Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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, 2024 and current month.

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

Formal things

Nominating

Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • Resolution – 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

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

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

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

Set nominations

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

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Simple tutorial for new users

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

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

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 (~~~~).

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.

General rules

  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 fewer than two support votes.
    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.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
    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

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.
  5. Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite

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

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

See also

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

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

File:Beach of Cape Fiolent, Crimea.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 21:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cape Fiolent in Crimea, during the sea storm.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
  •  Info Cape Fiolent, the product of ancient Jurassic volcanism in Crimea, during the sea storm. Upper Miocene lava and carbonate intrusions on heavily eroded Jurassic foundation. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Argenberg (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This picture creates an interesting mood, and I think its impact is stronger when you consider what is happening in Crimea and the Ukraine. The colors of the rocks against the water of the black sea and the gray clouds. The woman photographing her child, the smooth hills, with the large, sharp outcroppings, and all of the pebbles and small stones. I think of the resilience of the people of Ukraine in harsh conditions, the Holodomor and the Russian occupation. The image is well composed and interesting, but also stirring. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 3:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vista panoramica dalla fortezza di Bertinoro - Emilia-Romagna - GT 03- 2024-07-01.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 14:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view from the Bertinoro's fortress

File:Salto MBigua - Iguazu falls (4811643669).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 12:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Casal de turistas caminha em uma duna, enquanto o dia morre nos Lençóis Maranhenses.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 12:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ripe Seeds Coffee Robusta Coorg Karnataka India Feb24 D72 25688.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 10:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nearly mature coffee berries on the bush, Coorg, India

File:Олонец, место крепости сверху.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 10:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Memorable place where Olonets fortress was located photographed from above. Olonets, Karelia, Russia.

File:Ussher's palla (Palla ussheri ussheri) underside Nyamebe Bepo.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 08:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ussher's palla (Palla ussheri ussheri) in Ghana

File:Vue aerienne d'ensemble de la Sebkha de Moknine - Tunisie.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 07:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Bloem van een blauwe knoop (Succisa pratensis). 29-08-2023. (d.j.b).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 04:36:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Nature timespiral vertical layout.png

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2024 at 21:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

History of the world from the Big Bang to the present day represented in a spiral with notable events annotated

File:Rushing Clark's Grebes.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2024 at 14:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aechmophorus clarkii (Clark's grebes) during courtship at Lake Hodges in north San Diego County, CA, USA

File:A pedestrian pontoon bridge at Munroe island in Kerala.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2024 at 13:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Thanks in advance -Shagil Kannur (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shagil Kannur: What's wrong? Yann (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified --Shagil Kannur (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmotte (Montréal).jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2024 at 15:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

marmot

File:Stockente im Feldsee (NSG Feldberg).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 19:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

female mallard at Feldsee (Black Forest, Germany)

File:Art on Nubian house, Nagaa Suhayl Gharb, Egypt.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 17:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Art on the Nubian house, Egypt

File:Zwei Blattsalate der Sorte Lollo Rosso auf dem Linke Hof.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 16:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Amazing April 1928.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 13:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Amazing Stories magazine cover by Frank R. Paul from April 1928

