Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured candidates:

Pictures Videos Sounds

Skip to current 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 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types: Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same). A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that). Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination". Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}} Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP. Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture {{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP. {{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite 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 To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity). Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

File:Saint-Augustin Church Altar 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 08:42:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Augustin Church Altar 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Augustin Church Altar 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info The altar and dome of Saint-Augustin in Paris, France. Constructed between 1860 and 1868, Saint-Augustin is one of France's most visually distinctive churches, built in an eclectic style inspired by Gothic and Romanesque architecture, and with an interior characterised by cast-iron columns. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm sure David regretted the netting, and that could be the reason or one of the reasons he didn't nominate this photo for FP, but I think it's an FP, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Caldera de Taburiente - View from Mirador de los Roques 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 05:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera de Taburiente - View from Mirador de los Roques 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera de Taburiente - View from Mirador de los Roques 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Please note, the image is not tilted. Several trees, especially the two in the foreground left, are slant in reality. You can compare them with the trees in the background. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice view and terrain, but the foreground being almost completely in shadows doesn't work for me. The trees on the extreme left and right aren't cropped in a satisfying way; the left one has a thick branch going out of frame. – Lucas 06:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but I agree with Lucas, it's quite beautiful but I feel that too much of the image is dominated by shadows. Cmao20 (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info You can't avoid shadows, for the access to this viewpoint is restricted for a single person to two hours. --Llez (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Banz Deckenfresko Pfingsten 3070549.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 21:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Banz Deckenfresko Pfingsten 3070549.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Banz Deckenfresko Pfingsten 3070549.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info Fresco in the abbey church St. Peter and Dionysius of the Banz monastery.
  All by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 04:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful! --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Extraordinary resolution, again. Cmao20 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum' (Niervaren). (d.j.b.). 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 16:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum' (Niervaren). (d.j.b.). 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum' (Niervaren). (d.j.b.). 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Dryopteridaceae.
•  Info Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum', (Soft shield-fern) Beautifully rolling new leaves of this rare little fern. (Height: 30 cm). A rare form that turned out to be extinct at some point. The leaves are wedge-shaped and vary widely. The famous English fern breeder R. Kaye has managed to find him again.
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 我喜欢--BoothSift 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 15:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
•  Info created & uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong support WOOOOOOOOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Yes, and an exciting view! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Thank goodness for their choice of color/non-patterns on clothes. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Excelente --BoothSift 23:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 04:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 14:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
•  Info created by Neil Armstrong / NASA, uploaded by Haeber nominated by Yann (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 50 years nearly passed, but still wow! -- Yann (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Historic image with superb quality.--Vulphere 14:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support You know it's legit when the antenna is cut (off) ... – Lucas 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Great historic photo. I'd request an English translation of "Dysze RCS" in the labels. A quick Google Translate version is "RCS nozzles", but I don't know if that really explains anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• They are the thrusters that guided the lunar module when landing. I tried to add the right text to the images notes, but since the system is down at the moment that didn't work. As soon as it is up again, please substitute the text with {{pl|1=Dysze RCS}}{{en|1=[[:en:Reaction control system|Reaction control system (RCS)]]}}. --Cart (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm, strange... the note is edited, created and saved but the error message pops up anyway. I got three error messages but the notes are there now, see file history. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking care of that before I had a try. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Yep. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Muy histórico--BoothSift 23:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Luncheon of the Boating Party - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 12:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Luncheon of the Boating Party - Google Art Project.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Luncheon of the Boating Party - Google Art Project.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Renoir / Google Art Project, uploaded by AgnosticPreachersKid, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Probably the famous painting by Renoir. With annotations on the persons represented. Reproduction by the Google Art Project. -- Yann (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Oooo, I love this one! However for an FP, I would like to have image notes identifying all the depicted people, not just a few, and with links to en-wiki articles, not just names. Please. :) --Cart (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• The tool is broken. I will try again tomorrow. Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support.--Vulphere 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Famous painting, good reproduction. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - YES - more paintings! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Me gusta--BoothSift 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I guess the last time I saw this painting in person was 2000, but it looks like a good reproduction to me. I hope you will be able to add the names of the missing people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 22:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
•  Info Young Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) playing around, Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Understandably not perfect given the high zoom, but overall more than good enough considering the difficulty of the capture. Another good one from your safari. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 03:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera scutellata 1355021.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 14:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Apis mellifera scutellata 1355021.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apis mellifera scutellata 1355021.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
•  Info created by Scott Bauer, USDA Agricultural Research Service - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support The black honeycomb gives this a special mood. I only feel bad for the one bee facing the other way. – Lucas 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 19:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 很好! --BoothSift 03:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Summmmm! --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support If these disappear, we will starve. --Yann (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 10:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - A gorgeous shell and one of your best shell pictures yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral I know that Llez does terrific work but seeing that his shell nominations rarely get critiques I will step forward to throw the first stone ;) Resolution is good, I measured that each view has about 12 MP of the possible 15 MP which is good given that you'd want to use the center area of the lens. My first real issue is the sharpening, as the structures of the shell with the very soft lighting are not easy to distinguish. More sharpening shows detail better and improves depth perception a bit. Have you tried a more directional lighting setup instead of this soft one? Secondly, the contour of the shells is too blurred, which might be caused by how you isolate the background or it's just out of focus in capture. Out of focus would be bad, but later blurring would be quite fixable. I don't want to oppose this out of respect, but for me personally such studio shots have a higher bar of quality because of the controlled environment and I think you could do much better. – Lucas 13:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please remember, that this shell has only 2,7 cm in length --Llez (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Still, I've worked with the MP-E 60 mm lens—which I suppose you are using—with focus stacking and was able to get better results. If you aren't focus stacking than that might be a limiting factor. – Lucas 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support.--Vulphere 13:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 01:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 13:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 05:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg/2

