Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
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 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please 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Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others.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." Photographs[edit]On 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 audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 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:
Strongly recommended: 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 Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting[edit]Editors 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 candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
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 policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A 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. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between 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 polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Main facade (fragment) of Hospital de Santa Cruz. Toledo, Spain.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 21:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Spain
Info created & uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Jahn-Wehr Bamberg Winter 2018-20180228-RM-114615.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 19:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info Jogger crossing the icy barrier gate of a weir in Bamberg, Germany. All by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Artistic. Time seems frozen :-)
- You could remove the very thin border at the right with the building, though, that does not add anything to the composition, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Basile. – @Ermell: I ask myself whether People#Others is the best gallery page. The person ist important, of course, as a kind of accent, but overall this is more a photo of the weir and the bridge. Wouldn’t Places/Industry#Germany (which contains photos of weirs) or Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany fit better? Or maybe Natural_phenomena#Ice if you consider the ice as the most important thing? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Info @Basile Morin: @Tomer T: @Aristeas: Crop optimized.--Ermell (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Special! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Himalayas, Ama Dablam, Nepal.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 19:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info View of Mount Ama Dablam (6,800 metres (22,300 ft) a. s. l.) from Chola Valley. Khumbu Everest Zone, Nepal, Himalayas. All by --Argenberg (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Breukvlak afgewaaide dode berk. 19-03-2023 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 17:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info Fracture surface of blown dead body Birch (Betula) 5 days after the storm. Focus stack of 10 photos. beautiful fracture line sculpted by nature on a birch trunk. (wood sculpture)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Sharp image but I miss the wow factor here. Ordinary light and busy background -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe it doesn't come across well, But the photo (with the notes) tells a special story for me. I've never seen such a cool fracture of a blown tree after a storm. It looks like a work of art.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Tour des anciens ponts couverts (Strasbourg).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 08:42:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Good if simple composition, but I can't support it with a posterized sky. No guarantees if you fix it, but I'm not really sure it should be a QI, either, with all those posterization lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The elongated composition does not work to me. Too much boring sky and boring water. The architecture itself is not exceptional. Technically, as mention above, it's posterized. From the file history, compared to the previous version, this one seems over-saturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
File:Skindred - 2017153155639 2017-06-02 Rock am Ring - Sven - 1D X II - 0110 - B70I6029.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2023 at 07:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info Benji Webbe of Skindred at Rock am Ring 2017; created by Sven Mandel - uploaded by Sven Mandel - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support, but Benji Webbe should be identified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree.
Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree.
Support Good quality for an interior shot taken at 400 mm -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Pierreclos Château (3).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2023 at 20:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info Château de Pierreclos with its church (12th century), all by: Palauenc05 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - OK for QI + VI but does not have enough FP wow for me. Also buildings at both sides seem to be leaning out. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support Nice and beautiful view of the castle. The verticals are leaning in different directions, so I guess the old walls are just not straight in reality. But at some places the edge of the roofs and the chimneys are unsharp; I guess that some mask (denoising the sky/sharpening the building) is a bit imprecise there. Could you try to optimize this a bit? Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Panorama vom Frauenberg.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2023 at 10:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info I like to show panoramic views from prominent vantage points. Wikimedia has not yet satisfactorily solved how to integrate optional informative labels in the formats required for this. I am now trying a set of two identical images, one with and one without labels. For that after photographing, it is also necessary to examine the geography. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- A Perfect distant view. I find this kind of panoramas very informative. It would be good if the edges overlapped a bit, about 370 degrees. Je-str (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose these images do not qualify as a set, please read the rules. -- Ivar (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The ratio of lenght and the hight of each of these images is not acceptabe for me. -- Karelj (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Hamburg, Elbphilharmonie -- 2023 -- 6573.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2023 at 08:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 08:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Did I ever mention, that I hate those perspectives? But the reason to oppose here is, that it's too simple to me. No great wow effect, sorry.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Just a small piece of some building, I do not see here a reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Some good graphic elements but does not have enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Hamburg, Elbphilharmonie -- 2023 -- 6610 (bw).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2023 at 08:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 08:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support the clear lines in black an white work very well for me. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 456167 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing interesting, nothing special. I do not see here any reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Seems to be missing "1" but agree with Kritzolina that the rest of this image stands well on its own as a monochrome with a good range of gray tones. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:La Fuentona, Muriel de la Fuente, Soria, España, 2021-08-28, DD 42.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2023 at 20:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info La Fuentona, Muriel de la Fuente, Soria, Spain. The natural spring is a natural monument since 1998. There are only 6 such monuments in the Community of Castile and León (the biggest in Spain by surface). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment First thought: huge! Second thought: Meh. I tried to figure out why, looking some time at the picture in detail and I think, the first attraction came from the great capture of the colourful clear water and the meadow behind it. But when you look around, you detect few grey hills, that aren't very interesting, which take a lot of space in the background. This could have led to the meh. I wonder if a tighter crop would lead to more powerful impression, and I wonder if the resolution is suffient, when the hills in the backgorund would be cropped out and I wonder if it's necessary or wanted overall. Maybe others like the first impression or the contrast beetween the void hills an the nice oasis thing in the valley or think it's a FP anyway.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 459265 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Trifolium spadiceum - Niitvälja.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2023 at 12:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Very good lighting. --August Geyler (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Der Angemeldete (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 453318 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Very detailed and high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Keel-billed toucan (Ramphastos sulfuratus sulfuratus) on foxtail palm (Wodyetia bifurcata) Cayo.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2023 at 14:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ramphastidae (Toucans)
Info One FP of the toucan family. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Could be sharper, but it's nonetheless impressive.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 454915 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support amazing Lotje (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Educational. Identified animal + food -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Nice and colourful photo, would make a good poster. --Aristeas (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Sao Paulo downtown - Ladeira Porto Geral.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2023 at 22:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support wow. At first sight, this looks like a boring version of "where's Waldo?" with not much going on at the individual level. It's only when you take a step back and re-adjust your perspective that it starts to shine. We've seen a few attempts to depict large-ish crowds here in the past (usually protests/demonstrations). Most of them filed miserably, usually because there was no composition to speak of. But this one ... it's almost like a landscape shot of a glacier meandering its way down a slope between two steep mountain peaks. Deserves more attention! --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I'm afraid I don't quite see the appeal in the same way you do; while chaotic and colourful are positives, the scene also feels a little too ordinary for me to think of it as an FP. I'm also a bit bothered by the cut-off head in the foreground. --Peulle (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Ostorhinchus aureus - Wilhelma 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2023 at 12:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Apogonidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Dull light in my view. Fishes in aquarium are not as exceptional as in the wild, and the level of detail here is rather low. Thus just a QI for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Arve Falls.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2023 at 08:48:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Tasmania
Info created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support and dare I say, this photo is much better than the photo on the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service website. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful image of a beautiful area and a very good photographer with small resolution and no wow for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
File:CH.ZG.Zug View from Guggi 01 16x9+R 8192x4608 Br058 gp denoising Br075.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2023 at 07:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
Info The old town of Zug (Switzerland) at blue hour. Created and uploaded by Roy Egloff, nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Beautiful blue-hour photo; thanks to the snow it appears almost as in a fairy story. --Aristeas (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support As beautiful and still it looks as messy and ugly it's named.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment The filename is not optimal, of course, but at least it is descriptive (starting with country code and canton code, it contains the name of the city and even the point of view). The extra stuff added at the end is indeed a bit irritating, but probably it’s useful for the creator (e.g. because he has a whole bunch of related files on disk and the filename helps to identify which one was uploaded). On Commons we usually respect the personal filename schemes of contributors as long as the filenames are unique, more or less descriptive, and don’t contain offensive stuff. Therefore I see no grounds to rename the file in accordance with the rather restrictive Commons file renaming policy (see Commons:File renaming). --Aristeas (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't claimed renaming the file. I just wanted to share my opinion on this odd contrast, but I fully respect the file CH.ZG.Zug View from Guggi 01,... and stuff.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Special atmosphere and appealing lighting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support very nice! -- Ivar (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Wiesen Pippau (Crepis biennis)-20220624-RM-123950.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2023 at 18:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Mister rf (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Blooming -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Viewing from it's quality: gold + it's a flower + it's the best sounding plant with a saxonian accent = instant FP.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support good contrast and light, but some yellow "haloes" left by stacking program. -- Ivar (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Hubble NGC6530.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2023 at 18:11:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by ESA/Hubble & NASA - uploaded by Liandrei - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 455462 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Question It looks very nice, but this is NASA we're talking about... Couldn't we get something with a really impressive resolution?