Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Shortcut
This project page in other languages:

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates 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, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things edit

Nominating edit

Guidelines for nominators edit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • 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 – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs).
    • 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 color/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 color 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 edit

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • 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 description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs edit

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • 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). 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, color, 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.
  • Color is important. Oversaturated colors 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 color AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color 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 better 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 edit

Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates.

Set nominations edit

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • 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).

Simple tutorial for new users edit

Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps

STEP 1

  • STEP 1

    STEP 1


STEP 2

  • STEP 2

    STEP 2


STEP 3

  • STEP 3

    STEP 3


STEP 4

  • STEP 4

    STEP 4


STEP 5

  • STEP 5

    STEP 5


STEP 6

  • STEP 6

    STEP 6


STEP 7

  • STEP 7

    STEP 7


STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)

    STEP 8 (last step)

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.

Adding a new nomination edit

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 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}}

Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports An image will only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters.

Voting edit

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{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 edit

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

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 a 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 edit

General rules edit

  1. 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.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. 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.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. 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.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. 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.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. 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 edit

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. 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, they 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 when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite edit

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See also edit

Table of contents edit

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 edit

File:Panoramic view of Wat Pa Phon Phao and Nam Khan river seen from Old French Bridge Luang Prabang Laos.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2023 at 03:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Flavio Andre Pantanal Vista aerea Pocone MT.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 22:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:044 Grey-headed kingfisher at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 22:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Τζαμί Κουτουμπιά 0866.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 20:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Roques de Garcia from Parador.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 19:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Hedgehog in its nest in Tuntorp.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 18:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Mammals
  •   Info I saw this hedgehog making return trips in under a bush right outside my house, so eventually I took the camera and creapt in after it. It was pretty dark in there, hence the high ISO, and no way I was going to use a flash. It continued to build its nest and slept there during the winter. Most of the hedgehogs around here are very used to humans and don't react much when they see us. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fluweelpootje (Flammulina velutipes), 22-11-2023. (d.j.b).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 16:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:086 Wild Grass snake at Lake Geneva Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 23:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (16).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (11).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada 131.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
At a macro level, you need to have a steel pulse to be able to center something like that, I know that in editing I could do it, I am open to any cut but that would mean a change in the proportion which would break the cutting standard generated by the camera. IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Huge resolution, nice detail. I don't mind the framing but I would be fine with a cropping to center it as well. --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Very good, no need to be centered. --Selbymay (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Good, centering would be nice, but not necessary. --XRay 💬 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Per my prior analysis. ★ 23:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 14:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
I have made other versions, outside Commons, with tighter crops, and they hold up very nicely too. But not fully with one tree dead center, since I like to keep the irregular forest feeling. With this framing you have a grading across the photo from heavier forest to the left, to clearing up into a field to the right. Your request is something to consider if other voters feel the same. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Just low quality images of some wooden pieces: There is no any reasonon for FP nomination here. -- Karelj (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment I am dismayed about the itense hatred which manifests itself in such disparaging comments. What has wounded your soul, dear mate? Spraying hatred will not heal your pain. I would like to invite you to try hiking, meditation, prayer, yoga, whatever you like instead. But it should be constructive, because injuring others just keeps your wound open and bleeding. --Aristeas (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second this. Karelj, all you're doing is deliberately putting others down by spuriously claiming they have no reason to nominate a file for FP. Please read what you write and ask yourself: if someone said that to a photo you put your hard yards into, how would you feel? --SHB2000 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 I almost expected the disparaging comment. Regrettably, it happens again and again. It would be good to remain respectful, polite and factual. --XRay 💬 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment As an artist I'm used to harsh critique, it comes with the territory, not everyone can like what you do. It's ok for me personally, but crude behavior in general is not good for this FPC section or Commons. It's not easy to remain civilized and polite in all situations online and I myself is not an exception to that. But to do so repetedly when users obviously are bothered by it, is not ok. A better tone would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Did I recently write a support, saying something about the art of photography? This is a totally differnt genre of the art of photography, but I absolutely love this. There is a feeling of the woods in this picture that a more traditional image with perfect sharpness could not capture. Thanks for nominating! --Kritzolina (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong support I like it very much, an impressive artistic transformation that reminds me of the so-called ghost forest Gespensterwald in my adoptive home. Thank you very much for the nomination! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support ❄️ ★ 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Wonderful composition, good example of ICM photography. --XRay 💬 18:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Blurry and noisy image of random forest, Commons should not be a amateur art gallery. —kallerna (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you are wrong about the 'amateur' part applying to me. I am in fact a professional artist, taught by Einar Jolin who in turn was taught by Henri Matisse. But hey, we all make mistakes. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, where's your Wikipedia article where we can add this photo? —kallerna (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is your understanding of the scope of Commons? Also - as XRay pointed out, this is a wonderful example of a photography technique and can be added to all articles where this technique is mentioned. Kritzolina (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E.g. to Intentional camera movement, and this photo would indeed be an excellent example for that article. Or to Wikibooks textbooks about photography, etc. But as Kritzolina has already pointed out, Commons has a far wider scope than illustrating Wikipedia articles. E.g. this photo would make a wonderful album cover or dust jacket illustration. Yes, Commons provides media for such uses, too. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want to devalue art by amateurs? It's often amateurs who are involved in art. I myself am active here locally with many other artists - and they are all amateurs. I see no reason to see this in a derogatory way. I think the photos like this one are very valuable for our FP collection. They are the pictures that show that you can think outside the box. It's also pointless to always refer to Wikipedia here. Commons is not just for Wikipedia alone. BTW: Cart is a professional artist with excellent work. I really appreciate her pictures. --XRay 💬 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kallerna, like other users have pointed out, Commons is not just an image databank for Wikipedia articles. The images here also serve all the other Wikipedia's sister projects, see list here: Template:Wikipedia's sister projects. As an Admin you should know they exist. The images on Commons are also used by schools, museums, organisations, websites, newspapers, etc. outside the WikiProject, thanks to the generous licenses they are published under. For example, a similar dreamy photo I made is now used on the cover of a printed book, and the writer found it on Commons. I sometimes do searches online to see where my images are used on and outside Wiki, and it's really fun to see all the contexts they show up in. We frequently import images of art into Commons, is it really so outlandish to see that Commons also exports art out of the site? --Cart (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been around long enough to know these guidelines. I think I also have the right for my opinion, and as I've said, nowadays the bar for all qualifications for the images is too low. This photo is IMO not among the best images of Commons, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. You should have written this as an explanation for your vote, instead of lashing out. That way all these unpleasantries and comments would have been avoided. Your own opinion is valued and respected. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you. This is a voting, not a therapy session. General outlook: It is not a surprise that the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy. Just support all nominations and others will support your nomination? —kallerna (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not all “opposing votes create controversy”. The two votes which created controversy here missed any substantial reason and did not even provide any concrete allusions to the image; instead they just stringed together some interchangeable disparaging words. This is why they attracted critical comments. If you would have set forth why the intentional camera movement was not successful in this case, or not appropriate for the subject, or done in an insufficent manner etc., this would have been constructive criticism and we all had learned something useful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm having a decent conversation with Cart, why do you want to join and say my comment is shit? I also think supporting votes should have a reason if opposing do - there are lots of people here who don't know anything about the history of FP and support just about anything. This is now off-topic, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one said your comment was shit; anyone can join a conversation – this is Wikimedia, not a private chatroom. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) I agree that the bar for FP has been constantly lowered in the past few years, especially for artistic composition, as skilled photographers have given up. Emphasis has tilted over to the technical side, which, with today's cameras and size of photos is an almost academic discussion. I don't know about the second part of your comment though... Due to problem with my eyes I haven't voted on anything for almost a year. Instead I have dedicated my time to maintenance work on the site, and generally been a p.i.t.a. for many users. I fully expected this nom to be all about people venting their aggressions towards me in oppose votes. The strong support here has been something of a chock for me. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, it was a general comment, not towards your actions (that's why "General outlook"). —kallerna (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Excellent example for intentional camera movement. By the movement the image gets a mysterious, slightly ghostly effect which intensifies the atmosphere of the snowy wood. --Aristeas (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support different and actually eye catching. Looks like a painting, makes the forest more vertical and more intimidating plus emphasises the winterish vibe. But the coolest thing with that kind of photo is that everyone will read it differently. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Även om jag också gillar den första versionen. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support And I don't get Karelj's vote one bit. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support phantastic! Currently I'm barely active on commons. Noms like this one lure me back. Accompanying discussions serve as a warning, though. ;-) ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not sure interacting with the comments above is the best course of action, irrespectively of the underlying intentions. Feedback can be hurtful, even when it's not put crassly, but it's often a better learning tool than praise. Also, some languages sound more aggressive than intended when translated to English, so some leeway is necessary. And if the intention was pure shock value, well, as the old Internet adage goes, "don't feed the trolls". If things get out of hand and rules of conduct are broken, there's dispute resolution tools available. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry to jump in here, I beleive your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but here you are stating two things here that are widely popular opinions that have been disproven scientifically. Criticism, especially crassly worded, harsh criticism, is not a good learning tool. It can actually hinder learning and often does. Praise is a much better learning tool. Also the rule of "don't feed the trolls" has been proven unhelpful and not stopping trolling in a number of research projects. Kritzolina (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not al all, thanks for jumping in. Can you point me to the scientific evidence you are referring to? My understanding is that modern psychological findings support the opposite. I found Jonathan Haidt's book, albeit focused on US college campuses, a good summary of the current state-of-the-art on this topic: [1] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for linking this. In this kind of context praise vs criticism is only one of many facets of raising children. What we are talking about here on this site is the effect of criticism on adults who often are already experts in their field. I will be looking for some more specific articles, but currently travelling, so this might take a few days, as I will be very busy over the weekend. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course, whenever you have a chance. If you're not able to find adequate support (claiming that a theory has been disproven is a tall order, as it requires scientific consensus), I think it would be helpful for the discussion to retract the statement, or to change it to something more precise (e.g., "some studies suggest") --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the meantime, please bear in mind that being polite and being hurtful are not mutually exclusive. Personally I will take feedback in any shape or form it is offered, but others may find statements such as "I believe your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but" patronising. Cart, hopefully this tangent didn't take too much away from your amazing nomination. As one of the many amateurs on Commons, I'm glad to have the opportunity to interact with pros! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Julesvernex2, don't worry, it's not the first time a work of mine has sparked controversy. ;-) At least this time, the "storm" is just on a section of FPC and not a whole town. (yes, it has happened :-D). --Cart (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Julesvernex2, I am really sorry that I came across as patronising. This was not my intention and I want to ask your forgiveness for not taking more time to think about the impact this wording could have on you. And I totally agree, nothing can guarantee our words don't hurt others unintentionally. We still should try to choose words and phrases that have a smaller likelihood than others, but giving our different backgrounds and life experiences we all fail at times. Sorry again!
    If you want to discuss further on the praise vs criticism issue, I would suggest moving to the talkpage here, as this is not just about this nomination and the reactions of some users to it, this has a bigger scope. As an intro I suggest looking into this article, which clearly opens with the affirmation that "praise has long been recognized as an important form of social reinforcement" while "Criticism ... has been identified as a poor way to encourage better performance". It then goes on to differentiate more, which we also should do perhaps. Kritzolina (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need for that, Kritzolina! As I mentioned above, no offence taken. Happy to continue the discussion on scientific evidence elsewhere, but I propose we stick to findings that are more recent than the one you provided, and that enjoy wide academical consensus. Much has changed in this field since the 80s, with much more to come as the replication crisis continues to make its way through empirical psychology. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a question. I would assume that criticism should be concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful in order to serve as a good learning tool. Now the feedback we discuss here was neither concrete (it did not describe any concrete shortcomings of the specific photo) nor constructive (no hint was provided to what should be different or how one could achieve a better result) nor respectful (on the contrary, it appeared just disparaging). Is this kind of dismissive comments really helpful? Of course great people can learn from everything, but wouldn’t it in most cases much more successful to provide concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful criticism? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that the best feedback is concrete, constructive and respectful. However, I don't think this is something that should be enforced, as everybody has the right to express an opinion how they deem fit (excluding ad hominem attacks and other nonsense, which are disallowed by the existing code of conduct). As I defended in another context, the more rules, restrictions and hurdles we put in place, the less diverse the nominations and votes will be. And we should perhaps give extra leeway for opposing votes, which are an endangered species around here :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation! That’s a plausible point of view. --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Felipe y Santiago, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25, DD 72-74 HDR.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 22:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:20231108 blue jay goodwin dock PND08988.jpg edit