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Painting drawn from Nizami's "Khamsah" - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment This is a real nomination (not a test nom)
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support This was on my list. ;) Yann (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - The source is very colorful, as I would expect a 16th-century Persian painting to be; is it just me, or does File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg look almost exclusively sky blue when you try to view it? The thumbnail on the file page looks colorful. Anyone understand what's happening? The image in the nomination also appears sky blue on my screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Ikan Kekek, please use chrome/safari/edge/opera etc this problem is exclusive to Firefox -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Firefox's latest version seems to suck. I also lost all my URL history and bookmarks in the latest update and don't even seem to be able to save bookmarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support - Thanks for the advice. It looks wonderful on Chrome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 13:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Arion is back!--BoothSift 01:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Estornino de El Cabo (Lamprotornis nitens), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 56.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 02:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Estornino de El Cabo (Lamprotornis nitens), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 56.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estornino de El Cabo (Lamprotornis nitens), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 56.jpg

2847

2408

130

130

4881

5792

Is this multicolored area really on the bird, or is it some kind of photographic imperfection?

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 02:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- BoothSift 02:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Question - Is that a lens flare on the bird just above the wing? I'm talking about the little multicolored patch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: The bird is multicolored, if that was what you meant. Otherwise, can you add an annotation pointing it out? Thank you --BoothSift 03:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: - Please see my image note. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: The red part that you are pointing to? It is present on Charle's picture: File:Cape glossy starling (Lamprotornis nitens).jpg and quite a few other pictures on Google Images. This may indicate that it might be biological--BoothSift 03:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• You're right.  Support. I'll remove the image note now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment There is a noticeable halo/white line around the bird. This should be fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination I have two open nominations --BoothSift 03:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am unwithdrawing this since the other nom was given to Ikan. I will continue this nomination--BoothSift 23:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I guess that I can take this nom over, if you dont mind Boothsift Poco² 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: No need, the other one is now Ivan's. Since that was the reason why I withdrew in the first place and it has been resolved, I can continue this nomination. --BoothSift 23:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment @Boothsift, Ikan Kekek, Yann: Just in case I reworked the halo and some CA a bit Poco² 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Glad you took over the nomination yourself Poco. I would have done so myself if I didn't have two running. Very good detail, and the quality is wonderful considering the high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmao20: I am still the nominator and I don't plan on unwithdrawing. I withdrew before since the Dead Vlei picture was not yet taken over by Ikan, but now it has so this one is allowed. --BoothSift 23:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Does it really matter who nominates the picture as long as someone does? Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really. --BoothSift 23:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-7.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 22:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-7.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-7.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info Reflexion of the bridge over Lima river in the water, Ponte da Barca, Portugal. It's worth seing the details. Inspired in three engravings of M.C.Escher (1950, 52 and 55). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I could really go with this if it were more abstract and only shows the reflection, but the visible non-reflected parts of the bridge with the messy grass don't work for me. Also the long narrow tube on the bridge, cutting the image in half, is distracting. – Lucas 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 13:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas. Please get rid of the plants, etc. --BoothSift 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - I wouldn't support cloning out the plants. They are part of the scene. I do support opposing the nomination because you don't like the way the plants look in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a better way of putting it, then--BoothSift 03:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose This might be the sort of image that wins some photo contests, but it's just not striking enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Misty Minnewanka Lake.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 19:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Misty Minnewanka Lake.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Misty Minnewanka Lake.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Jakub Fryš -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I really like this, it's ethereally beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support WOW, really nice -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• No idea where you found that template. It might not be counted by the Bot. It is also a bit hazardous since it depends on nothing new happening to the post above it. Please stick to the s, o & n voting templates, not all noms are free to test things on so be respectful to the nominator. --Cart (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) All fixed now, thanks. --Cart (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Some Portuguese for you if this counts. --BoothSift 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I was a bit hesitant at first since I've seen so many similar compositions on Instagram, but it is a nice photo and well executed. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support If you come to New Zealand, I'll print this off, ask you to sign it and I'll put it on my wall. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I take you for the word! -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Yes! --El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, an excellent photo in difficult conditions --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Both tranquil and fascinating! --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Could be a bit sharper --Llez (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Celmisia semicordata 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 19:10:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Celmisia semicordata 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Celmisia semicordata 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good to me. The composition is better for not being centred. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nicely aligned ant and a perfect amount of blur of the background for context. – Lucas 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 02:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral I love the compo and detail, but I suppose it is a white flower and to me it looks rather gray. Looking at the histogram, there are almost no white tones in it, it goes down somewhere around 240. --Cart (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support Nice sharp photo. I personally centered the flower. But that is a matter of taste. But the flower should have been a little whiter.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support The bug gives it a nice non-chalant late spring mood. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20170917093348 - Caverna do diabo.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 14:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170917093348 - Caverna do diabo.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170917093348 - Caverna do diabo.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I am back! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect, with the blown-out area in the bottom left, but it certainly has wow. Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm missing a good perception of depth, the lighting is very flat so it's not pleasing to explore this image. The visible light sources create a feel of artificiality and result in some overexposure per Cmao20. Composition is too symmetrical without any direction. We have some amazing cave FPs and IMHO this is not there. – Lucas 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Are there any Spanish, Japanese, French templates @Eatcha: ? --BoothSift 02:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Boothsift, check the complete list at https://pastebin.com/raw/KuWcxtjd (Just added the strong oppose and n/N in the list, they are allowed from the next run ) -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Gracias. I see that Portuguese also works, if that wasn't added to the list already. --BoothSift 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift: What template are you referring to ? You can add it between the nowiki and it will not be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: I meant {{apoio}}--BoothSift 05:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift: I won't be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Is there any way to implement it? --BoothSift 06:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift: Sure, it can be added to the tuple (support_template) to implement it -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Lucas. The light really makes it look flat. --Cart (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sure that's an amazing scene IRL, but I'll have to agree With Lucas & Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others, especially Cart and El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Doesn't stand out from other pictures of cave/rns. Daniel Case (talk)

