info The Abduction of Europa (1632) is Rembrandt's rare mythological subject paintings.
Support Another notable painting in a huge resolution. No problem with the display even with 1423.52 Megapixels. This is the highest resolution offered by Google for this painting. -- Yann (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A gigapixel image, good levels. I can't say whether it's accurate to the original, but I trust it is. JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely ridiculous level of detail, but I suppose that could be useful to someone. The rest of us can just zoom in from full-page size according to our preferences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great painting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 15:21:37 (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/Black and White#Others
Info created and uploaded by Roy Egloff – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting photograph. JayCubby (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a very accurate piece of work, also in terms of the monochrome finish and the amusing image that accompanies it. --Syntaxys (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 02:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Extreme processing is a choice but why are some parts blurry in the foreground, supposed to be in focus, according to the depth of field? -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that's strange somehow. Perhaps it comes from some kind of motion blur caused by rotation of the head. August (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Info George's and my vote got deleted. Please restore. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Mistake edit by Анастасия Львова, fixed now -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how :( Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Mistake edit by Анастасия Львова, fixed now -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I look pretty much the same when I wake up in the morning.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Syntaxys. – Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:24:35 (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#Portugal
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Could the highlights be reduced any? JayCubby (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have a question: What highlights? The highlights have already been reduced to give the waterfall some structure. But there aren't really any other highlights anywhere. -- XRay 💬 15:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- At the top of the stairs. JayCubby (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are those really highlights? The part is brighter thanks to the sunny section, but that's about it. I'll take a look at it anyway. -- XRay 💬 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have a question: What highlights? The highlights have already been reduced to give the waterfall some structure. But there aren't really any other highlights anywhere. -- XRay 💬 15:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Done I made a few corrections to the image: (1) The highlights, especially at the end of the stairs, were reduced. (2) The perspective corrections were reduced because the photo gave a slightly skewed impression. However, the individual steps are set so differently that no clear line can be seen. -- XRay 💬 09:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support: Besser, thank you. JayCubby (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice scenery, impressive cascade. – Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:21:37 (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_:_Regulidae_(Kinglets)
Info A goldcrest (Regulus regulus) – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Could the twig above the beak be cloned out? JayCubby (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ahad.F (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure which twig Jay means, but it's a very good composition as it stands, so I would leave it alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! There is a small out of focus twig sticking out behind the beak. I personally avoid removing elements even if it would clean-up the image a tad. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice portrait of the bird, but the background at the beak is a bit distracting. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:19:22 (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/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Paridae_(Tits)
Info A crested tit (Lophophanes cristatus) – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good feather detail, interesting pose, and pretty lighting. JayCubby (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Jay. Some people may say this is a busy composition, but I like the complexity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 09:13:13 (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/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deer)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: As you recommend I am nominating this image. -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice quality and composition -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice atmosphere. Is he used to humans, or did he bolt soon after? JayCubby (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ahad.F (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good composition and detail on the chital. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:53, 6 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)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 08:42:47 (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#Other ceilings
Info created by Hamidespanani – uploaded by Hamidespanani – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. An interesting place, but many quality issues: very noisy in the shadows, looks unnatural. There's also a strong chromatic aberrations at the edges of highlights. -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's a very interesting image, but it's very difficult to get right. If you have the chance, try it several times; it's worth it. Never give up in photography. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
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)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 22:16:47 (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/Plants#Family : Lamiaceae
Info Close-up of a lavender flower. Stacked from 21 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent executed focus stack with crisp detail and beautiful light. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support That's just amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Do you know which lavender species this flower belongs to? This would add greater future utility. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure at all. The plant is in my garden and was bought at the garden center, but it's not an unusual type of lavender.--Ermell (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Like some bird species, there is a whole diverse taxonomy associated with lavender. Not sure but Google AI Plant ID suggests that this may be English lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), or more likely a hybrid known as Lavandin (Lavandula x intermedia).- Lavandin, sometimes referred to as French lavender; sometimes Dutch lavender (some disagreement there), is a sterile hybrid cross-over between English lavender (L. augusifolia) and Portuguese lavender (L. latifolia). It is found in many gardens (beautiful flowers; wonderful scent) and used commercially for lavender oil.