  I withdraw my nomination Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 18:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Flysch formation at Sakoneta Beach.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 14:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:CAPARAÓ - VITOR B. BARBOSA - FOTO 01.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 13:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Given that this is not a NASA photo, I think the location of the park where it is taken will be enough. Added, let's go with that until someone calculates a more exact position. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose The star trails look weird (like two parallel lines with gap in the middle), boring foreground, some CAs along the brightest stars. --C messier (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   I withdraw my nomination No chance… ★ 21:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bali Myna 0A2A9443.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 09:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2016 002.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 08:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Beautiful! Now I want to go to NYC - Benh (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Nice light, sky and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support The Pink Hour. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support ★ 12:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Neutral The distant buildings seem unclear, this is due to the aperture, it would have been better to combine 3 or more images using Focus Stacking --Wilfredor (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    what are you talking about? On distant subjects, DOF doesn't affect sharpness like at close distance. I personally find that all is very clear and sharp despite it being a very long exposure shot and don't think stacking gimmicks would much improve things. Could you pin point the specific area that is of concern to you? - Benh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wilfredor certainly does not refer to DoF, but to diffraction; at ƒ/11 we already have a small, but visible reduction of the lens resolution by diffraction. And actually the scyscrapers are very sharp, but not as sharp as they could be (theoretically). So Wilfredor has a good point here. However it is quite likely that the sharpness of the cityscape is also degraded by some haze; in this case the diffraction has no perceptible influence. And I also think that the cityscape is still more than sharp enough in this image. So while in general it is a very good idea to remember the diffraction (on the newest high-resolution cameras its influence is even more noticeable), it does not diminish the value of this wonderful photo. Focus stacking can also introduce many additional problems, so IMHO in this case it was the smarter choice to stay with the good old single-shot ƒ/11 approach. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my experience, there is no perceptible difference between f/8 and f/11 on a 24 MP camera. It could have been sharper if I had used a prime lens and/or made a stitched panorama, but the lighting conditions were changing quickly and I didn't have time for that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know mate. Judging by this stopping down to f/11 doesn't degrade that much in the center and even improve resolution in the borders. Anyways, @Wilfredor did you even look at the picture as a whole? Maybe you'll appreciate the excellent timing, how the water is rendered smooth with the long exposure, the colours of the sky, the reflexion on the glass... But yeah pixels are probably the things to look at first.- Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the image is quite calm and calm, but when it comes to inanimate objects, I would always like to see them more clearly, I am sure that 3 photographs joined together would have facilitated this. I have had this problem before and I always choose to take several photos with the technique I mentioned. We have photos of cities in the commons and King himself has already taken richer, sharper photos. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, I mean in terms of diffraction. So @Benh: I agree with you and that's why I now default to f/11 unless I'm sure f/8 is adequate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry my answer was to Aristeas's. I think I started my comment before you posted yours, which I agree with. - Benh (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Great light and atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Really nice view. --Selbymay (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support I'm wowed! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I love the light and main subject, but the crop is IMO unfortunate with branches and the shadowed lighthouse. —kallerna (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --imehling (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Oscar Wilde by Napoleon Sarony. Three-quarter-length photograph, seated.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 18:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Arothron nigropunctatus - Wilhelma 02.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 15:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Painting on Pinacoteca of Sao Paulo, Brazil 3.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 12:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Karl Ernst Papf  (1833–1910)    
 