--Peulle (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:CH.GR.Arosa Tschuggen-Grand-Hotel 2220 16x9-R 16K.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2023 at 00:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info Spa at Tschuggen Grand Hotel in Arosa, Switzerland · created by Roy Egloff - uploaded by Roy Egloff - nominated by Augustgeyler -- August Geyler (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- August Geyler (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Nice architecture and good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment It's a nice photo, but is it a problem that we can very clearly see identifiable people, or should they expect to be photographed, since they are in a building without shades or shutters? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support, though I do share similar concerns as Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment We don't downsize, but this might be an exception, though it's too late now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Really very nice mood, one of those rare shots that make me "want to be there right here & now". And I don't see any problems: clearly COM:De minimis which of course applies for people too, otherwise we had to delete nearly all street photography. --A.Savin 22:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Well, you nominated a bunch of street photographs for deletion on the basis that people walking on the street had a right to privacy, but that was in Germany, so perhaps Switzerland has different laws. Anyway, if you're OK with this photo, I guess it's fine, and none of the people shown in the photo are naked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those photos are close-up "hidden camera" shots of identifiable people, taken on purpose, quite obvously. Disappointing statements of yours. --A.Savin 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why disappointing? I'm saying if this photo that also shows several obviously identifiable people who are not walking on the street but inside a spa and viewed through glass is OK with you, that's probably enough of a reason to feel that it's fine. I get the distinction you're making, though, which is between individuals as the subject of photos or as part of a picture of a building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Finally somebody making good use of the wonderful GFX100S. --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I'm sure that, at some point in the future, this will be used in a Bond film or something like it as the top-secret facility or villain's lair that the hero(es) has/ve to break into. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Luzern asv2022-10 Kapellbrücke img1.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2023 at 22:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Switzerland
Info Night view of the Kapellbrücke over the Reuss with the water tower in Lucerne. All by me --A.Savin 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Quite a striking night pic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment The chosen aperture F/5.6 limited the depth of field. Almost everything is blurred / unsharp at full size. Please compare with similar pictures in the Category:Featured night shots, where most of them are of better quality in my opinion. This view point has potential, but the image would be more striking at blue hour. The outlines of the tower are hard to distinguish in that darkness. Also I don't see the need to include that much of black surface in the composition. At least the bottom should be cropped in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose A bit too soft for me. The tower, the buildings... they're not very detailed.--Peulle (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I agree that there could be more fine details on the building façades, but when we consider the file size and the excellent total effect, it’s still a striking image. It does not matter here why the façades are a bit soft, but technically it’s an interesting question. I doubt that the DoF was too low because we are at 14mm where ƒ/5.6 could be sufficient and we have seen photos with excellent detail resolution at ƒ/4 and ƒ/5.6 by the same photographer with the same lens. Maybe it’s a consequence of the long exposure time (30 sec), when the ground or setup was not perfectly quiet … And maybe noise reduction has eaten some fine details, too? The crop proposed by Basile is excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutral per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support It might not be pixel perfect, but the composition and the overall impression moves me to a support --Kritzolina (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I would guess, the blurry (not even to soft) outlines on the left really came from an exposure error, as mentioned by Aristeas. However it resulted, this should not happen to a FP. Beside from that, the composition is to overloaded to me. The reflections take a lot of space and distract from the main objects, which indeed are difficult to figure out by night.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support Yes, the soft areas could be better. But I've never tried to shoot this sort of image myself, and I have forgiven such results in long nighttime exposures before. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the current crop. The DoF is also function of the focus distance. If this point is too close, you may get part of the subject blurred, even with an ultra-wide angle like this one. For having taken long exposure night shots with my own camera (1, 2), I can testify that it is possible to get the buildings sharp in the darkness. Moreover, you can try again by going back to the same place. It's not as if the sky was special that day -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Calle Santa Isabel in Toledo. Spain.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2023 at 11:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Spain
Info created & uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I get the idea, but the figure could be more suitable - i.e. no plastic shopping bag. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support I love such narrow alley shots, especially when they direct the view towards some interesting building, but Charles is right, it’s a pity about that plastic bac … --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I don't mind that bag at all. Sure, you wouldn't want that on a post card. But if you look at it as street photography, it provides a great, disenchanting counter point to the post card idyll. --El Grafo (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per El Grafo. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Tempered support Looks like a National Geographic cover. I would prefer to have less CA, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 474685 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Bossee-2022-msu-3392-.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2023 at 16:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Schleswig-Holstein
Info created & uploaded by Matthias Süßen – nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support – Ivar (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Pretty static and centered but hell of lighting and a nice reflection Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Anyone who gets up that early... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 22:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nice composition but