- The USDA “considers lavender as generally recognized as safe for human consumption” Inhaling when you smell this flower should be considered a safe practice 😊. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Seal of Support: superb stack! JayCubby (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Perfect! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very well done! --Syntaxys (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 18:08:35 (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 Created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Julian Lupyan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I found this scene to be interesting, as it seems as though the entablature on the right is inspired by the much older one on the left. The whites being bright are a deliberate choice, as whitewashed buildings on a sunny day are rather blinding. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose You should document in that retouched template that it's a composite. The gate is unsharp and the rework around/near the right wall doesn't look good Poco a poco (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, would you mind clarifying where it is you're mentioning? The photo is not a composite, and retouching was only done within what would now be the sky mask (specifically the left side, above the older entablature). Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I have reworked the right wall as per Mile's advice (there was no rework prior). Would you mind specifying what you mean by "gate" so I can locally sharpen it? Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I mean the left side of the image. Even if it would be sharp this is no FP to me. I don't understand what is extraordinary here. Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp, strong distorrted -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good showing of Architecture, i would try to remove that wire.--Mile (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 17:33:52 (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/Non-photographic media/Science#Science
Info created by Phillipe Rekacewicz – uploaded by User:RedAndr – nominated by Prototyperspective -- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support High-quality, important, heavily-used, and educational.-- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Only 250k, which is impressive for an SVG of this complexity. JayCubby (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 06:23:57 (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/Primates#Family : Hominidae (Great Apes)
Info Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Guess he's thinking about better times? ;-) Very nice portrait! --Syntaxys (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, no. You have little experience of gorilla thinking... She's thinking 'How lucky I am that this Spanish guy with 1200+ FPs has climbed all the way up here just to see me'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hahaha, ;) but believe me, it was really challenging to get there with your own year. Good that there voracious amts that motivated you not to make a pause ;). I also thought that we lose one older guy in the way back Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- We had our own porters carrying our waterproof backpacks. They earned their pay helping us descend in the pouring rain and mud on the way back. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hahaha, ;) but believe me, it was really challenging to get there with your own year. Good that there voracious amts that motivated you not to make a pause ;). I also thought that we lose one older guy in the way back Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A portrait both impressive and expressive. Can I
Request GPS coords? JayCubby (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 18:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support She certainly looks contemplative. Thank you for sharing such a great picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)There are 1013 images of the Gorilla beringei beringei species at Commons, of which 13 are rated FP, including this one, taken by you at the same location on the same day that IMO, is a more appealing portrait. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose- That link is to search results, not a single picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ikan. I have corrected the link. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- GRDN711: I'd agree with this feedback for a bird or reptile but primates, espcially gorilas, are IMHO almost as expressive as humans. I rather consider this image a portrait than just a picture of an animal species. Let alone that you need in total 3 days to get there and come back and the hike was probably one of the most strenuous in my life. It wouldn't be fair to compare tis shot with one in the own garden or forest nearby. Poco a poco (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Poco a poco: . They are fascinating creatures, but FP grants no special exemption for gorillas different from the general guidelines for evaluating any FP nomination where the “main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others”.
- Sorry, @Poco a poco: . They are fascinating creatures, but FP grants no special exemption for gorillas different from the general guidelines for evaluating any FP nomination where the “main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others”.
- GRDN711: I'd agree with this feedback for a bird or reptile but primates, espcially gorilas, are IMHO almost as expressive as humans. I rather consider this image a portrait than just a picture of an animal species. Let alone that you need in total 3 days to get there and come back and the hike was probably one of the most strenuous in my life. It wouldn't be fair to compare tis shot with one in the own garden or forest nearby. Poco a poco (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, FP does not recognize any distinction for image location. I recognize you make good images and travel widely. I am sure that going to the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in 2024 was a challenge. However, Giles Laurent traveled there in 2022 and Charles in 2016, both of whom also have FPs for this species.
- By my observation, the focus here is two images of the same gorilla taken by the same photographer, at nearly the same time on the same day at the same location. IMO, your other image with the full-frontal view (already an FP and selected for Picture of the Day for June 15th 2026) is a better and unique portrait of this primate
Support Given all that, I have looked at this image several times over the last couple of days, and am going to support this nomination as well. It has a different emotional feeling from the other one that is also valid and projected in the image. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, FP does not recognize any distinction for image location. I recognize you make good images and travel widely. I am sure that going to the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in 2024 was a challenge. However, Giles Laurent traveled there in 2022 and Charles in 2016, both of whom also have FPs for this species.
- Travelling around the world and taking beautiful pictures for Wikimedia is a privilege enjoyed by very few people. In line with Commons' idea of equality for all, this should not be a criterion for evaluating creative contributions. However, if awards for contributions in a particular subject area are handed out too liberally, it reduces the concept of the award to absurdity.
- A good picture is a good picture, and it doesn't matter who took it, when or under what conditions. In my opinion, this photograph is an outstanding picture, if only because of the moment it conveys. You don't need a big experience in gorilla science to understand, when looking at this picture, that everything in nature is also part of us and must be protected. Isn't it? Syntaxys (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I realize this is a positive statement about this picture, but in terms of the difficulty of taking the shot not being proper to take into account, note this in the top section of this page: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the image itself and have only commented positively on it because it impressed me and, above all, appealed to me emotionally. This doesn't happen very often, which is why I find the image extraordinary.