 
Alternative names
Ernesto Papf
Description Brazilian painter and photographer
Date of birth/death 17 March 1833   16 March 1910  
Location of birth/death Dresden São Paulo
Work location
Brazil  
Authority file
creator QS:P170,Q6371759

- uploaded, nominated by -- Wilfredor (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Comment That's not a compliment for a painting. What makes this a notable work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it was just a joking comment…
    It's clearly a FP, as Aristeas said. ★ 22:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These types of images are usually common in Europe, but in a developing country like Brazil, it is not easy to have historically appealing paintings. In any case, the remarkable aspect is merely subjective, for us as Brazilians it will surely seem something more valuable. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support But the image should be renamed IMO to describe the content better. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment there's a small black point over the head of the child on top Ezarateesteban 12:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a paint stain, I can't correct that, plus it's something tiny, practically imperceptible, I challenge anyone else to see this as a mistake. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Volkach Maria im Weingarten Luftbild-20221027-RM-171234.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 10:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Obi-Obi Valley - Mapleton Falls National Park.tif edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 08:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Eutropis (skink) looking at viewer in the sun in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 01:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • These new galleries are a bad idea Cart. Why were they created? I would recommend deletion (is there are process for this?). We should assume all animal images are of animals in their natural habitat and use sub categories for those that are not e.g. zoos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin by T. & R. Annan & Sons.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2023 at 23:32:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Dülmen, Münsterstraße, Viktorkirmes, Riesenrad -- 2023 -- 9053 (kreativ).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2023 at 17:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Juvenile red knot (Finistere, France).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2023 at 12:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2023 at 04:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Boardmasters2023 (97 of 171) (53120163026).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 22:21:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Oppose. I'm still new to this forum, but isn't the idea of a featured photo to be in some way special? I don't see anything exceptional in either how the subject was photographed or in the scene captured. In addition there are basic faults (awkward crop, tilt, string of saliva in the mouth).  podstawko  ●talk  06:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment Of course it's tilted but it's not a building picture. About the string of saliva, I suppose it's a joke. The fact that you can see it is more an argument for the quality of detail of the photo... --Selbymay (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Selbymay, thanks for responding. No, the comment about the string of saliva is not a joke, and the fact that we can see it is definitely not an argument for the quality of the photo, merely a testament to the sharpness :). Additionally, careful and aesthetic cropping and tilting does not apply to buildings only, I'm not not sure where you read that rule. Do you think that the photographer made a deliberate decision here to tilt the photo to the left, and to just show like 2 cm of her blue dress at the bottom? If yes, I'd love to understand their reasoning behind these decisions.  podstawko  ●talk  09:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but I don't think we can give our opinion of a picture of a landscape, a church or a human being with the absolut sames criteria, here on FP. Furthermore, this image is a close up of a singer on stage so I don't understand why the tilt or the string of saliva could be considered as "faults". The photographer seems not to be a commonist as the picture was transferred from flickr so we don't know why he cropped that much (3 936 × 2 418 pixels only for a 24MP camera) but I guess he had his reasons. Not being an absolute fan of this image, I prefer not to vote but I must admit it's a pretty good one. Selbymay (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, de gustibus non est disputandum. To me there's not much to this picture other than sharpness, and sharpness alone is too little to qualify for featured. Even the "impressive facial expression" which someone mentioned is not really impressive. Would anyone even pay attention to a different person, not a celebrity, photographed in the exact same pose? And to your point: the same criteria are not applied to landscapes and humans, but the same scrutiny and high quality bar for FP qualification are. If there was no reason for the original photographer to tilt and awkwardly crop, then we're looking at an image where a lot has been left to chance. This is not to say that accidental photos can't be fabulous (vide Winogrand's photography for example...), but this one is not. Even within the genre of concert photography, this is not an outstanding example, which you should probably know better than I do.  podstawko  ●talk  07:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Would anyone even pay attention to a different person, not a celebrity, photographed in the exact same pose?" I would. I didn't know who she was, just a singer performing. However, her being famous adds to the encyclopedic value of the photo, which can be one relevant consideration for FPC, even for Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't you know RAYE before this nomination? ★ 02:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, as I said. I suppose I've heard some of her songs, but it's probably not the type of music I usually seek out. I'm a classical and jazz musician with pretty broad taste, but it doesn't extend to most current-day top-40 hits, though there are some exceptions (for example, I'm a fan of Adele and Lizzo and also like Alicia Keys). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just listen to this… I do love her Amy's vibes! ★ 10:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Super-overdone production, IMO (no need for the orchestra and chorus), but she's a skilled hip-hop artist. Not really my kind of stuff, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:On Sukhna Lake 11.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 16:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Not even a nice sunset. Just some water and a black background. Yann (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support But it’s not a sunset photo ;–). It’s a very graphic image of the shining reflection of the sun dancing on the softly moving waves. The boat and the forest in the background are intentionally just silhouettes. Technically not perfect, but I can easily see me leafing through National Geographic or similar magazines, finding this photo and saying “wow!”. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support This is a fascinating contre-jour shot with a special appeal thanks to the texture of the water surface. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Too much flat water, sorry. The silhouette of the boat is camouflaged by the background. The big mass of trees behind has nothing special. The sun is cut out. The composition does not work in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Sorry, per Basile. --Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Basile Morin -- Jakubhal 15:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painted door (Mermaid). Funchal, Madeira.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 09:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