File:Domo na estação central de trenes de recife, Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 14:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Domo na estação central de trenes de recife, Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Domo na estação central de trenes de recife, Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The CA and slight lack of sharpness means it doesn't reach the high level of ceiling FPs in my book.--Peulle (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support But if the CA could be fixed it would be even better. Slight quality issues don't bother me too much because this isn't the kind of image that demands one 'pixel-peep' - the wow comes from the bold, striking composition rather than from the amount of detail at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle and lack of wow for me. This doesn't really constitute a bold composition, more like a trivial/boring one, and it's not even exactly centered ... – Lucas 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I like it...but...--BoothSift 02:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle even if the CA could be fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle.--Vulphere 13:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Conditional support on the CA being fixed. Having taken one of our other ceiling FPs, I would consider this an FP too for its striking pattern and symmetry (it might be a little off center, but I think that could be corrected as well, or maybe it's just me). Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Egretta sacra.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 06:38:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta sacra.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta sacra.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Pacific reef heron (Egretta sacra), Boat Harbour, New South Wales, Australia. Created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice background, good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Head and beak could be even sharper, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 02:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 085.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 06:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 085.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 085.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• This is my nomination now.I love this photo and would like to let the discussion play out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ikan may believe that I have lost faith in this nomination, by really I haven't. I misread the discussion(in a rush) and didn't clearly see where it was heading. Therefore, I would like to stay as nominator or conominator. --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There can only be one nominator. Would some admin like to put an end to this silliness? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No need, you are the nominator as you wish. I apologize for any difficulties I caused and my actions. --BoothSift 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- BoothSift 06:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great on its own terms, but I find it very similar to this which is already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose We already have. Same story than this. Both similar works will be found in the same category next POTY competition. Either a delist and replace or just not this one -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Basile Morin:, @Lucasbosch: and @Ermell: We also have at least 19 FP of the Golden Gate Bridge. At least the two trees are different and please see Cart's comment below. The difference here is vastly greater than those--BoothSift 04:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. Explicit comparison here. FP is not about nominating all the good photos that can be featured, but rather to select the finest. This one is not distinctive enough. Same blue sky, same white dune, same brown dune, same kind of dead tree, same time of the day, same angle. Where's the novelty? I think almost everybody here make the effort to choose significantly original pictures, but of course FPC can also become as boring as watching always the same nominations with very minor variations. In that case many of us will find different playgrounds, because reviewing implies effort and energy, and such redundancies can give the feeling of tiredness -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry but I remain on Basile's side here. We may have 19 FPs of the Golden Gate Bridge, but to be honest I wouldn't have voted for significant numbers of those either. If we're going to feature pictures of very similar subjects, I would personally only vote yes if there's a significantly different composition, angle or perspective on offer. I know that these aren't the same tree, but to me they're almost identical in composition and colour and so I don't see the need for both to be FP. I won't oppose though because I actually prefer this one to the other one, but I do agree that only one should be featured IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support - Great, and the other one has a very different form and feel, although the elements of the tree and different colors of sand are in common. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I indeed prefer this one. Thank you for the nom, Boothsift! Poco² 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile, I much prefer the existing FP. – Lucas 09:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Ermell (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support This one's a lot cleaner than the other one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support We also have this and this and people seemed fine with that. Also sorting the sub-galleries of Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural I have come across many similar "pairs" of views and compos, not to mention different flowers against the same sort of backgrounds (sky, lawn or bokeh vegitation are popular). --Cart (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose at different branch tips easy CAs.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think that is fixable if we just ask the author nicely. Poco please? --Cart (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Surely Cart, thank you for stepping in. Fischer.H, the CA is cleaned up. --Poco² 19:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Per above--BoothSift 23:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• This was still a very active discussion. Wasn't it a bit discourteous to withdraw with the vote at 7-4 in favor? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Unwithdrawn by me. I'm now the nominator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Fine, but can we conominate? I didn't see that Poco liked this one better and I missed Cart's comment for some reason. I have regained faith in this nomination and too would like to see where it's headed --BoothSift 03:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to nominate and withdraw at the drop of a hat. You withdrew. Go ahead and observe how the nomination develops, but think a little more deeply the next time you nominate and withdraw. How long did the nomination of that bird above last? If you're really not sure what your opinion is, don't act. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Is it possible to have two nominators? --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I had no concurrent nominations. You are freed up to nominate another photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I do not wish to do so. May I regain my nominator privileges? Thank you for the help--BoothSift 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What privileges? If you'd like to thank people for voting to support, go wild. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I meant I wish to remain the nominator as I was the original one--BoothSift 05:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Too late. Actions have consequences. Ponder that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Yes, but you didn't even give me time to react. Right off the bat, you went "I am now the nominator" as if I no longer existed. I could have just unwithdrew. Anyways since I am reclaiming this nomination, the bird nom would not comply with the guidelines. I have another nom below. If you wish to express your opinions, please notify me first. And no I am not the only one who withdraws and renominates fairly quickly, am I? --BoothSift 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You acted rashly; I did not, and this discussion is already tiresome. I will not reply further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Poco a poco: Since this is your photo, I believe that you should be the rightful nominator if you wish. --BoothSift 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Boothsift: You look now for a third nominator? Ikan took over, I wouldn't change that, unless he requires that. I didn't understand the rush to withdraw this nom, and specially mentioning Cart and me as a reason to do so. Both of us have supported this version and I indeed mentioned that I prefer this version than the current FP. We have no delivery date here, be patient and as Ikan suggested, let us watch how the nom develops. I've sometimes let noms run where I thought there is no way that they succeed, but they did, if that was your concern. Poco² 06:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: I didn't blame you, I said that I withdrew without really reading what you wrote. This means that I changed my mind due to reading your comments. --BoothSift 23:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Boothsift, I didn't get it as a blame, no feelings hurt hete, everything all tight Poco² 09:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support.--Vulphere 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (d.j.b).03.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 05:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (d.j.b).03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (d.j.b).03.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Pinaceae.
•  Info Hortus Haren. Cones in development of a (Pinus mugo).
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Very pleasing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one. --BoothSift 05:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 06:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral Remove the spider web and colour the one leaf green. -- -donald- (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that needle does look rather odd--BoothSift 06:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO, don't falsify the view. This is a natural view, not some idealized view of something that doesn't actually exist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Wonderful image. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality image but very ordinary shot. Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile – Lucas 17:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile --El Grafo (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support The shot seems simple, yes, but it still is impressive in my eyes. --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Mild oppose Background seems a little too random. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Info. In the background you can see the branches of the Pinus mugo. With pine needles of the same Pinus on both sides.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Technisches Rathaus Tübingen von der Brunnenstraße zur blauen Stunde 2019.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Technisches Rathaus Tübingen von der Brunnenstraße zur blauen Stunde 2019.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Technisches Rathaus Tübingen von der Brunnenstraße zur blauen Stunde 2019.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Dktue - uploaded by Dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like this building and this is a great camera position as the building curves away from us. Lighting looks good as well. The main problem is the building site in front (with the barricade and excavator) and the lion statue not mounted in place yet (it seems to be stored there temporarily). – Lucas 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Abstain because the quality and composition is IMO good enough for FP, but the subject doesn't appeal to me as I have very little appreciation for modernist architecture. I would thus incline to oppose, but it's a matter of taste and I won't vote down a good picture because of my personal aesthetic opinions. Cmao20 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas. I recommend re-shooting at a later date.--Peulle (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I find this very good as a shot that includes work (or actually evidence of work) in progress. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't use the "prohibited" voting templates, I've fixed yours. – Lucas 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• When all the testing and fixing of the FPCBot is done, we will hopefully be able to use all these templates. When/If that happens, the info will be posted on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Abstain I don't understand architecture and won't pretend I do but my comment is in regards of the composition. I miss some more space at the bottom of the picture in proportion to the sky. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Pukaki, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 09:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Pukaki, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Pukaki, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
•  Info All by me. It might remind of Lake Wanaka that appeared here a couple of weeks ago. This is a different lake :) -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 15:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, really nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Beautiful image from beautiful country.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tournasol7 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Tournasol7: Thank you for contributing with your images from NZ :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Marienaltar Werktagsseite 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Marienaltar Werktagsseite 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Marienaltar Werktagsseite 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
•  Info Altar of Our Lady at the catholic parish church Hallstatt, Upper Austria, by Lienhart Astl (signed), 1510–1520. View for weekdays with closed wings. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Normally I don't care much for churches, but the diagonal light going across the wall caught my eye. – Lucas 08:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, great light. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Great work, as ever for your churches. Cmao20 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 15:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I like the subtle highlights from the window at lower right ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I forgot that I hadn't supported this yet. Per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Part of Broälven nature reserve north of Brodalen.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Part of Broälven nature reserve north of Brodalen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Part of Broälven nature reserve north of Brodalen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
•  Info Broälven Nature Reserve is an oddly shaped reserve, consisting of only the long, narrow, meandering stream/creek and about 50 meters of its shore-land. It is an important breeding ground for brown trout. All by me,-- Cart (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cart (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose, sorry. It's a too common view to me, no wow. The colors aren't really special either. – Lucas 08:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Lucas. Yann (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas --Dktue (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Info Seems like a lost cause, but: Please vote on this nom and use the otherwise "forbidden" votes {{weak support}} {{strong support}} {{weak oppose}} {{strong oppose}} mixed with the normal ones. We can put this to use in the ongoing de-bugging and testing that is done to find out the faults in the FPCBot and fixing it. The end result will be checked by a human in any case. Thank you! --Cart (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose in that case. Sorry Cart, I quite like the composition but it just isn't 'wow' enough for FP for me. It was worth the risk though. Cmao20 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per this, BTW I know this vote won't be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC) It's now in the tuple, will be counted from the next run -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 15:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support a little contrary. For me this is a beautiful composition of a natural water stream. This used to be much more common in the past. Now you only see straightened locks.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose for testing purposes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Spring is in the small things ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Sorry, but IMHO the lighting and the colours disturb the mood. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Example image.svg