File:Pulitzer2018-mia-farrow-20180530-wp.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 13:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mia Farrow at the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awards ceremony
  • And what about Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait? Yann (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any issues with community-rating them as high-quality or even "Featured picture", I just oppose them being featured on the Main page, the rss feeds, and the Wikipedia app. Most of the images on the page I think would be unsuited for these three things, however many also show special things that may make them worthy of FP since they are not about the person but the peculiarity of (e.g. the activity of the person etc) the image such as those:
Prototyperspective (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. How is a woman's portrait photo a valid reason to oppose? Is it because there's no wow? Zzzs (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait photos are unsuited for featured pictures why would they be suited for it? It's not about the wow, it's about the quality/characteristics of the image, portrait photos are inappropriate. See explanation above and it could be elaborated further despite that I don't know why people seem to find it surprising. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective, images converted to links. Please do not display other images at a nomination. The FPCBot will read them as 'Alternatives' and this will complicate things for the nom closing. --Cart (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undid vote for the reasons given here, a FP doesn't have to be a POTD and my points if anything are now only about which kinds of images (not) frequently nominated as FP but not about whether or not it should be FP. --Prototyperspective (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support In some contexts, it has happened to me that I write something but not completely because the other part remains in my head (I think this is the case). Another possibility is that the author of the negative vote comment has a native language other than English, and when translating, something that might have made sense does not entirely make sense, or due to their limited way of explaining and giving arguments. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to refer to my comments without addressing any points outlined broadly in it but do not provide any rationale as to why this photo of a human should be a featured picture shown on the Main page. There's nothing special about it, it's a portrait photo of a notable human and people are better learning about people by looking at their Wikipedia article, e.g. via Featured Wikipedia articles, than at a photo of them. Why should this be a FP, please explain. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that you are confusing Wikipedia with Wikimedia Commons. However, the criteria for what an FP means are different. --XRay 💬 04:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that you are basically confusing WMC with Wikipedia by putting portraint photos of notable people on the Main page which is something the featured articles on WP are for, not photos here.
Still no addressing of any points or explanation for why this would be good to be FP. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get this idea that articles about people should be featured on Wikipedia, but not images on Commons? Why would we not want to feature portaits? Kritzolina (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective, It is WMC that supplies the different Wikipedias with images, images of all sorts of subjects (including people), and it is on our interest to show what really good images should look like (including portraits of people). This is how we set standards for excellent photos: through examples. No images here are promoted simply for being on the front page of Commons, they are all selected because they are suitable for the different Wikipedia projects. And as for getting on the Commons front page, is in fact rather uncommon for a portrait to end up there since there are about ten times 365 FPs promoted each year. I think that your notion about people on FPs, is at the wrong forum. Here we only assess what photos are excellent; if you have a problem with them appearing on Commons front page as Picture of the day you should discuss that at that project's talk page, not here. --Cart (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, that's why I recently struck my vote – didn't know not all FP are included there and thanks for pointing to the best suited place to discuss this. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is a very poor portrait with an unfortunate facial expression. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is so boring. I don't see anything that is worth featuring. I mean, if the subject was in a better environment or doing something interesting, I might have supported. Wolverine XI 19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Appealing portrait in good quality. Honestly I do not understand most of the objections in this discussion. We may say that this isn’t a very innovative or creative kind of portrait; but a portrait must be adequate in style and technique to the character and mission of the person it shows, and IMHO this does apply here. – Aristeas (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a high-quality portrait but why should it be featured on the Main page? And as for your rationale, there are millions of high-quality portraits, everybody with access to the Internet has seen lots of them. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment First I do not vote for an image because I want it to appear on the main page etc.; IMHO that’s a minor matter. I vote pro/contra images in order to help to select the featured pictures. Second, maybe there are millions of high-quality portraits, but (it’s a pity) only very few high-quality portraits with a free license – browse Wikimedia Commons and you will see that 99.9% of our portrait photographs are of low or modest quality. Third, after reading about Mia Farrow and browsing photos of her, I have the impression that this photo is a very fitting portrait that matches her character. It would be inappropriate to portrait Farrow e.g. like Dalí. You see I do not just vote “yes”, but I have taken about one hour of research before casting my vote. So you have every right to disagree and to vote against this photo, if you follow other arguments, but you do not need to quarrel with me about my vote – I have given valid reasons for it. – Aristeas (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A charming portrait of excellent quality. And if I look at the other FIs from that gallery, I prefer this one to many others. As to the point of why portraits in general should be featured ... I don't understand the distinction from any other kind of images. There are also millions of high quality images of animals, plants, landscapes and buildings out there. We are showing the best of what we have in all kinds of topic areas as featured images and in my opinion, this one stands out for the reasons Aristeas also points out. This person is photographed in a way that seems very fitting. --Kritzolina (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ★ 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Kritzolina and Aristeas. --Terragio67 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Das Grüne Band am Trappstadter Hügel 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 04:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green Belt Thuringia