Oversaturated in my view. Same aspect as this one. The post-treatment has gone too far in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The color of the water through the gap of the wooden planks of the pontoon is much lighter than around. Also the lower right corner of the photograph is plain white -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it is. I did a check and the gaps look lighter because of the white halo around the planks. Bottom right resulted from tilt correction and should be sorted. The image possibly has a lot of post-processing though. Charlesjsharp (talk)
- Possibly a selective filter was applied in the sky + reflection (except in the portion located in center of the pontoon). I also find the intensity of the yellows & purples too garish -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The colors in this photo seem plausible to me; the ones in the photo you linked, less so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- One thing is certain: this image is heavily processed. One doesn't get this kind of shot directly from the camera, even if by luck the sky was breathtakingly exceptional. Now the question is how far? And was this post-treatment too far from reality? By experience at FPC, it's often a question of tolerance until which point the sliders are still acceptable according to the subject. While some of us consider they've been moved over the maximum , other people sometimes think "yes but the scenery is worth it" (example). In that case, the aspect is "Instagram-like" to me. Unrealistic. I'm not saying it's all fake, but saturated enough for me to miss the "wow" factor, and too far in my opinion for this picture to be sorted in a gallery called "Natural" -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, but I supported the other photo you linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you're perfectly entitled to follow your own tastes
But personally in front of such images I feel "this is a special processing" rather than "this is a special landscape". -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you're perfectly entitled to follow your own tastes
Support --Mister rf (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --I second Ikan on the plausibility of the colors. I live in this part of Germany and we sometimes do have incredible lights with flamboyant colors.Dinkum (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Matthias, would you like to address the question of how much saturation you used in post-processing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Sorry. I'm on the road and (once again) don't have access to the file. As far as I remember, the image is an exposure bracketing of three images. I stitched them together in Lightroom and chose Landscape as profile. I did not work with masks at that time. AFAIK I did not increase the saturation. The sunrise was indeed spectacular. —Matthias Süßen (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, and enjoy your trip! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there are 3 PICTURES stitched together, that would be useful to mention this in the file description, possibly with
{{Retouched}}{{HDR image}}. After all, a HDR composition is a kind of photomontage.
- We don't know from which image comes the public exif data, but the hidden exif data indicates there is at least 1 mask applied.
- Shadows +95%, Highlights -83%, Luminance 87% and vibrance 20%. There are many more modifications, but that's enough to create an
artificial aspect in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Basile Morin (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the template HDR -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I'm with Basile on this one. The slammed highlights, pulled shadows and punchy colours seem like a throwback to the early days of HDR. I'm sure the scene looked beautiful in person, but there's just not enough dynamic range on an 8-bit JPEG to do it justice --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Red seems to me to have been reduced during post-processing, which is why it looks unnatural. But it is still good.--Ermell (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile. --Milseburg (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support It may have been heavily processed, per the EXIF data, but other than the foreground vegetation looking lighter than it normally does in such images (which, in this case, frankly leaves it looking like ... exactly what we'd see with our own eyes standing there) it's perfectly OK for me. It looks "artificial" only by the standards of what we usually get out of photographs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not sure we would see vegetation as bright as the sky, Daniel. Our eyes can dynamically adapt to a scene and our brains can composite images, meaning we are able to perceive 20+ stops of light. On the other hand, an 8-bit JPEG can show only up to 10 stops, depending on the applied gamma curve. While I don’t think we should limit photography to what our eyes see, personally I don’t find this image aesthetically pleasing. —Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 452159 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Catedral de San Florián, Vaduz, Liechtenstein, 2022-10-23, DD 38-40 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2023 at 06:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Cathedral of St. Florin, Vaduz, Liechtenstein. The neo-Gothic church was originally a parish church but held the status of cathedral in 1997 and is now the centre of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vaduz. It was built in 1874 by Friedrich von Schmidt on the site of earlier medieval foundations. Its patron saint is Florinus of Remüs (Florin), a 9th-century saint of the Vinschgau Valley. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I think the composition has some disbalance towards the vault, and also this cathedral itself has actually limited wow IMHO. --A.Savin 22:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand the first part of the feedback. I believe that the columns offer a nice framing. I've seen richer churches, yes, but this is the nicest one in the country and per the comments below. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support per Savin.--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Not the most impressive cathedral ever, of course, but the light makes this an impressive photo to me. --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Worth it for the altar, and especially the stained glass windows and colored light streaming through them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 469279 01:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I'm not a fan of this baroque styled symetrical framed pictures but I too think, that the light in the choir in this particular moment makes it special.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
File:ST90E40ZL1 MCU.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2023 at 15:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded by Mister rf - nominated by Mister rf -- Mister rf (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Mister rf (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Impressive. I'm not sure why it is presented with a tilt, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Through these photos I took, macro/extreme macro, I try to emphasize the three-dimensional qualities of that object in the frame, to reveal elements that are otherwise not perceived by the viewer. It would be much simpler to make the classic version, fewer photos are needed, even without stacking, sometimes even one is enough, because a large DoF is not needed, and therefore the elimination of some processing stages, saves time, but some information is lost IMO.