- What bothers me is how this image is being handled. As GRDN711 has already noted, there seems to be an attempt to push every image in a series through as FP. The author does not make a narrower pre-selection along the lines of ‘this is the best image for me, I nominate this one’, but instead selects two, three or more images of the same motif. This not only reduces the value of an individual exceptional image in this series, but also the value of the award in general. In my opinion, this is also disrespectful to everyone else who participates in this quality assessment.
- Furthermore, I find the statement ‘... this is not a picture from the garden or nearby forest’ to be unjustified. What is difficult about this picture? The journey into the jungle? For a young man, this is certainly less of a problem physically than it is for an older man. Would the photograph be less valuable if it were taken by a young man?
- Or to put it another way: suppose you gave a local person the equipment and training to take such pictures, and they took the picture in passing. Would that picture then be worth more or less?
- Or – without any personal connection – another hypothetical case: It can be almost impossible for a wheelchair user to take a macro shot of a mushroom in the nearest forest. If they do manage it, is this picture more valuable than other mushroom macros?
- The difficulty of taking a picture is very relative and can only be taken into account approximately if you can grasp the whole story. Syntaxys (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is hard work to get to the gorillas, but for the (expensive) hour you are with them the photography challenge is minimal. You are very close and they don't move away. Poor light and foliage in the way are two problems. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I realize this is a positive statement about this picture, but in terms of the difficulty of taking the shot not being proper to take into account, note this in the top section of this page: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 02:26:57 (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 : Fringillidae (Finches and Allies)
Info Only 8 photos of this species in its category. No FP or even quality image. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Polinova -- Polinova (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Polinova (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment IUCN Endangered. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good photo. Finches tend to be small, and the fact that this is an endangered species clinches my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I believe its quite hard to manage light and properly expose on snow. Excellent capture. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Tisha. JayCubby (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good captured and worked out. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 01:54:22 (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/Places/Cemeteries#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by MuhammadAmdadHossain – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Found here--imo of all images, this with the nun clad in the iconic white cotton sari conveys its unique south Asian context the best. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, this is one of my favourite photos from Wiki Loves Folklore. I am impressed by the deep devotion and the picturesque grave decorations in the images from All Souls’ Day in Bangladesh. IMHO the quality is really good when we consider the difficult circumstances – extreme contrast between burning candles and dark shadows in this night scene, and the people were moving. – Aristeas (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The image convinces me with its thoughtful use of light and its calm, well-balanced composition under challenging conditions. The subtle details in the candlelight and the quiet focus of the scene make it exceptionally compelling. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely, moving photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 21:18:09 (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/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Great egret fishing during a foggy day at Champ-Pittet, Switzerland. Exceptional weather circumstances with no wind and the presence of fog were needed to take this picture. The absence of wind allowed to have a perfect water reflection while the presence of fog allowed to have perfect colorless clean water instead of having the sky and vegetation reflecting their colors in the water. Image rotated 90 degrees to the left to better highlight the bird's perspective and the reflection on the water's surface.
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support In striking detail. Reminds me of POTY 2020, and will have my vote at POTY 2025! Incredible capture. Do you use a polarizing filter to eliminate reflections? JayCubby (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated! No polarizing filter was used, I just took advantage of the fog which allowed to have no sky and no vegetation reflecting in the water :) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cool!!! Je-str (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely amazing Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Award worthy shot here. --Polinova (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding image --Tagooty (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great decision turning it into landscape orientation. --August (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 18:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral This is an exceptional image but rotating it 90 degrees seems unnecessary and overly contrived. IMO right-side up would relieve the viewer from wondering what’s going on and bring better focus on the action of the bird. Also suggest cropping a little tighter (marked with note) to center the strike. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review but I honestly think that the current rotation fits the image better. From the very beginning (in 2021) I've orientated the image this way because it looked a lot better to me and also because it gave a very original artistic touch to the image as these almost unreal weather conditions can make it look like the subject is floating in the void and opening a portal to another world. Before uploading this to Wikimedia Commons I've spend a lot of time thinking if I would keep my original orientation or rotate it back to "normal" view. Every time I compared both images side by side, the current version looked like a 10/10 while the other only looked like a 7/10 to my eyes. To me it is only with this current rotation that we can truly enjoy the beauty of the reflection at it fullest because it is much more pleasant to compare the subject and the reflection by comparing left to right instead of comparing it top to bottom. Also I very much like the way this orientation is much more immersive as it gives us the bird's perspective. Finally, I think photography is also about proposing unusual perspective and surprising the viewer, making him look the image more than just a second to figure out what is going on. And it is anyway not hard to figure it out and in case people wouldn't, it is clearly written in the image description. So thank you for the suggestion but I stand by my rotation choice -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per GRDN711. -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Very creative and artistic. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Creative shot. But i agree more tight crop would be beter. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Done, new file uploaded with slightly tighter crop -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Excellent. Thank you for rotating the image! It’s always good to challenge our visual habits a bit ;–) as long as the change serves a good purpose – and here it does, IMHO it is a substantial aesthetic improvement. – Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral per GRDN711. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support POTY 2025! --Wobbanight (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 20:21:40 (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/Places/Settlements#United States