I'll certainly not stop sharing my useful comments on this open platform. This mailbox is amazing, and surprisingly nobody has noticed it above, before me. Is it such a gorgeous optical illusion that everybody missed this important detail? :And what else could have been invented by the imaginative artist, instead of this clever swing, to take advantage of this special feature and constraint in the door? We call this Ougrapo (sort of "graphic design under constraints"), or in French Ouvroir de peinture potentielle.
Honi soit qui mal y pense :-)
If it's not a letterbox, please explain. Perhaps my mind should not go to the mail carrier? Or is it the painting which should be censored? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I belief I am not the only one associating something sexual when they read about a "postman" (not mail carrier!) "enjoy[ing] slipping the mail" in. If you truly want your comments to be useful, try to avoid this kind of association. Your comment of "Honi soit qui mal y pense" shows that you perfectly understand what is bothering me. Trying to derail the conversation with your opening questions and trying to make it about a different behaviour of yours, which was fully acceptable and normal, is way off the point.
Nothing is wrong with the painting itself. It is your comment that is not appropriate. Kritzolina (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Postman" is the standard word for mail carrier, right? postwoman is rare. Should we change the dictionary words in this situation?
This mail box is a great example of trompe-l'œil. Do we agree on that?
Similarly the walkers may enjoy climbing up these escalators and the drivers (males or females) parking their cars on this parking. There's nothing wrong in my comment. I'm commenting on what I have under the eyes. I'm not the artist, but neither stupid nor hypocritical to pretend not to understand what is obvious -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please Basile, just stop it. You made a sexually inappropriate comment that has no place on a photo forum. Now you are just trying to muddy the waters with word-fencing instead of simply removing the comment and apologize. --Cart (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think postwomen may enjoy slipping the mail into this cleverly recycled mailbox 📨 too, and that's why a pictogram of a letter has been delicately chosen to punctuate my comment, not a key nor an eggplant :-) Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that making veiled sexual comments is something of a French national sport, but could you please thy to restrain that need here on FPC. The gender of the person who delivers the mail is irrelevant. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the right word from the dictionary, like fisherman or fireman. You can think what you want about French people and make generalities. Category "trompe-l'oeil" added -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lectures people about everything in general and how to behave here, then proceeds with a free insult on Frenches. Revealing what this is actually all about. Colour me surprised. - Benh (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, sorry about that. That was a bad move on my part, but I too can get carried away when I'm frustrated. At least I can strike it and admit I did something wrong and learn from it. --Cart (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are an intelligent man, yes - so I have to believe you are playing stupid here. You know perfectly well why this comment upsets me, and why I would like you to alter or remove it. There is obviously no need to sexualize an image of a woman sitting on swing, even if it evokes sexual emotions and thoughts in your mind. You choose to try to ridicule me instead of acting with empathy and understanding. I will leave it at that. Kritzolina (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's totally possible that a sexual intention was deliberate by the painter, I have no idea, and my only goal was to highlight the letterbox / swing. I love creativity on constraint. This is just creativity on constraint. Another artist would have imagined a circus, personally I would have imagined a dresser drawer, but well, it is an ass on a swing, well, that's life. Commons is not censored. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images and the descriptions of them are not censored on Commons, that's true, but semi-lewd comments while discussing the images are not acceptable. --Cart (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can you accuse me of talking about sex when I just commented about a letter and the person who is supposed to interact genuinely with this door? That's weird. I agree the painting is ambiguous, but that's not my artwork. I'm just reviewing on what the picture is evoking, and the reactions this painting may generate to others. If the postman dislikes, it's possible also, and I respect different feelings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said I would leave it in my last comment ... but ... really ?? Kritzolina (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Não entendo / Pas compris / No understand / 不明白
"Really" what? Here's a tunnel and here's a chest of drawers. Anything forbidden again? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support. And my 2 cents: making FPC a welcoming and not hostile place for women should be considered an important goal, so if women are offended by a comment, it doesn't mean the person making the comment is bad or ill-intentioned, but the fact that a woman felt strongly enough to speak up about it means we should listen to her and try to take it into account in terms of future behavior, rather than doubling (tripling, etc.?) down. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for those 2 cents, Ikan. I have a bit higher thoughts about most men though. It's not just about being a non-hostile environment for women, I think most well-behaved men could also like to have an FPC without smutty comments. This is supposed to be one of the best photo sections on the WikiProject, not the Thursday Club. --Cart (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose not really impressed by the photo nor the art itself. - Benh (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment The template about FOP in Portugal (included on this photo) says that under Portuguese law the name of the artist must be given alongside derivative works like this one wherever possible. "Wherever possible" does not mean "only if it's easy", there is an onus on the publisher to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain ownership of the original work. This one is signed at the bottom, so it should be possible to find out the full name of the artist and properly attribute them. BigDom (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well noted. I believe the author is Wolfgang Lass, a German painter that moved to Madeira: [2] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Red Fish at Papahānaumokuākea (cropped).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 15:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  Question -- Isn't this picture already Featured? Ndiver (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is featured on the English Wikipedia; this is Commons. Different site, different criteria. (Images can be featured on different WikiProject with different ways to evaluate them. There are more FP opportunities out there: Examples 1 2 3) Personally I find the photo this image is extracted from much more appealing in compo, and more along the Commons' taste. Perhaps it could be added as an 'Alternative' on this nom? --Cart (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative edit

 

  •   Info Uncropped version.