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 04:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Example image.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example image.svg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
•  Info a test by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

-- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment -- This just tests the 150PX limit on image, I don't know if it works or not. If anyone is 100% sure, please let me know on my talk or discuss on User_talk:W.carter#Regarding_the_FPCBot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Agree -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Example image.png

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 04:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Example image.png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example image.png

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
•  Info A Test by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment -- It's just a test Nom to test the bot.
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment ———— don't remove it from the candidate list discuss at User_talk:W.carter#Regarding_the_FPCBot Eatcha (Talk-Page) 09:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 09:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.06.-30-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Paar bei Eiablage.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 21:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2017.07.06.-30-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Paar bei Eiablage.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.07.06.-30-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Paar bei Eiablage.jpg

10

1240

169

268

3692

2977

Blue object creeping in

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)
•  Info This is one of my favorite pictures even if you shouldn't like it. I bend over the kayak edge and held the camera very close above the water surface while my wife was trying to keep the kayak in the right position whitout producing waves and disturbing the two of them. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good wow factor and great perspective not seen often for these kind of pictures. Yes, there are the usual pixel blocks/artifacts of this camera I commented on the other nom, but it's not that noticeable here.  Request But, please remove that blue blurred area on the left side. – Lucas 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support FP for me--BoothSift 22:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good story :) I agree with Lucas that removing the blue spot on the left would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I said "wow" out loud. You take amazing pictures of dragonflies! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Vulphere 15:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Info I've cropped a bit on the right and left in order to get rid of the blueness on the left side. --Hockei (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Example.svg

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 18:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Example.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example.svg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
•  Info A test by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment This is a TEST IMAGE, for debugging FPCBot please do not add or remove any votes to this test nom. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I will be adding some fake votes, please do not take it seriously -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  SupportLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  NeutralDignissim cras tincidunt  Opposelobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan sit. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Info Mattis nunc sed blandit libero. Mauris rhoncus aenean vel elit Oppose scelerisque mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Question Dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque. Oppose Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Request Ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa.Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination as it's just a test to check the 2n - 1d in the bot DO NOT REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST, OR ARCHIVE IT -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.06.-29-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Saphirauge-Paar und Maennchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 08:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2017.07.06.-29-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Saphirauge-Paar und Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.07.06.-29-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Saphirauge-Paar und Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)
•  Info This picture series is made from a swimming boat too. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice party here. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are visible JPG artifacts despite the generous file size; I suspect this had been saved multiple times with different quality settings. Even without the artifacts the overal quality is lacking and DoF too shallow. – Lucas 09:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, but I often wonder where people take their wisdom to suspect something. There are neither jpg artefacts nor I saved the jpg picture multiple times. I produce my pictures from the raw file. That the DOF is too shallow in your eyes also is not understandable. I used F13. What aperture would you use for more DOF and still get this picture sharp enough? --Hockei (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment There are certain artifacts/smudgniness and blocks of pixels in your image that seem to be inherent with your camera even after correct processing. Regarding the DoF I'm not saying you could have done any better, sometimes the conditions (positioning of the animals) are unfortunate. I hope this clears it up. – Lucas 10:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support I see what Lucas means, I used to own a Panasonic camera that made similar blocks of pixels even if processed correctly. It doesn't bother me too much for this picture, which is otherwise a very good and tricky capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm wowed. Really good composition and quite interesting, what with the mating on one side and the molting on the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - You can make the photo even more useful by pointing out the position of the mating couple and the molting male dragonfly in your file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  +1 -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Fascinating --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good shot, but not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
•  Info All by me. I like the evening mood and how the leading lines of the bridge end up with fishermen and sea gulls. -- Podzemnik (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --СССР (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 09:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support If only one of the lines on the bridge had intersected with the top right corner. --Cart (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Well composed, per nom. Cmao20 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  +1 -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 22:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Infinity -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. --Vulphere 15:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Hugly bridge, but great composition. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 19:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
•  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I like the subject very much and I think it deserves an FP, but can something be done about the noise in the sky? I find it a little bit too much at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment It is not rilevant at normal size (100%). You must not blow up the image ad infinitum --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Of course the resolution is great as with all your photos, but there are architecture shots the same size that don't have quite so much visible noise. Support because I like the subject, but I still would prefer it if the sky had less noise and also if the CA mentioned by King of Hearts were fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose shadows interfering with the structure and the immediate surroundings are too much for me. The residential buildings in the background also don't help, maybe a different angle to hide them would have been better. – Lucas 07:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Done @Cmao20: @King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek:@Lucasbosch: Thanks for the review. Fixed CA, dust spots, vignetting and sky-noise. Can't get rid of the houses and shadows, next time I'll use a drone, promise.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Much better! Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• There's now a weird brown border around the top of the building. Perhaps an artefact of the CA reduction? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment What happend with the left outline of the gable? There is a broad brown border in the sky along the edges (see note). Possibly caused by postprocessing, as it lacks in the previous version. --Llez (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now, due to the brown borders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