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Julian Lupyan -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I was lucky enough to take this picture at a time of particularly stunning lighting. -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good scene, pretty lighting. It could be sharpened a little, though. JayCubby (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I tried sharpening it more than it already is, and it turned a little too grainy in my opinion. If others request the same, I'll make sure to make the change. Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wonderfully atmospheric, with a superb sky, just a great scene, and it's wonderful that you got the whole island and then some in one shot. I think it's sharp enough, given the context that makes it a lot like a painted seascape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 18:37:00 (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/Architecture/Towers#Brazil
Info created and initially uploaded by Munique Bassoli – edited and nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice motif and good light but not centred, not sharp, and colour fringing visible Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 and Julian Lupyan: The image is not tilted as the top of the tower is aligned, but the ruined tower looks unsymmetrical, maybe causing that impression. heylenny (talk/edits) 00:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
per Cmao20 Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Weak oppose. Slightly changing my vote, as the tower being asymmetrical improves the case for the composition. However, the blur and fringing seem too significant for me to change to support. Julian Lupyan (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not sharp enough. --Wobbanight (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 17:17:10 (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/Other#Brazil
Info created by Editorial J from Porto Alegre, Brasil – uploaded by Sturm – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Lovely mood and good composition, however it is quite noisy near the bottom. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I understand why you nominated it: the leaves are beautifully lit. However, the overall composition is not outstanding to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, I can't find anything exceptional. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ohh of course. Unless it was a tree in Berlin uh... heylenny (talk/edits) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I like the comp, but there is a bit of noise at the bottom, and the lighting doesn't help. --Wobbanight (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 15:55:28 (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/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info I pass this spot very often and have photographed this old branch of the Rhine several times at different times of the day and year. This picture was taken in the early morning light after the first night of frost in this winter season. Created, uploaded and nominated by Syntaxys -- Syntaxys (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- Syntaxys (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. FYI Syntaxys, there's some
chromatic aberration in the branches in the bottom right and top left. JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Beloved backlight ;-) Thank you for pointing that out. I must have developed it into the image and was able to reduce it again. I don't normally have this problem with this fixed focal length. Syntaxys (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Don’t worry – branches, twigs and foliage with high contrast in back-lighting can provoke CAs and purple fringing even with the best prime lenses. Unfortunately some common noise reduction tools, e.g. Adobe’s modern “AI“ Noise reduction, often even emphasise these aberrations, so if you use them look out for that unwanted effect. – Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review and comments. I checked the raw data, where the CAs are significantly lower; they were then amplified when adjusting the contrasts and the gradation curve. You don't always search the entire image after each step to see if something has deteriorated in certain areas. I do take another close look before publication, but if the overall impression is convincing, I get impatient ;-)
What I like most about this picture is the technical basis with which it was taken. This old Nikon D300 from 2007 is built like a tank, and I always carry it in my bicycle bag for spontaneous everyday shots like this. --Syntaxys (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review and comments. I checked the raw data, where the CAs are significantly lower; they were then amplified when adjusting the contrasts and the gradation curve. You don't always search the entire image after each step to see if something has deteriorated in certain areas. I do take another close look before publication, but if the overall impression is convincing, I get impatient ;-)
- Beloved backlight ;-) Thank you for pointing that out. I must have developed it into the image and was able to reduce it again. I don't normally have this problem with this fixed focal length. Syntaxys (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Scenic and sensitive frosty landscape, lovely mood and high quality Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 18:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very pretty light. Pretty nature. JackyM59 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 20:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 11:39:01 (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/Sports#Other team sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Slightly grainy, but a really great sports picture, shot at the absolutely right split second! Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per above. As a bonus, there are no gaudy adverts on the backing. JayCubby (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 21:38:39 (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#1890-1899
Info created by an unknown photographer, around 1895 – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby
Support. Nice reproduction and seasonally appropriate. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think this is a good photo, regardless of the season. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice picture, and good timing. Yann (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 02:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ah, finally an authentic portrait of Santa Claus! ;–) Seriously, a nice and not exaggerated interpretation of Santa, and a well-done photo (I guess the foreground snow in the photo is the result of clever darkroom work). – Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, see here. It's indeed quite clever. JayCubby (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! Very interesting. – Aristeas (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, see here. It's indeed quite clever. JayCubby (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 19:15:01 (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/Plants#Family : Poaceae