File:Catedral de Westminster, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-23, DD 37-39 HDR.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 07:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Comment You have a point. I like the portrait orientation better, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ancient Temple, Naranag, Jammu and Kashmir, India.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 21:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
  •   Info Main Shiva Temple (Jyestheswara Temple) at the western enclosure of the sprawling, ancient Wangath Temple complex located in a remote valley deep in the Kashmir Himalayas. The temple complex may be over two millennia old; the current structure (pictured) dates to the 8th century CE. Image created and uploaded by Basavaraj K. Korkar - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Nominated over a month ago by me, but did not pass for lack of required support votes—perhaps I didn’t correct the dust spot as swiftly as I should have, or didn’t explain its unique historical and geographical context. In any case, nominating a second time. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Please read this recent discussion about re-nominations. It looks like the previous candidature did not gather much enthusiasm. We like diversity at FPC, so please don't renominate too quickly the same images until they get promoted due to tiredness. I did not support the first time, because I find the colors washed out and the light dull. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was nominated a month and a half ago, and a big dust spot was pointed out. Since the image had already been featured on wikipedia, where the dust spot had managed to go unnoticed, I was slightly late to remove it. A misspelling in the filename was also highlighted, which I could fix only after the nom was over. I'm not trying to manipulate the process to get the image promoted, I apologize if that's what it came across as. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dust spot was notified on September 26, and corrected only 2 days later, on September 28. Then, from this date until October 4, end of the voting period, 6 days passed, with just 2 supporters. This low level of participation illustrates the moderate enthusiasm, in my opinion. I don't think the reviewers abstained from voting because of the spelling mistake. That's usually not a prohibitive factor (there have been similar cases in the past). Thus this re-nomination sounds a bit like "only two supports missing the first time, maybe a second round will be more generous" :-) Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saint Christopher Street in Valletta (32711).jpg edit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 16:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Malta
  •   Info Christopher Street at Ursula Street in Valletta, Malta. I spent some time in Valletta recently and took a lot of pictures trying to capture the unique experience of walking around the capital -- the stone architecture, straight and narrow streets, hilly terrain, and ubiquitous religious iconography (that's St. Roch there on the left, a saint associated with the plague and accompanied by the dog that supposedly healed him). I noticed we have very few photos of Malta, and this one is among the more successful to me personally, so giving it a try here. Will it resonate with anyone else? I'm not sure. all by — Rhododendrites talk |  16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support — Rhododendrites talk |  16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose if the intent was to emphasize the people coming at the viewer, then I think the framing is too wide. If the intent was to show a panoramic view of the street, then the framing is too tight at the bottom (like you scroll down and it ends to early). It could be interesting to crop much of the sides and get a portrait alternative but then the quality might fall a bit short (it is already quite noisy). I also think it would have been better with the people going away instead. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I very much liked the experience of walking around Valletta, so to clarify my intent, it's very much an attempt to capture my experience of walking around there, highlighting the things I liked in particular (the distinct 4/5-story stone buildings with their varied balconies and architectural details, the religious imagery on every block, the long and narrow steets, always looking slightly upward at the buildings. So I'm less interested in the subjectivity of the people in the frame since all they're really doing is illustrating that this is the sort of place where people exist and often walk down the middle of the street, and I wouldn't want to crop it because the balconies and statues are the point. I feel like it was successful at capturing my experience, but how well that's communicated to another viewer I don't know. There were a couple others that I think were successful, too, but both have quality reasons why I wouldn't nominate them here (some technical shortcomings here and here, as well as an unbalanced comp that probably wouldn't work for most). I don't expect to change your vote but figured I'd response on the subject of intent. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support The bottom crop is too tight, but otherwise a beautiful image. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Nice narrow street with special architecture and various featured elements to contemplate, like the green window, the statue in the foreground, the wooden facades, and the walker taken at the right moment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support The composition is ok in my view --imehling (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Works for me as a compressed view of that picturesque street. The statue of Jesus Christ at the top left which seems to point to the street, the green balcony at the top right and the single person at the bottom centre form a triangle of attention which consolidates the composition. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Many thanks for Basile's and Aristeas' accurate analysis, which convinces me. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Not perfect for sure but very appealing. Sometimes, picture's flaws are part of its charm. --Selbymay (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support ★ 23:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Neutral I agree with Benh that a vertical orientation would be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Mostly in shadows. —kallerna (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Benh. -- Karelj (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Järva-Peetri kirikuaed 1 - OlariPilnik.jpg edit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 13:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

File:Autumnal Retreat in Old Quebec- A Canvas of Fading Reds and Vibrant Oranges.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 12:47:58
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   