- Here’s the same microcontroller, in a “scanner” view perspective. Mister rf (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I like the idea of looking at it from behind, for exactly the reasons you state. The thing I'm questioning is tilting is to the side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Very good. (IMHO the lateral tilting adds a bit of tension/suspense/… to the image, the photo could appear a bit too clinical without it.) --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment impressive quality indeed, but something about it subconsciously feels wrong and unnatural about this - and given the surprisingly low amount of votes, I think others might have a similar problem. It's not the tilt, though, at least not on its own. I think it may be the brightness gradient of the artificial background not not being consistent with the frontal lighting of the subject. As boring as it is, I think I'd prefer a flat and neutral background for this kind of shot. --El Grafo (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Both ok for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- seeing the alternative, this is now indeed an
Oppose for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
Info Alternative file, a retouched picture with background removed. --Mister rf (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Also good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support This works much better for me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per El Grafo. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Both ok for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support also. Yann (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support for both. --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support for both. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support also for both--MZaplotnik(talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 458469 07:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Brückenportal der Nydeggbrücke.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2023 at 13:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Switzerland
Info created by August Geyler - uploaded by August Geyler - nominated by Augustgeyler -- August Geyler (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- August Geyler (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose As I said at VIC, I don't like the close crop and partially obscured arch. this image shows more of the bridge and is a more pleasing composition, though less detailed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Composition is working for me. --Milseburg (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Charles on this one, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles and Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Maybe not that good as a photo of the bridge, but the point is in the composition which combines the two bridges and the framing effect of the arch to a very interesting view. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose Interesting light but I find the left side cluttered and the dead branches unaesthetic -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Milseburg and Aristeas. The vegetation on the left side do not disturb too much, in my opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The top bugs me and it feels to me like a ceiling that cuts off eye motion. I might have supported a photo that showed the top of the bridge along with the rest of this composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose A near miss, per Basile and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas. --El Grafo (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 466701 07:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile and Ikan. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Cepaea nemoralis Paarung-20230314-RM-110511.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2023 at 11:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
InfoCepaea nemoralis var. castanea concolor and grove snail (Cepaea nemoralis) mating. All by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support. What will the offspring's shells be likely to look like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The answer you find here, if you download the full text pdf
--Llez (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The answer you find here, if you download the full text pdf
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
weak oppose solid shot, but it feels more like a QI+VI or en.wikipedia FP territory to me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Just in the right moment --Llez (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak support per Llez vs. El Grafo ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
weak oppose per El Grafo. QI+VI, yes. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 459642 01:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per El Grafo. -- Karelj (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support We have so many FPs of groups of five empty shells on a black background that it's only right that we have one with the creatures actually in those shells. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose With El Grafo. --August Geyler (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Thu 23 Mar → Tue 28 Mar Fri 24 Mar → Wed 29 Mar Sat 25 Mar → Thu 30 Mar Sun 26 Mar → Fri 31 Mar Mon 27 Mar → Sat 01 Apr Tue 28 Mar → Sun 02 Apr
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Sun 19 Mar → Tue 28 Mar Mon 20 Mar → Wed 29 Mar Tue 21 Mar → Thu 30 Mar Wed 22 Mar → Fri 31 Mar Thu 23 Mar → Sat 01 Apr Fri 24 Mar → Sun 02 Apr Sat 25 Mar → Mon 03 Apr Sun 26 Mar → Tue 04 Apr Mon 27 Mar → Wed 05 Apr Tue 28 Mar → Thu 06 Apr
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
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[edit]
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 an 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.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- 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/March 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - 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/March 2023.
- 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:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property: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 in the gallery is not removed.
- 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[edit]
- 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/March 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.