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice to see something submitted for pure artistic value Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A beautiful and atmospheric image. However, this subject could be dangerous for a mirrorless camera. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
File:Rita Levi-Montalcini (1986).jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 05:24:04 (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#1980-1989
Info created by Kurt Hagblom, Firma Hagblom-Foto – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I hadn't heard of her. Very important person. Good photo and restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice, characterful portrait of an interesting person Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Likeable, natural portrait photo, good restoration. – Aristeas (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 21:31:17 (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#Uzbekistan
Info Small Dome of Devonaboy mosque, Andijan. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment A very detailed image with a clean and clear composition. But I would strongly suggest, cropping the left symmetrically with the right side. --August (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @August --Mile (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Thank you. But what becomes obvious now is, that the camera was not centred exactely so the perspective itself is not symetrical. So unfortunately, I think this can't be fixed in post. --August (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The lack of symmetry is a dealbreaker for me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great picture. The lack of symmetry is not a dealbreaker for me. It does cause some tension, which I hope is intentional, but regardless, this is a very clear picture of a wonderful dome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. I like the slight imbalance in lighting. JayCubby (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support because this is so close to symmetrical that the asymmetry doesn't look intentional and thus I do see it as a flaw; however, quality and motif is very good Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose as per Cmao20 - Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 16:05:02 (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/Bridges#China
Info all by 瑞丽江的河水. Double Dragon Bridge in Jianshui County, Yunnan, China, is a masterpiece of ancient Chinese bridge architecture. It was originally built as a 3-arch bridge in the 18th century and was expanded into a 17-arch bridge in 1839. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- At last again a photo from China! Je-str (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear photo of a striking bridge. If you know the year of construction, please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: it's fine that it's not ancient; I'm just telling you how I use that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have wrote the article: en:Double Dragon Bridge. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: it's fine that it's not ancient; I'm just telling you how I use that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The desturbing twig at the right corner should be cloned out.--Ermell (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the suggestion. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kcx36 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's a nice building but the right crop is unfortunate, the main element is too centered and the main subject mostly in shadow, Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I have cloned the crop out, hope this version increases the score. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better now and FP in my eyes.--Ermell (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A fascinating subject captured under pleasant golden light and with an elegant composition. Well done. Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --PexEric (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 11:12:35 (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#Galaxies
Info The horizontal and vertical field of view is 212°, which corresponds to the target region of the astronomical survey. An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular).
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tk833 -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support High level, high valuable picture, and very nice, also. Thanks for this and the others. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image is not circular, though: it's cropped on at least 3 sides. Is it possible to uncrop it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. However, the purpose of this image is to show the entire target region (and not to satisfy an ideal of beauty). That’s why the field of view is 212° (see the comment above). On the other hand, I did not want to throw away the additional border where data with reduced quality are available. (Cropping this border would also result in a round image.)
- Also note that the purpose of the astronomical survey is not to make pretty pictures. Tk833 (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely noted. But then why do you say "An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular)"? You mean one side was not cropped? It doesn't make the image circular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I
Support, and I think everyone else should, too, but I don't think your description is clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC) - The region for which data is usable is approximately 214°. Because the field of view in the horizontal and vertical directions is 212°, about 1° of data (usable but not relevant) is cropped on all four edges. (It is possible that we misunderstand each other because our objectives appear to be completely different.) Tk833 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I understand this, but it's not what you posted in "Info" above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I
- Definitely noted. But then why do you say "An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular)"? You mean one side was not cropped? It doesn't make the image circular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:05:34 (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/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Lovely composition, but lacking in detail. The loco on right is blurry, the vegetation very blurry. Surprising given the high-end camera. Is a better version available? --Tagooty (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a Hasselblad, but I've often wondered how the best aerial cameras compare with the ones landscape photographers use on land? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Don't read too much into the Hasselblad name. They may have been involved in the development but the camera itself is a cheap plastic thing with poor quality control (seriously, this is my second Mavic 3, the first one was worse). DJI only cares about video quality and for 4K their cameras are good enough, while their photo quality is mediocre at best. Nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Reluctantly
Oppose for my reasons above. --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Reluctantly