  •   Info Better colors and removing tree (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep The tree is part of the composition. ★ 12:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Delist and replace Indeed better. Yann (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep If we promote photos were major digital landscaping is done, even if it's declared with the {{Retouched}}, I think we're on a slippery slope. I know that Wilfredor is no stranger to improving his photos, 1 and 2. Slightly altered colors on a FPC is frowned upon. To me this removal of large "irritating parts" of the photo is just as bad. Nominations where an unfortunate sign, parked can or blurry human mess up the composition, (all mobile objects) are frequently not featured because the author wants to stay true to the scene. Removing whole trees, on FPCs or FPs, is not ok for me. The trees here embed the house in the forest, and it looks great. --Cart (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have always been sincere but we cannot control what others do, if we prevent large alterations in the photos, someone will still make them whether we want it or not and it will be impossible to identify that there was an alteration on the original --Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is probably true, and I think it has already happened many times and we haven't discovered it, but just because it exists doesn't mean we have to encourage it. It's getting harder and harden to see what is genuine photos or computer-enhanced photos. I see the photo without the trees in the same light as I saw the photo with an added moon. Remove something big or add something big, and it's no longer a true representation of the subject. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep In a small size, the new version is for sure more appealing. In full size, however, several distortions appear as a result of the removal of the tree. A picture with those defects would had never been accepted as a featured image. Why should we substitute the original one? --Harlock81 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Delist and replace -- Karelj (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep The new photo should fail at FPC if nominated. It's very poorly stitched above the house, with a very unsharp area. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep Personally I don't have any qualms with structural modifications to images, as long as they are i) clearly declared (which I think is the case for this image); and ii) well done (which is not the case). Wilfredor, I assume you have used Adobe's AI generative fill for this? Currently it doesn't work well with high resolution files. Instead, try to generate individual 2,000 x 2,000 pixel areas. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep We produce pictures for an encyclopedia so we shouldn't deviate too much from reality. I think deleting moveable things like litter is ok because it still shows the object as it could be, but enhancements with AI are not acceptable any more. By the way there should be some general guidelines for this because sooner or later we aren't able to see any more what is real and what is artificial on the pictures here. --imehling (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's only one of Commons' goals. If we want FPs to be a representative selection of "content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose" we need less rules, not more. Any additional caveat we introduce stifles new nominators (particularly those that don't speak English) and further limits nominations to overrepresented genres (e.g., landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture)- --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Julesvernex2 that Commons is for all sorts of images, and I think we are going to see many more digitally manipulated images now that it's so easy to make. But I also think there needs to be a very clear way of seeing what images are in their original state and which ones are not. The 'Retouched' template is not enough. Often it is used by conscientious authors in cases where very minor things have been altered. It is also far down below the info field where many users who go looking for photos for articles don't look. Large fixes like this should be declared in the title (File:My picture - photoshopped.jpg]]) and the description, not just tacked on "below the fold". Correct categories about the alteration should also be added to the file. With so much AI and enhancing we see, correct information is gold. For me, altered photos are welcome at FPC, but they should not end up among other more true representations of places, since they are misleading. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point, and I'll add the appropriate category to my own manipulated images, alongside their existing {{Retouched}} template (changing all their files names would test the patience of file movers, though). However, as you hint, perhaps the broader issue is how to identify non-declared AI images. In the short-term, tools such as AI or Not have been shown to be effective. In the longer-term, I would like to see Wikimedia integrate initiatives such as CPI. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree both with Julesvernex2 and Cart.
(1) Julesvernex2 has even found a clear, but still unobtrusive way to indicate the level of post-processing with the “PPLx” hints in the filename (see User:Julesvernex2, scroll down and expand the “By PPL (Post Processing Level)” tab). Maybe we could recommend that approach for general use. I just think we should differentiate PPL3 into PPL3 to PPL5 – reserving PPL3 for the removal of mid-size temporary elements (cars, people etc.), PPL4 for the removal of bigger permanent elements and the addition or editing of mid-size parts of the image (still in agreement with factual reality), PPL5 for extensive montages. The photo discussed here would be PPL4.
(2) Agree also that in the long run the identification of (mostly) AI-generated images will be our biggest challenge. I hope that initiatives like CPI will provide the necessary level of differentiation (how much of a photo was changed/generate by AI?), because unlike some sport news agencies we cannot prescribe our users just to upload out-of-camera JPEG files (this would limit image quality extremely, using raw image files is essential for many advanced photographers). We need to support many levels of image developing, editing and post-processing, just indicating the amount of manipulation.
(3) In that respect, the existing Category:Digitally manipulated photographs and its subcategories are far too general, we must create more specific subcategories in order to differentiate and indicate the level of digital manipulation. In the end each photo from any digital camera is “digitally manipulated” (many users don’t realize it but the cameras do much with the data from the sensor, every out-of-camera JPEG file is already the result of an extensive development process, and in the end the photos from modern cellphones are completely “photoshopped” images). So we must draw a distinction here and create appropriate subcategories which indicate more exactly what has been done. --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point on adding PPL4 and PPL5 levels (and perhaps PPL6, for fully-AI generated images?). Happy to discuss this further if others are interested in adopting this sort of scale. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Neutral I don't mind removing the tree, since it is not an essential or important part of the composition, and since the modification is declared; but per Ikan and Jules, there are other issues present. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep Removing the tree is not an acceptable edit in my view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep My general view on modifications is that they should only be used to correct mistakes or temporary situations in order to produce a final product that could have been captured in real life. For example, if there are some small distracting branches in the corner, you could have moved a little bit out of the way, so removing them is fine. Removing one particularly disturbing person/car is also fine (but generally not removing all the traffic if it would falsely imply that a popular tourist destination is deserted). Here, the branches are very prominent and right in the middle, so you could not have taken a photo without them without significantly changing the composition, so the edited version is not an accurate portrayal of reality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep Similar to what King of Hearts mentioned, I think the originality as a reflection of reality should not be fundamentally changed with AI. It would be different if the tree had been cut down, as can be seen in a series of my own pictures: in 2021 the first oak on the left was still visible, in 2022 not, because the municipality had cut it down. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep The tree was only removed digitally and this was done rather poorly. --Milseburg (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep per Ikan.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Water reflection of clouds and Luang Prabang cityscape from Wat Long Koon evening Laos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 01:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Laos

File:Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte - Interno - Cesena (Italy).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 18:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
  •   Info The Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte is an ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy. The monastery has a rich history, and it is home to a statue of the Madonna, which was brought there in 1318. Inside the abbey there are frescoes and works of art of historical value from the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose The low angle is interesting, but the important elements around the altar are not clear. --Tagooty (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done Thanks for your comments. I uploaded a new version using the DPP4 Canon software (moving the option Faith to Fine). Now, the image should be a little bit darker but detailed and slighty sharper than in the previous one. Let me provide you with some additional information, my camera was 24 meters from the stairs and 36 meters from the altar and the marble that can be seen around the altar is fake: it is painting done by skilled italian Renaissance artists. (Please, clear your cache to see the new img). --Terragio67 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much better! Can you improve the over-exposed Virgin Mary in the centre? --Tagooty (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, but I have to blend an identical image underexposed in the center. To do this I just uploaded a new HDR version. Terragio67 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The exposure of the Virgin Mary and surroundings are better but lacking in detail. I appreciate the work you've done to improve the image, I'm sorry that it does not appeal to me sufficiently to support either alternative. Tagooty (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. I don't find this image engaging, and I don't understand why you decided to shoot it this way. The frog's perspective is unjustified, the interesting altar disappears dominated by walls, and if anything catches attention here it is the shiny floor.  podstawko  ●talk  11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Podstawko, to see the details of the base of the Altar, it is necessary to go to the upper part of the Abbey, above the 18 steps. Instead, to take this shot I moved just outside the central main entrance, where there are other steps going down. The lowest angle I used allows you to see much of the Renaissance work above the altar very well. This was my intent. Terragio67 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose both versions per Tagooty and Benh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative HDR Image edit

 
  •   Info The Santa Maria del Monte Abbey was founded around the year 1001 and completed in 1026. In 1177, he welcomed Emperor Frederick Barbarossa as a guest, who gave him his full protection. The monastery has a rich history and is home to a statue of the Madonna, which was brought there in 1318. During the Renaissance in Italy, it began to take on the appearance it has today; in fact, inside the abbey there are frescoes and works of art of historical value from the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond. The lower angle chosen to take the shot, allows you to see part of it. A curiosity: the colored marbles visible around the altar are fake, they are paintings created by skilled Renaissance artists. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Neutral Exposure is fine, detail and composition are borderline to me. --Tagooty (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Tranquil and interesting church interior. The composition/crop is unusual, of course, but it’s true that the low point of view allows us to see more of the Renaissance frescoes (?) above the altar, so this composition has its merits. --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right to use the question mark between the parentheses. Between 1536 and 1548, the abbey took on the appearance it has today, among the frescoes there are still some works by Francesco Masini. In 1768 a devastating earthquake partially destroyed the dome. In 1774 Giuseppe Milani was commissioned to restore the frescoes. He was authorized to maintain and recover what was possible and was authorized to carry out new works. The latter (you are right) do not belong to the Renaissance. I added some images note... Terragio67 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support ★ 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Come on guys. The bar is super high for our church interior. No way we are saying this is as good as what we have. Where to start? No wow. Don't think the angle is wide enough for a church interior. Very unsharp. Very unfortunate and distracting horizontal bars, which are going through the supposedly interesting paintings. Camera on the floor making the benches more prominent than they should... - Benh (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Benh: I'm not sure what "wow" means in the context of a church interior, since a photographer's creative choices are highly limited. For me a church interior is FP if the subject is reasonably interesting, the composition does justice to the subject, and the technical quality and execution are excellent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In short, I would have hung most of Diliff interiors in my living room, not only because they were technically perfect, but also because they were framed with taste and provided sense of scale, epic and marvel. All of which are missing here. - Benh (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose as per Benh. --Yann (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Strange POV and lacks detail, Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose both versions per Tagooty and Benh. But consider nominating for COM:VIC. It's a good, useful photo, especially with all that labeling, just not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The image is good and interesting, but not completely in focus or, if you prefer, sufficiently detailed. This issue appears to be similar to previous FP nominations as well. At the moment I believe that the lens I use may be unsuitable in certain situations. I purchased a new Canon M 55-200 lens and I have already tried some photos on a painting from the 1500s with surprising results considering the difficulties linked to artificial lighting. As always thank you all, I always appreciate your genuine and constructive comments.
      I withdraw my nomination --Terragio67 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Timetable (day 5 after nomination) edit 

Mon 20 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
Tue 21 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
Wed 22 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Thu 23 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Fri 24 Nov → Wed 29 Nov
Sat 25 Nov → Thu 30 Nov

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

Thu 16 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
Fri 17 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
Sat 18 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Sun 19 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Mon 20 Nov → Wed 29 Nov
Tue 21 Nov → Thu 30 Nov
Wed 22 Nov → Fri 01 Dec
Thu 23 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Fri 24 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Sat 25 Nov → Mon 04 Dec

Closing a featured picture promotion request edit

The bot edit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure edit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  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")|gallery=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 gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, 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/November 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request edit

  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/November 2023.
  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. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. 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).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    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.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination edit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  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/November 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=804402179"