File:Trier, 07-12-2023 (actm.) 24.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 04:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Vulcão dos Capelinhos 2023-03-04-7.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2024 at 01:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vulcão dos Capelinhos

File:Fauvette du désert Jebil NP.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2024 at 20:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

African Desert Warbler (Curruca deserti)

File:Fauvette de l'Atlas Femelle Jebil NP.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2024 at 20:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tristram's Warbler (Curruca deserticola) at Jebil NP

File:Vista panoramica dalla fortezza di Bertinoro - Emilia-Romagna - GT 02- 2024-07-01.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2024 at 19:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama view from the Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna.

File:Scoliid wasp (Megascolia bidens) male Cap Bon 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2024 at 17:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scoliid wasp (Megascolia bidens) male Cap Bon, Tunisia

File:Three quarter view of the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou with blue sky in Champasak Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2024 at 03:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three quarter view of the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou with blue sky in Champasak Laos
Minor detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the heavy stones of this building dating from the 11th-13th century did not move with the wind :-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't upload photos of buildings, but I have to say I would have chosen a higher shutter speed and higher ISO on my camera to go with F8 on a windy day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload pictures of buildings! I'm sure there are a lot of interesting places from all the countries you've visited -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure buildings are classified as part of wildlife photography. Zzzs (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but when you travel, you're not always in the jungle. Sometimes in a city, sometimes near a temple that is worth a visit, a bridge, a house... This goat in freedom was taken only 50 minutes later, in the same site. This bird eating a fish was taken in the pond of a temple -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did upload a few shots from Cambodia; Peru; Brazil; Kenya; St Lucia; Egypt and England when I signed up... Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Love Peru and Egypt! Thanks for the share. If you have more / recent works like those, please upload! :-) Basile Morin (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) In the bathroom? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, yes, Ta Prohm Khmer temple, in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, located 300 kilometers away, in Siem Reap, was built at the same period -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure to read you (don't be sorry!), thanks!
Another view of this building, highlighting architectural elements: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stone gate with columns and Buddhist reliefs leading to a clothed statue of the Buddha seated, Wat Phou temple, Champasak, Laos.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2024 at 03:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Social Flycatcher Perched
-- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can basically reject any image with this type of rating. Portraits of women are out of the question, as are photos of birds. Your reviews seem very generalized. --XRay 💬 16:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I can't and I supported many images that have actually something in them worth of making them a FP. Maybe photos of birds have been worth of it for a while but people seen enough photos of them by now and there's nothing special here compared to other high-quality bird pics. Portraits in general, yes. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We voters usually allow a photo for each species to be qualified for FP. A significant portion of FPs are of lifeforms, usually different species. For this species, there are no FPs. Zzzs (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a revision to this practice – there are million upon millions of species. Maybe something like a certain number of items per family would make sense but I think it would be better if there's more consideration of which photos people are likely already familiar with and/or which have been extensively featured by now already. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm doubting this new practice would take off, but if you really want to, go head. Zzzs (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment and I appreciate that even though the image is not to your liking that you feel it is a high quality image. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where you got the idea Zzzs that "voters usually allow a photo for each species to be qualified for FP". That has never been the case. The typical comment I make 'no FPs of this species' is made to stop voters wasting their time checking current FPs. In no way is that to imply that voters should wave it through. Rarity is a different matter. Nominators should always tell voters if there are existing FPs of their subject, whatever it is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --XRay 💬 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Just a bird. And we want exactly this. Namely in very good quality, light, posture and composition. – Aristeas (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. But do we want it on the Main page (at least at this point where these have been extensively featured and people have seen very many such images in general already) – and if not wouldn't another nomination make more sense or there be exception for which FP are featured there and in the Wikipedia app? Consider that there are many alternative things to feature which would be more interesting to people and get WMC more users and contributors. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are called pictures of the day. Any featured picture can be a POTD. However, they are NOT required.
    Also, this isn't about being on the Main Page. It's about whether the image is really one of the best pictures Commons has to offer. An image being on the Main Page is irrelevant. Zzzs (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh didn't know, thanks for clarifying and wonder why this has been clarified only now since my rationales on my votes from yesterday were based on that and would have been easily refuted with this info.
    It's a bit confusing to have so many different kinds of nominations (FP, MOTD, POTD, quality image,...) so I think maybe all of this should be clarified succinctly (e.g. with a small diagram) at the top of the pages (like the FP candidates page and note that the "Featured pictures" page has no info on POTD but shows the day on the right). I thought it was called "featured" picture because it was "featured" on the Main page and that if not added there right away it would be featured there sooner or later. So now my objections only relate to which kinds of images are being nominated / frequently being nominated (which anybody can contribute to by also nominating other kinds of images) – will strike the respective votes. Sorry for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Segovia - Aqueduct - 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2024 at 20:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Segovia (Spain) - Roman aqueduct