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The 'Hasselblad' in DJI drones is in name only (see also what happened to RadioShack, Invicta, etc). It's not every day that nuclear fuel is schlepped around, and taken as a whole it's a pretty and interesting scene. JayCubby (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Question for Kabelleger: Did you happen to get lucky with spotting a cask-bearing train, or was it published in advance? JayCubby (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- These trains are published just like all other freight trains on https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk (and some alternative sites), however you typically only know up to ~12h (often less) in advance if the train is actually running (there are many planned paths for these trains but >90% end up unused) and you need to "read between the lines" to figure out if it is likely to be a nuclear transport (good hints are if it starts or ends at Sellafield, Carlisle Kingmoor or Georgemas Junction, there certainly are other relevant stations I'm not aware of). And of course it might run early or late. So there is some information but it's not entirely straight-forward. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The image quality is not great, but as always with Kabelleger's shots it is a special capture that must have required a lot of forward planning, and in this case I am very impressed by both composition and light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:54:24 (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#Sky
Info The picture was taken from the Kokino megalithic observatory on 14 August 2015 during the peak period of the Perseids. In addition, the sky was clear and new moon occurred the same night, allowing for a better view in the upper parts of the atmosphere with no moonlight interference. Created by Petrovskyz – uploaded by Petrovskyz – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Pretty picture, but what accounts for the colors in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- The sky appears purple as a result of the interaction between light and particles in the atmosphere. Note that the orange layer of the atmosphere, immediately above the ground, is light pollution. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I figured that was caused by light pollution but was confused about the purple. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- The sky appears purple as a result of the interaction between light and particles in the atmosphere. Note that the orange layer of the atmosphere, immediately above the ground, is light pollution. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I've certainly never seen a night sky that looked purple. (Are there unusual chemicals in the atmosphere? It's well past sunset - I couldn't find sunset times for Kokino, but in Skopje, sunset on August 14 is at 7:35.) However, I accept Kiril's explanation. Beautiful picture, with a sort of magical appearance of the foreground mountains at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, esp. thanks to the wide hilly landscape. Technically not quite on the same level as the newest Milky Way photos (e.g.), but good considering the extreme difficulty and that it was taken in 2015. – Aristeas (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:18:26 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info Offices of the Government House of Russia in Moscow. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 16:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good image: Overwhelming, suffocating... and we must remember that there are human beings behind it all. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 17:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Lmbuga. A bit depressing to me as a complete composition but less so when looking at the somewhat decorated details at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Lmbuga. A very staggering scene. Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, not convinced. The architecture is not that interesting (in particular, I mean the isolated facade pattern on the photo; not the building as a whole). Some darkened windows spoil the overall symmetry. The WB seems a bit off (note that this is the so-called "White" House). --A.Savin 13:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Probably you don't know what is a white balance and/or that the sun has a yellow hue at evening so the building can't be white at this time, yes, even if it is so-called "White House" Юрий Д.К. 16:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A very interesting image that you can linger over, and it is well crafted. Even if the white balance might be not quite right, it does not detract from the image. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:14:10 (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/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Icon of the Resurrection of Jesus - Resurrection Gate, Red Square, Moscow. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality and interesting motif Cmao20 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice! --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 08:43:22 (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/Places/Settlements#Morocco
Info In this arid, drought-affected area, unusual rain the previous night brought out the natural range of colours. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, and slight unsharpness at full size is excused by huge resolution Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I like the landscape in the back but wouldn't call the compo on the image extraordinary. The mosque is the main point attraction attention on the image and is too centered and the other buildings are not interesting Poco a poco (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I think the positioning of the mosque is fine but otherwise agree with Poco. Nice, valuable picture but not an extraordinary composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice colors, specially the greens and reds. --Yann (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Tagooty can you decrase exposure just on mosque ? --Mile (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @PetarM: Good idea, thank you! I've reduced the bright sunlight on the mosque and it has brought out some detail. --Tagooty (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Definately much better. --Mile (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Attractive colour gradient JackyM59 (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 08:20:15 (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_:_Phasianidae_(Grouse,_Partridges,_Peafowl,_Pheasants,_Quail,_Turkeys)
Info All by Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not very sharp or exceptional. The image quality is markedly lower than three recently promoted images of similar species in the same location in the FP Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Do you mean the gray francolins and the rain quail? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Yes, two francolins and one quail. --Tagooty (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition outweighs imperfect sharpness Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 15:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I concur with Tagooty Poco a poco (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think File:Rock Bush-Quail in Bhigwan August 2025 by Tisha Mukherjee 02.jpg is better. Would it be within the rules for that picture to be offered as an alternate, or would it have to be nominated separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- That photo is close enough and from the same photo session, so totally within the rules. Just remember that the nominator decides if they want to add it as an 'Alt'. There is a guide on how to add an 'Alt' further up on this page; the '#Adding a new nomination' section. --Cart (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I know it's up to Tisha whether to nominate an alt or not, but maybe some people didn't know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected you knew, my comment was more general since people often learn how FPC works though comments and fixes like this. It's better to be as clear as possible. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected you knew, my comment was more general since people often learn how FPC works though comments and fixes like this. It's better to be as clear as possible. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was not aware of this. I have added that. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I know it's up to Tisha whether to nominate an alt or not, but maybe some people didn't know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- That photo is close enough and from the same photo session, so totally within the rules. Just remember that the nominator decides if they want to add it as an 'Alt'. There is a guide on how to add an 'Alt' further up on this page; the '#Adding a new nomination' section. --Cart (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Perdicula argoondah (Rock Bush-Quail)
@Tagooty, Cmao20, Wobbanight, Poco a poco, Ikan Kekek, and W.carter: I have added an alternative and your views are valued to me. I hope you will take a look, thank you. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I
Support this alt, which is sharper and has nice streaming bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 14:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. – Aristeas (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see a big change regarding sharpness, but pose and crop is better here Poco a poco (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Not markedly better than the original nom. --Tagooty (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 03:08:06 (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/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Nymphalidae#Genus : Parasarpa
Info created by SVKMBFLY – uploaded by SVKMBFLY – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Can Atudu please review saturation and exposure levels. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for now per Charles. A cursory image search seems to indicate that the level of saturation here is abnormal for this species. Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point. User:SVKMBFLY, would you like to clarify? Is this a variant, or is it oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is the colour of the butterfly in case of post processing I do a little changes in shadow highlight not the saturation level. It may be happened due to low light and using flash or sometimes it may vary device to device. But this is the true colour of the species you can check the other photographs of the same species SVKMBFLY (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- The other photos I saw looked different from this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is the colour of the butterfly in case of post processing I do a little changes in shadow highlight not the saturation level. It may be happened due to low light and using flash or sometimes it may vary device to device. But this is the true colour of the species you can check the other photographs of the same species SVKMBFLY (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point. User:SVKMBFLY, would you like to clarify? Is this a variant, or is it oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, will support when corrected Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 18:05:39 (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#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Close-up of a coral (Platygyra daedalea), Anilao, Philippines. This brain coral c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support One needs to read the article and see the lead picture to understand what we are looking at. Yann (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment What is the article? Which article is it? Where is it? I would like to give my opinion, but I don't have any criteria. If there are no photos in the article, I won't be able to give my opinion. I'm sorry, but I don't know any more than I already do, and I don't understand this picture. How can I tell if the photo is FP? I know Poco a poco and I believe in him. Is that enough to vote for his photo here? By the way, I've already looked for photos that might help me, but I feel very lost. I don't want to commit an injustice by not committing myself.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Lmbuga: I think Yann meant the Platygyra daedalea article, also linked in "info" above by Poco. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've seen it and read it without knowing it. It doesn't help. Will we have to vote blindfolded? Well, I'll vote blindfolded. I don't want to be mean. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Lmbuga: I think Yann meant the Platygyra daedalea article, also linked in "info" above by Poco. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I think it's a great photograph. What's more, it was taken by an excellent photographer, but you can't ask me to take any more responsibility than that. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes the system does not work. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused, what is the problem? this is a close-up of a coral of the species Platygyra daedalea. Why blindfolded? what else do you need to review the image? I've added to the description page another image of the very same coral in full size, I hope this helps. The distance between the walls is ca. 2–4 centimetres (0.79–1.57 in) Poco a poco (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support That does help. Both are interesting pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused, what is the problem? this is a close-up of a coral of the species Platygyra daedalea. Why blindfolded? what else do you need to review the image? I've added to the description page another image of the very same coral in full size, I hope this helps. The distance between the walls is ca. 2–4 centimetres (0.79–1.57 in) Poco a poco (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes the system does not work. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality, detail, and nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 07:11:12 (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/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Mike Peel – uploaded by Mike Peel – nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. I like the painting (which is PD-old), and my photograph of it and its frame came out unexpectedly well. With thanks to User:Zen 38 for the categorisation, and User:ArionStar for suggesting to nominate it here. I'm not sure if I've got the right gallery, as this is a photo of non-photographic media. -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is a good reproduction of a nice painting, but compared to other painting reproductions we've featured, I doubt this is an FP, for at least 2 reasons: (1) the frame seems as emphasized as or maybe even more emphasized than the painting; (2) the bit of label is distracting enough to make the composition less than perfect. I would suggest keeping this but making a version under a different filename that lacks the frame and background and shows only the canvass. Even then, though, the resolution is probably too low to compete with the colossal reproductions we've featured that show individual dots of paint. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the feedback. I'd missed the bit of the label, so I've cropped that out, thanks for pointing it out! With the frame, I think that's a core part of the photo - this is how the picture is displayed and is normally seen, and Wikidata even has image with frame (P7420) specifically for pictures with their frame included. With the resolution, this is 37MPix, it's difficult to do much better without very specialised equipment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice, and for me, it's fine to have an FP with the frame, a bit of variety is always pleasant and not all images of artwork have to take the same approach. Re 'colossal reproductions we've featured that show individual dots of paint', I take Ikan's point but honestly who needs to see individual dots of paint? I prefer an image like this where I can actually view it without it taking up all my computer memory. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice painting, good resolution, frame is OK. --Yann (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support but I find the list very dominant.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 06:34:41 (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#North Macedonia