   Info Apparently, yes. I took several photos in the place and the sky appears more or less like this on the western part. I suppose it is related to near saturation in the blue channel (not to colour temperature) in the presence of those clouds. Please notice how the colours look more natural on the right part of this other photo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, why isn't Daniel's comment below proof that the color of the sky is off? As he points out, the sky's reflection in the water is blue, not aqua. Can you explain that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Ikan. The sky and colors look too green and therefore unnatural to me, in the same way as with the previous nomination for that picture. – Lucas 07:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 15:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support Blue in sky does seem off, but it's more realistic in the reflection, suggesting to me that that's how it was when the image was taken. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Daniel, your argument doesn't make sense to me. A blue apple being reflected in a weird surface making it look red there doesn't fix the color of the real apple, right? – Lucas 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lucasbosch: Is the sky in this image red like an apple? Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Daniel, no, this was just an example to show why I don't believe in your argument with the colors. – Lucas 19:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 08:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
•  Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I was surprised to be drawn into this photo. The lazy afternoon everyday scene with that stunning background makes it all somewhat surreal. The vanishing point lines are very nice with the bike accentuating it all. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment The mountains and the clouds are beautiful, but the poles and the wires ruin the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support I agree with Cart about the composition, but the sharpness could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have applied a tiny bit of Smart Sharpness to the photo, please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well, Thank you--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Neutral It looks very busy. The poles and the motorcycle are disturbing. The eye is witching from one point to the other. --XRay ^talk 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The scenery is very nice due to the mountains, but the quality isn't quite QI level, sorry. --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Btw, other photographer in EXIF data? Bijay, how do you explain that? --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral This one as I am not sure if I want to support or oppose it--BoothSift 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per XRay and A.Savin – Lucas 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Boothsift:,@Lucasbosch:, @XRay:,@A.Savin:, Please have a look review once again. Actually at that time i don't have my own dslr so i borrowed that camera from my friend. And i forgot to change the Exif Detail of this photograph. Here's (112073005685) the serial number of the camera that I used earlier which is similar to the serial number (112073005685) of this photograph. File:Tukche, Nepal-WLV-1449.jpg --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  Something like that was my guess too. Note that I opposed not because of the EXIF data, but because of the missing sharpness. --A.Savin 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  The reason for my vote is the composition, not the EXIF data. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 10:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per XRay and A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Very weak oppose Cart has it right about the juxtaposition here between the mundane and the sublime. However the sharpeness one wants in an FP just isn't there. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per A.Savin.--Vulphere 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).png

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 23:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).png

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
•  Info created by unknown- uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - Hi. The identification of this photo is incomplete, so I cannot judge the photo yet. From https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305488, the link that is given in the file description: "These records are manuscript watercolor views along the northwest boundary between the Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts. The sketches were created by James W. Alden who accompanied the survey party that, during the 1860's and in compliance with the Treaty of 1846, was responsible for recording characteristics of the northwestern boundary of the United States." This information is also provided there: "Specific Media Type: Paper". So "Author" is not "Unknown or not provided" but James W. Alden, and the medium must be specified as "Watercolor on paper". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can you examine the NARA template properties and set the appropriate parameter to remove the "Please do not overwrite this file" warning -- this is a restoration file, rather than an original. Also the "This file was provided to" licence text isn't correct for this file either, since this file is a derivative. What makes you think the original backing paper was neutral grey, and the painting from 1850s on pure Xerox white copy paper? Look at the white swirling cloud on the right and the leftmost edge of it. In the original, the artist has given the cloud a bright white "silver lining" but in your restoration it is a cold blue tint. I think it is one thing to repair damage but quite another to change the colours of an artwork, without any reference. It will have yellowed/aged over the years, but is unlikely to have been a modern white. Also I don't understand why the border has got slim black/transparent triangles -- it's as though you rotated the whole image after cropping. But the original border/background paper is huge so the background can be cut square. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support now, thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Regretfully, I agree with Colin, but I would go back to the original and see whether a more subtle restoration is possible that's a little more true to the original. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good now, thanks.  Support clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Redone, only removed dust spots Ezarateesteban 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - That seems to look better, and you should ping those who voted. And you fixed the problems I laid out above. But what's with this notice in Metadata? "Copyright (C) reserved" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The metadata and the copyright is copied from the original that was uploaded as PD so it isn't an issue IMHO

@Cmao20: @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: Ezarateesteban 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't it an issue for the metadata to contradict the copyright status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Copyright (C) reserved" Who reserved that copyright? It may added by the camera. Furthermore the artwork is made is made between 1857-1862 so is in PD in USA. There is nothing to doubt about copyright Ezarateesteban 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

OK.  Support, but that notice should be deleted, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 19:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg/2

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created by this animal itself - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support- It has WOW, anyone ever seen a monkey taking a selfie? Its quality is fine for FP, IMHO. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Certainly good enough, considering it was taken by a monkey. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Muy bien--Boothsift (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Although COM:OTRS of the monkey is needed :) Ezarateesteban 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support It's a selfie but surprisingly we don't see its arm -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment again? That's the third nom... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose and yes, I can't and won't support a pic that almost destroyed a photographer's career/life --Martin Falbisoner (talk)

Well he should have just went along with it, not try to own the image or whatever he did. --BoothSift 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing against your compassion for the photographer, but in my opinion we should only judge the photograph itself and not the story behind it. – Lucas 06:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Destroyed a photographer's life"? You must be joking. Actually he certainly made a huge amount of money selling this to whoever wanted it. This whole story was just a very successful marketing scam. Why do you think PETA claimed a copyright on it? For the animal's welfare? Ha! Ha! Ha! Regards, Yann (talk)