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2024 at 19:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Earth’s night lights as observed in 2016 drawn from a 2016 global composite map.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Earth

File:Gotland Grand National October 2023 61.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2024 at 10:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Start of Gotland Grand National 2023
  • Well, quickly, 1) You're welcome, a) When time is limited, try to frame larger during the action, then you'll have all the time to crop afterwards, b) The crowd is fine, no worry about that, c) we disagree about the focus. Depth of field could have been more generous. We could also say that this is what makes the difference between an ordinary photo and a great one. At thumbnail size, the biker at the left is already blurry. So that's not very appealing. d) Not sure, but anyway here it's Commons :-) Otherwise there would be a bunch of fair candidates, too, at smaller resolution. e) Yes, high resolution with limited DoF. Finally I find this is a good candid picture, but not an extraordinary one. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a clarification. There was no time to switch between lenses/cameras and Nikon's superb 70-200 was a reasonable choice of lens imo. There were hundreds of motorcycles so some motorcycle or rider will always be cropped regardless of focal length. And without a zoom lens, the picture would (in my humble opinion) be much more boring. I personally think that one of the picture's strengths is that you get so close to the riders. Best regards--ArildV (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another way, it's a blurry image (foreground AND background), except when you zoom in :-) Then you think "oh, this rider here is not out of focus". But alone in the crowd. To summarize my personal point of view, I would have preferred that the whole thing was sharper, and the composition better mastered. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I must say, I'm delighted how well ArildV has been able to capture this event. We've been missing good photos of this big sport event for years now. The reason for this, is that it is actually really hard to photograph. The race is held in the beginning of winter, and often coincides with the first snow. The light is therefore extremely bad (part of the race is made in darkness) and the bikers are moving very fast; that's the challenge for the photographers. Adding to that, it is also mostly damp with temperatures just above freezing at the track and mud is flying everywhere. When I lived on Gotland, I often thought about trying to shoot this race, but I always chickened out. ArildV is braver that me. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral What a nice image. But I think Basile Morin is right. Otherwise the image could be very good when cropped much tighter to the in focus driver in the middle. --August Geyler (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose not really anyhow special / interesting, not suited as FP despite being a high-quality photo.--Prototyperspective (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose because so many motocross are not on the image, it's like a crop of a larger image. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ★ 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ermell (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babosa de mar (Flabellina babai), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2023-07-26, DD 22.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2024 at 06:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea slug (Flabellina babai), Arrábida National Park, Portugal.
  • I guess, I have to assume again that this has nothing to do with my last vote in one of your noms. This is getting boring. We are talking here about a tiny animal shot underwater and still there is more detail here and in some current FPCs Poco a poco (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember you that it's just a comment not a vote so don't tell me please about your last vote. This is boring. An underwater photo doesn't mean an unsharp photo, not well exposed. You did good sharp underwater photos that I supported as FP. This one is not a good quality. Try to fix it. If Ermell for exemple voted against your photo that you nominated today for QI, that means that it's in relation with an old vote? It's simply because your photo has not a good quality. El Golli Mohamed (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not good enough for featured picture --Lupe (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quality is not the best. Wolverine XI 19:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The sea slug may not seem very sharp at first glance, but comparing other photos I doubt that it can look sharper – most parts of this creature’s surface are obviously rather smooth. Looking at photos with lower exposure, I also cannot spot additional details in the bright part. Therefore it seems not unfavourable that the bright parts of the sea slug are very bright in this photo, and I really like how the creature seems to shine here. Considering the general difficulties of underwater photography, and comparing again other images of this species, I think this one is worth to be featured. – Aristeas (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The quality can be improved --Zzzs (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oval portrait miniature of Gustave Duchesne oil painting by Valentine Manchon Duchesne in 1886.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2024 at 01:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oval portrait miniature of Gustave Duchesne oil painting by Valentine Manchon Duchesne in 1886
To give a scale here, a hair mesures 8 micrometers. Each eye 5 x 2.2 millimeters -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You...still haven't answered or fixed my issue with the white spots on the outside. They're fixable. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
💡 Info And if you zoom in on this painting for example (which is proportionally 35 times larger), you'll see a bunch of small cracks, which are characteristic of high resolution paintings, and which testify to the real condition of the canvas. These details are important, and don't always deserve to be erased. They can also give an interesting indication of scale and level of detail of the artwork -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These dots are invisible to the eye. They appear due to the high level of detail. Some of them are part of the painting, some of them might come from the velvet frame around. The painting may also be slightly locally deteriorated at this scale, since it is 138 years old. Removing these elements to rejuvenate the painting is of course possible, but I think that this would alter the reality of the work, preserved in its current state. Especially on the face, eyes and lips. From my point of view, these are natural dots, that are an integral part of the object. Like the frame, which does not deserve to be deleted, even if it is worn by time -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think this is mostly dust which should have been removed before making the reproduction. --August (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Прибалхашский заказник сверху (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2024 at 23:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salines near Jeltorangy photographed from above. Pribalkhashskiy sanctuary, Balkhash District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan.