Info created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice composition at full-page size, but at full size, it is not as sharp as File:Memmelsdorf Schlossgarten Seehof Luftbild-20240412-RM-171016.jpg, nominated above, though I have the feeling it was shot from higher (the numbers above sea level are certainly higher, but I don't know how those relate to the elevation above the ground). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I used this tool to find that the ground elevation is 416 m, so the camera is about 132 m above the ground. Note that it was necessary to elevate the drone so high in order to capture the lines of the river and the road with the surrounding ambient, as well as to avoid collision with the taller trees. So, there’s basically a trade-off between composition and sharpness, but, in my opinion, the sharpness is still very good given the distance from the ground.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Very nice composition and colours outweighs borderline sharpness IMO Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've uploaded a sharper version. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)- Mild
Support per discussion and Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely photo. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very good composition, nice colours. But the image looks over-sharpened to me. --August (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Augustgeyler: How does it look now? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- It lost some sharpness and did not improve. August (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Augustgeyler: How does it look now? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 20:32:45 (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/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Uzbekistan
Info Close-up of Kalyan Minaret (Минарет Калян, Minorai Kalon) in Bukhara. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Or to view in in 20 Mpx
Support -- Mile (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support very detailed shot with a clean and simple composition of structure and colour. --August (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exemplary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I know I'm going to swim against the tide, but I don't believe the colour of the sky and for me, for that reason, it's not FP. I don't wonder how his camera translated the colour of the sky, I wonder how he saw it. If that's alright with you, perfect. --Lmbuga (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it might be too dark, but otherwise exemplary, as I said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Lmbuga few pictures above, rocks in sea... So you see them or "belive the color of sea" ? You saw it like that ? --Mile (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support To dark sky but beautiful photo Юрий Д.К. 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 17:58:24 (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 : Furnariidae (Ovenbirds and Woodcreepers)
Info The rufous horneo, or red ovenbird, builds a complex oven-like nest from mud. As a nest-builder, does it have a match? Around human habitation, the nest may be more concealed. The hornero uses it only once. Other birds use it in subsequent years. No FPs of this bird family. National bird of Argentina. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Funny.--Ermell (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Agreed. JayCubby (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I would have chosen at least a more decentralised and tighter crop for this otherwise good image. The way the subject is presented detracts from it, in my opinion. --Syntaxys (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think the the crop is irrelevant with a sky background and a bizarre reason to oppose. In this case, it shows that the post is out in the open and allows anyone to crop to suit other wikis, the space on the printed page etc. But I can do any crop that the majority prefer - a portrait crop? Charlesjsharp (talk)
- I prefer the current crop to a possible portrait crop, let it breathe Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support To me, it looks slightly tilted to the right, but the picture is so good that it doesn't matter. Perhaps it is better this way. --Lmbuga (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's not tilted but the nest is not quite symmetrical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great, and I agree completely with Cmao20 about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: So far, no one has asked for a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your work, Charles, you take great photos. But I find this one a bit boring simply because of the cropping you chose. The sky just doesn't provide enough context. If there were at least a little cloud to be seen... Syntaxys (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well actually the whole point of the compostion is that, to me, it looks like a giant match. That is the 'context', but you don't have to like it! Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: So far, no one has asked for a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Mon 01 Dec → Sat 06 Dec Tue 02 Dec → Sun 07 Dec Wed 03 Dec → Mon 08 Dec Thu 04 Dec → Tue 09 Dec Fri 05 Dec → Wed 10 Dec Sat 06 Dec → Thu 11 Dec
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Thu 27 Nov → Sat 06 Dec Fri 28 Nov → Sun 07 Dec Sat 29 Nov → Mon 08 Dec Sun 30 Nov → Tue 09 Dec Mon 01 Dec → Wed 10 Dec Tue 02 Dec → Thu 11 Dec Wed 03 Dec → Fri 12 Dec Thu 04 Dec → Sat 13 Dec Fri 05 Dec → Sun 14 Dec Sat 06 Dec → Mon 15 Dec
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag featured or not featured – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- 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.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. 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-nom parameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:
== Set Promoted to FP ==
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}}, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of 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}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{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) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025.
- 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=1 to featured=2 (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).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological list.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