•  Support I'd love to see the monkey to hold the copyright though. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, and this one too -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Martin Falbisoner and per nom 2015
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I'm just not wowed by this regardless of who took it. People are handing cameras to animals or strapping them on them just to see what happens; there are whole TV shows based on the concept. All you get are tilted snapshots that are amusing for a short while. It's a sideshow fad. --Cart (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, this is pretty much a good picture. Sometimes humans don't manage to get so nice shots. The eyes are in focus, it is not blurry, the facial expression is awesome. The DoF is a bit narrow, but considering the distance, certainly a corrected version would get a chance as FP if it was nominated by a regular photographer. This picture is of good quality, it is a striking portrait, the monkey looks curious, smiling and surprised, that's what makes it great IMO. Because it is a selfie, it means the animal is 100% natural in its environment, not distracted by humans, just captivated by its "game". And that is special -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are a lot of good quality photos that doesn't wow me and this is one of them. Btw, it's debated weather the facial expressions of monkeys and apes show the same emotions as those of humans. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Really ? Awesome, that might be one of them :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• ... and judging just the image I would say: insufficient DoF --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support I've changed my view on this image over the years. I think what PETA did and what Wikimania did with the image was disgraceful and disrespectful, but PETA lawsuit aside, I don't buy the claim it destroyed his career. It looks like the photographer (like most) didn't have a particularly great career to begin with and is bitter that taking a viral photo didn't change things for the better. He claims he's "lost £10,000" but that's speculation about what he might have earned, not money he actually had and lost. If the 30 minutes of monkeying-around with his camera hadn't produced the "money selfie" he'd have been the same broke photographer he says he is now. The claim to fame is that it is entirely a "monkey selfie" whereas David's claim to ownership is that he engineered the situation. His story now is that he was attempting to photograph the apes as they groomed and played with him, but discovered they would play with the camera if he sat next to it, holding the tripod. If instead of being a "selfie", David had pressed the button as an ape gazed at her reflection in the glass, it wouldn't have been a "selfie" and not have gone viral. The whole magic of the photo is the "what's the chance of that?" and "what a clever ape!" reactions. Being a professional photographer is about consistently satisfying the client with great photos and being relied upon to do so next time, not one single photo created by a chance encounter in 30 mins. A look at David's website suggests this photo is the only thing that separates him from any other wildlife photographer who runs workshops to make a living. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure. In any case I don't want commons to turn into a platform that pinches material from creators who don't consent or share their work voluntarily under a cc license. That's the main reasoning behind my opposing vote. The image actually might even warrant an FP status. It's striking, popular, well known & well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with not pinching material, but the raison d'être for this image is that the ape is the "creator" and it was a wild chance encounter rather than a trained animal. If David had creative input into the work, then it isn't a "monkey selfie", and no different to any other (of many) photos of these apes grinning. But if the ape is the creator then they don't get copyright. Neither do US Gov employees, whether they consent voluntarily or not. I don't think David can have it both ways. I think it quite rational to oppose for the reasons you give. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• This is a striking image yes, but not the work of the owner of the camera. Otherwise you can claim to be the artist when someone just borrows your material, after publishing their shots in newspapers. Is that "your work" ? No. You just bought the camera, and expect to become millionnaire because someone talented pushed the button. In this case, the talented subject is a monkey, and legally there's no ownership for this species (fortunately or unfortunately, but in any case the owner of the camera would not be the artist). So, for now, this picture is like the work of someone who took a shot of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum and claims to be the owner of the work. We just say "This painting is in the public domain", that's not "yours", it belongs to Da Vinci. But you engage lawyers and absolutely want to sell your photo of the Mona Lisa. Well, sorry that's your problem, there are laws. And now if you can't pay the attorneys, you're a bit responsible too. Maybe you can expect recognition for your work (go visiting the macaques in Indonesia), but only the fair part, not the extra part (means not this lucky selfie). That is public domain. Your story and the camera belong to you, you were not forced to publish anything, now the picture belongs to everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think your comparison with photographing a PD artwork is valid. Copyright law is what it is, there is no logic to it, and the law is pretty settled in the US at least. The thing is, if David had set his camera up with an intervalometer to take a pic every few seconds, or had rigged a trigger trap to detect an ape walking by, or had remotely triggered the shutter when the ape pulled a funny face, he'd have full copyright of the image, but it would not have gone viral: it wouldn't be a "selfie". That's the claim he's chosen to make, and if you take him at his word that the ape took the photo, then he loses rights to the image. If instead, he engineered the photo, then his claim is a fraud, and he'd still not be entitled to his £10,000. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• What is not valid is to claim the ownership of something free, or the artwork belonging to someone else. Not really a strange law in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Striked per Piotr Bart's comment below. --Cart (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Cart. All the backstory issues aside, the photo honestly doesn't wow me at all. It seems gimmicky and doesn't appeal to me, it's interesting as a novelty but the novelty wears off very quickly. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose A snapshot by a monkey. Funny for one look but not a FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Berthold Werner, sorry. --A.Savin 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Berthold.--Ermell (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose An animal shot a featured picture candidate? --Neptuul (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you prefer a drone ? Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monkey selfie -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not if a monkey handle the drone :) --Neptuul (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• A human opposing a monkey picture candidate? --Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• A human opposing human nomination--Neptuul (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose novelty shot just not that good and agree Martin. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my support– Neutral per Martin -- Piotr Bart (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Info This image can f*ck up this nom but I will try it, you can hold me responsible even block me for a day for any mishap. IMO, the codes are fine - --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Don't worry, as long as we know that it is a test of the Bot tasks/functions, it is ok. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose C-M (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support no less than I did four years ago. Between actually not being that bad and its historic interest, I see an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my support After reading the discussions, I decided that it no longer fits my criteria for a FP, therefore I  Oppose this now. Lo siento--BoothSift 00:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Eatcha, does the FPCBot even recognize the {{unsupport}} templates used above? – Lucas 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Lucas, nope. It only recognizes the templates in the tuple https://pastebin.com/raw/Hx0KGFg0 . Do you want me to add it ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Eatcha, I see no reason why the bot shoudn't recognize and calculate with all possible templates used by people. – Lucas 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) I think the {{unsupport}} is a too problematic template to add to the tuple since I doubt the Bot will be able to pair it with the right {{support}} vote without a major code re-write. It is hardly ever used and it is better that users are very clear in their votes. There will always pop up strange templates that someone found somewhere, a human will have to check those. --Cart (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support WOW for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
•  Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A very radical photo, totally saved by the presence of her hand and the way both she and the background sparkle. This photo is also kinder to her pores and there is less CA. Btw, are you sure the copyright for this is ok? --Cart (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Unconventional style and very featureable because of it. It carries a personality. – Lucas 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support ——Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support To give a little critique, the background in the hand area is a bit disturbing. But good enough, I think. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Boothsift (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't know what to make of this photo? I am not opposing, but I'm a bit unsure what to think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Some technical issues, but I like the composition. --XRay ^talk 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting composition, but it does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose with half head? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per 7 Pandas and Wolfgang Poco² 15:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Uoaei1 -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow , nohing extra... -- Karelj (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Uoaei1 Atamari (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Quite unusual portrait but it is talking to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 23:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Alcedinidae
•  Info created and uploaded by Zambog - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- BoothSift 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support —Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Cart (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not bad, but I miss the wow. The background is not very nice with darkness at the right. The white feathers appear clipped. Sorry --A.Savin 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support for me the darker background lets the main subject pop out more. – Lucas 13:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

* Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they voted twice--Boothsift (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, mistake. Thanks for removing the vote.--Ermell (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose as per A.Savin, the background is a bit disturbing Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect but overall pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. Vulphere 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support, although I agree with the idea of cropping the darker right out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --СССР (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per A.Savin, the background.... -- Karelj (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 16:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
•  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Immense resolution makes this to my mind a great candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 22:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support —Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Peulle (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support but I would like to learn more about this fresco, e.g. when it has been painted --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the support. It's all in the description Leonhard von Brixen --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, if you know the year of composition, add it to the file description. If not, I think it's sufficiently explanatory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: There exist no documents about the paintings but only attributions (second half of the 15th century). I found out that it depicts the apostel Saint James the lesser. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then the description you've given is sufficient. Thanks, Wolfgang. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose I hope it's acceptable to oppose just because I find him ugly. – Lucas 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - IMO, yes, because that goes to "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• If you’d support it, I should say the world is coming to its end. He might be ugly, but to me he is cosy and this fresco imho is ways, ages, miles more beautiful than this junk (pardon me!) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Easy! He said he found the man depicted ugly, not that he found your photograph ugly for any other reason. In my humble opinion, it would be best if you backed off and tried not to make this personal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment In fact, I din't mean the photos but the objects --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• So describing the things I photograph as junk is fair game, but any timid comment against the unquestionable beauty of anything in front of your lens is sacrilege, of course ... Nur die Ruhe, whatever I write it's only one vote of many and not worth this amount of bickering. – Lucas 10:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Lucasbosch: and @Moroder: I just wanted to point out that calling the objects in each other's photos ugly is not an insult to the each other but to the creator/designer, even if they don't see this. --BoothSift 02:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support. Vulphere 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A fine image of an important motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 06:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - The left and right crops feel a little arbitrary to me, as one cuts off a staircase and the other, a house. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. But I only had the 70-200mm lens mounted. In position 70mm. And I was on top of a ship, that was moving towards the subjects. Sorry! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• You could at least crop out the rest of that house on the right, though that doesn't address the problems with the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice juxtaposition of the three towers and I don't mind the crop; the cut elements are too small in frame. – Lucas 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Tower-church-church works well. But surely the tower has a name too that could be added to the description. Crop is fine, cropping out the house on the right would give the church (and final house) too little space and unbalance the image. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. Vulphere 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice!--BoothSift 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I dissent. The crops left and right disturb me too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support something to the right might be a bit more balanced.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support although the light is not optimal --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support knowing the location with the vantage point on the water I find it (mainly in the context of Wikipedia) a bit misleading to not include at least a bit of the water. Still a nice picture. C-M (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wish the sky was better, but the angle is great all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful cloudy sky. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 19 May → Fri 24 May
Mon 20 May → Sat 25 May
Tue 21 May → Sun 26 May
Wed 22 May → Mon 27 May
Thu 23 May → Tue 28 May
Fri 24 May → Wed 29 May

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

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

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.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
     • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
     • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
     • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
     • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
     • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
   • Add == FP promotion ==
     {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2019.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nomination

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}

2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.