File:Oriental shorthair, black spotted tabby.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2024 at 21:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oriental Shorthair female cat
  •  Neutral I see the problem. The image needs that sunlight from the curtain to express the emotional feeling connected to the cats attitude. After you changed the exposure the effect is gone and the curtain look unnatural. But without your changes it looks as there was a defect. So I am not sure about your nomination any more. --August Geyler (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clouds, cloudscape over Lombok Strait, Gili Islands, Indian Ocean, Indonesia.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2024 at 20:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Equatorial tropical clouds over the Lombok Strait, Gili Islands, Indonesia

File:Lenguado común (Solea solea), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2023-07-28, DD 08.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2024 at 20:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common sole (Solea solea), Arrábida National Park, Portugal.
  • It has nothing to do with "the box" but rather with the fact that underwater colors fade and with the lights I use (which causes shadows depending on the subject or POV). One day I'll publish a before - later comparison of images taken in raw and the result after processing (with special focus on WB). You would be astonished Poco a poco (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sobyanin meeting Evtushenko 05.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2024 at 05:34:46
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Grant E., Hamilton, Their New Jerusalem, 1892 Cornell CUL PJM 1111 01.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2024 at 05:34:46

Original
To replace: Restored version

File:Haltern am See, Naturpark Hohe Mark, Hohemarkenbusch, Baumstamm -- 2024 -- 4411 (kreativ 2).jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2024 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 Info In short: photographic art as described. In long: Explaining photographic art is certainly not easy, but I can say something about how it came about. The motif was a tree trunk with a varied structure - with different shades of green and brown. This tree trunk was photographed using the "Intentional camera movement" technique, so that the corresponding movement effect was created. The direction of movement of the camera was parallel to the tree trunk. The exposure time was chosen so that the structure of the trunk was still preserved. (It was only an exposure time of 0.6 seconds, so not too little and not too much). In post-processing, the image was edited so that the contrasts were emphasized and at the same time the colors were made a little more saturated. The resulting image was the basis for the image shown here. In the final step, the image was duplicated (in 2 layers) and one layer was mirrored in order to achieve the symmetry effect. Both layers were then blended together so that the dark tones were dominant. --XRay 💬 04:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation;  Support. Wolverine XI 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your statement remarkable and honest. It is understandable. I have had these difficulties myself and still have them today. For me, it is a further development of photographic creativity. I first had to make friends with ICM, but I already enjoy the pictures that are created with it. I also have a preference for symmetries. I can only recommend trying out lots of things and being creative with photography. --XRay 💬 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How should I rate "boring"? You have no access to photographic art? You don't see any content? When do you see meaningful content? I find your assessment quite confusing. --XRay 💬 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not special, or interesting, or worth a FP. If asking about that adjective it's about how interesting and engaging such as thought-provocative and inspiring something is. Note "strange" is not meant as a reason for opposition, it's just a mention that it's basically unknown or meaningless what's being looked at. Meaningful is when you for example can say this artwork is about this or that such as communicating some emotion or idea etc. My rationale is similar to the one just above mine. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artwork is about this or that"? Maybe you just don't have the mental access to it? Neither photographic art nor a painting or sculpture always has to be figurative. BTW: I see a forest spirit in the picture, even if this is my imagination. --XRay 💬 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Agreeing with the above opposes. Also my reasoning is that Commons' scope is education not entertainment. On that basis, evaluating the image as an illustration of a photo technique I find it is not the best of its type - I can't easily understand the camera movement. Having said that, it is a beautiful piece of art and I wouldn't mind hanging it on my wall.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the argument should not ignore the fact that "educational" is to be understood in a broad sense and that Wikimedia Commons is a media archive for all Wikimedia Foundation projects. In this respect, I am of the opinion that the image fits very well into the scope. --XRay 💬 07:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • + 1. Thank you. – Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commander Keane, I think you might consider that Commons has such a broad scope that even images that at first glance may not look "educational" can indeed be used as illustrations for more articles and other WikiProjects rather than just the first one that comes to your mind. Example: Another ICM photo that is used to illustrate an article. Here at FPC we only worry about if the image is really good, and then we let editors decide where they want to use them. --Cart (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.carter and XRay: I am happy to discuss further but I am currently unmoved by your arguments. Perhaps on the talk page of this nomination so as not to distract. Just ping me. Commander Keane (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commander Keane, I think it's ok to say the few words I have in reply here (talk pages are very rarely used here on FPC, discussions about images are held on the nom page as to not divide discussions needlessly). I have no problem with you not thinking this photo is not one of the best on Commons, that's perfectly ok. But I think we should not discard such images as "useless", just because we might not see the context in which they might be used. I have now found use of this image in two articles. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.carter: Ok I will reply here. In w:The Snow (poem) the photographer (you) added a random image to the article to decorate it, without even the caption "artist impression" - misleading to readers and I would be surprised if the image stays in the long term. The same applies to w:Rhombus and I am not sure how lax Wiktionary's policies are for image placement but wiktionary:light at the end of the tunnel is a real stretch. Saying an image has potential for Wikimedia usage is a slippery slope, see this deletion request. You can argue that if an image scrapes into the Scope, and people think it is pretty then we feature. This has ramifications though, for example now someone wanting to learn about a rhombus will get this "postmegasurrealism" image as a top suggestion. Commander Keane (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commander Keane, thank you. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. You are taking the hardliner approach that only exact images should be used in articles. There are many like you here, but I am of the opinion that articles that deal with abstract subjects can also benefit from having images, and often more abstract images are better suited for this purpose. Artists are often called on to illustrate texts about non-tangible subjects, although you call such practice "to decorate" an article. Articles on Wikis etc. are not scientific papers, even though many editors do their best to turn many of them into such, but are supposed to bring knowledge to as many people as possible. And often, an image can help to make an article more accessible and distinguishable from other articles. You can view each article the same way you view a book. A hundred years ago, a book on an abstract subject looked like this, while this is what a similar book looks like today. It's small thing, having an image to associate with a text/book/paper/article, but it helps. --Cart (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Thank you for your response. Using this image to potentially illustrate the cover of a WikiBook is an interesting use case that I did not consider. I will ponder my position further personally. Incidentally, did you create The Snow (poem) image for that article specifically, or was it just a happy coincidence? Commander Keane (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commander Keane, no, the image was created outside the WikiProject and only uploaded and nominated here when the new gallery for creative photography was added. I do a lot of "outside the box" images, and they have met with mixed receptions here. I was actually totally flabbergasted by how well that photo was received. I often browse FPC, WLM, WLE, etc. looking for good images to pair with articles on the projects. Mostly images by others, but sometimes mine. I think that when the community has put so much work in weeding out good images, it would be a shame not to put them to use somewhere. I also update articles with what good images I can find. I had come across the poem by accident some months before my photo was promoted, and since people seemed to like the picture and it was in tone with the poem, I thought it might be ok to pair the two. My edits may be bold, but they are free to revert (as I sometimes say in the edit summary) and I do abide by such decisions, and never edit-war to keep the images I suggest. So far, more have been kept than reverted. If I create an image specially for an article, it is usually for articles that are very hard to get images for (1, 2). --Cart (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry if this is ignorant to the effort you spent on this, but my impression is that this can be made easily and it's not very impressive to me. I have made stuff like this before when messing with blending layers Henrysz (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is easy to create or not is actually irrelevant. An FP does not always have to be complicated to create. In any case, experience plays a role in the effort involved, which is also impossible to estimate. In any case, the focus here was on the idea and the photos were taken on the basis of this idea. Of course, the image is ultimately only created in post-processing. --XRay 💬 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't understand where something outstanding is. And while "Featured picture" shouldn't be essentially a photograph, these abstractions does not reaaly fall into any of criteria for FP. What do you look at when you're measuring its quality? What is wow here or at least what was the intention for the creation of a picture and is it clear for a viewer? And what is the overall meaning and educational value in these pictures? I don't like to sound as an old professor but bring it back when you'll find a meaning for it. Красный wanna talk? 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one small request: please don't always mention this so-called “educational value”. The Scope of the project is clearly defined further and is not limited to this. I have already explained this in another comment above. Quite apart from that, the views on what is “educational” are completely different. It is not a clearly tangible argument, but rather a matter of interpretation. The fact that I can't think of a use case doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thank you! --XRay 💬 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, a cite from the scope: The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository … that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. --XRay 💬 09:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC2244-16-12-2022-Hamois Luc Viatour.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2024 at 07:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Largo do Pelourinho Salvador 2019-9754.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2024 at 21:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alternative

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Brazil

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2024 at 13:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sat 13 Jul → Thu 18 Jul
Sun 14 Jul → Fri 19 Jul
Mon 15 Jul → Sat 20 Jul
Tue 16 Jul → Sun 21 Jul
Wed 17 Jul → Mon 22 Jul
Thu 18 Jul → Tue 23 Jul

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

Tue 09 Jul → Thu 18 Jul
Wed 10 Jul → Fri 19 Jul
Thu 11 Jul → Sat 20 Jul
Fri 12 Jul → Sun 21 Jul
Sat 13 Jul → Mon 22 Jul
Sun 14 Jul → Tue 23 Jul
Mon 15 Jul → Wed 24 Jul
Tue 16 Jul → Thu 25 Jul
Wed 17 Jul → Fri 26 Jul
Thu 18 Jul → Sat 27 Jul

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|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/July 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2024.
  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

  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/July 2024), 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=884719385"