Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using 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. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2025 at 15:28:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Muridae_(Murids)
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Needsmoreritalin -- Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- There are presently no images of Rattus norvegicus in the Featured Picture Gallery. This species is present on all continents except for Antarctica. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2025 at 10:40:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Lamiaceae
Info Ground ivy flowers. The size of the blossom is about 2cm. Focus stack of 10 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The great colors and crystal-clear clarity make this photo aesthetically very pleasing. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Well exposed, wonderful detail and separation from the background. I suppose the only way to improve this image would be to make it a scratch and sniff. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2025 at 05:50:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kritzolina. When I recently visited Prague, I was fascinated by the structures the motion of this sculpture created, especially the colored reflections on its moving pieces in front of the background of utalitarian office buildings. I took several shots of it, this one captures best what I really like about this artwork. -- Kritzolina (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful and carefully composed. Cmao20 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I find the sculpture of the head pretty coold and FP-worthy but this picture is cluttered. I recognize no head here. Poco a poco (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice close-up of this kinetic (as in constantly moving) sculpture. For those who have not read Kafka, this transforming work is a nod to his most famous book, The Metamorphosis, where one morning, ordinary salesman Gregor Samsa wakes up to find himself transformed into a giant cockroach. No normal human head needs to be visible, Kafka was a pretty warped guy. --Cart (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The photo artfully captures the abstract quality of the sculpture. The dynamic movement and vibrant color reflections contrast vividly with the adjacent facade. The result is an eye-catching interplay between the kinetic sculpture detail and the urban architecture. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Most unusual. Photographing shiny objects is difficult, and it is well done here. Yann (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2025 at 12:20:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#Ireland
Info Another one of the pictures I recently asked Kabelleger to upload. I like the nice cool colours and the restful composition as well as the beautiful reflections. Of interest is that this would be our first rail FP from Ireland. created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Striking composition and colours. Zooming in there is a surprising lack of detail. I wonder if a higher quality version is available? --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not really seeing any lack of detail. Please do bear in mind that this is a 23 megapixel image, so you have a lot of room to produce sharper downsamples, e.g. 10 megapixels and very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- The writing on the two cars, the stone ballast in front of the train are not clear. The trees appear as smudges. Given the 23 MP res and 1/1600 shutter, I expect better better detail. Perhaps the camera was set to medium or low jpg quality? Or while saving in post-processing? An FP should be printable at the highest res without need for downsampling. --Tagooty (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the idea that an FP should be printable at the highest res without need for downsampling. Ultimately this is just punishing creators for uploading high resolution files. A 23 megapixel image that is slightly blurry at full size but sharp when downsampled to 10 megapixels is superior to a completely sharp 10 megapixel image in every way. Anyway, I take your criticisms, but we've recently promoted far less sharp images than this. Cmao20 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Commons image guidelines state that an image should not be downsampled, and "it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible". I take this to mean that FPC should be judged at highest res. --Tagooty (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- If you like, but I think this is a very unfair standard of judgment. Judging a 23 megapixel image at pixel-level is like looking at it through a magnifying glass. Obviously it is not going to look as good as a smaller image, but that doesn't make it worse, indeed it makes it better. See this essay. Cmao20 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2025 at 07:56:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order : Spariformes (Porgies)
Info Two-lined monocle bream (Scolopsis bilineata), Anilao, Philippines. Scolopsis bilineata is found in the eastern Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean and its prey is mainly benthic invertebrates and smaller fishes. The two-lined monocle bream exhibits biofluorescence, that is, when illuminated by blue or ultraviolet light, it re-emits it as green, and appears differently than under white light illumination (only stripes on the upper front part are visible). Biofluorescence may assist in intraspecific communication and camouflage, blending the fish with green-fluorescing Acropora corals. Note: we have no FPs of the whole family Nemipteridae (including 5 gernera and 77 species) and only 2 of the order Spariformes. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality and detail Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The eye is indeed eye-catching when zoomed in! --Tagooty (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2025 at 01:12:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Genus_:_Cynomys_(Black-tailed_prairie_dogs)
Info created by Acroterion – uploaded by Acroterion – nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Info Another rodent, a pensive black-tailed prairie dog
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Question Did you selectively blur the background in post? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, that’s pretty much straight from the camera. The dog’s hole is on a mound, so anything behind is well out of the image’s DOF. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely shot. Well composed and exposed. There is something reminiscent of the "gopher" character from Winnie-the Pooh. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I like to think it's pondering why it has no thumb. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are onto something. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I like to think it's pondering why it has no thumb. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Needsmoreritalin. – Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2025 at 20:34:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Mergus
Info created by Terragio67 – uploaded by Terragio67 – nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- This is an excellent portrait of a hen Common Merganser (Mergus merganser.) Its sharp and it helps differentiate the similar looking hens of the Red-breasted Merganser (M. Serrator.) This Genus was recently added to the gallery. Only the Mergus serrator is featured at this time. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 04:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Needsmoreritalin. – Aristeas (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good technical quality without extreme oversharpening; encyclopedically valuable. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice portrait Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2025 at 18:54:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements
Info created by James Montgomery Flagg, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann
Support Iconic poster. FP on English Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - Truly an iconic poster. I'm surprised it wasn't already a Commons FP. @User:Yann - Thanks for nominating it. - ERcheck (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
*
Support How have we missed this one? Oh well, better late than never. --Cart (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is the current featured version. --Thi (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding this. It's not unusual for one version of a photo/print/whatever to be featured on Commons and another on en-WP. I must confess I was lazy and just trusted that Yann had found something we missed. Oh, well I hope he will sort this nom out. I've striked my vote. --Cart (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Thi: Thanks for pointing this out. Looking at the two versions, the one above came from the U.S. Library of Congress scan and has a different background color than the FP. In the FP, there are visible markings that are likely from aging / damage to the print. Can there be two FPs of the same poster? - ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes there can be, if they are different versions or editions of a work, like in the case of Munch's Madonna: 1 and 2. In the case of this poster though, I don't see the need for it unless you are really into printing history. --Cart (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see that there are prints with different background colors. As this all washes out, if the quality of the image being restored by @Adam Cuerden is superior to the current FP, I'd favor the one above, as it seems to be consistent with the original printing. - ERcheck (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes there can be, if they are different versions or editions of a work, like in the case of Munch's Madonna: 1 and 2. In the case of this poster though, I don't see the need for it unless you are really into printing history. --Cart (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd rather finish the restoration first. It gets awkward if the half finished one gets promoted again. Thank you, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you already did it. Yann (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden - Looking forward to the full restoration. I note that most reliable sources in the U.S., including the Library of Congress, have the poster with the light color. For example, see this Time magazine article - ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think we need to promote two nearly identical versions of this poster Cmao20 (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- The other version should be delisted. Yann (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann: won't a delist and replace be better option then? UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- The other version should be delisted. Yann (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2025 at 15:17:00 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionoidea#Genus : Papilio
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography – uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality Cmao20 (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- The reflected light in the background and the tiny dots on the butterfly's wings create a nice motif for this well-exposed, sharp and detailed image. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support An elegant creature well captured --Kritzolina (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Kritzolina and Needsmoreritalin. – Aristeas (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose The bar for Lepidotera is pretty high. This image is fine, but the sourroundings are not pretty and the reflection on the eye (where one would expect high detail) is an issue. Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2025 at 00:44:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info created by Juan F. Jimenez, US Army; uploaded by ERcheck; some CA removed by Cart ; nominated by User:ERcheck -- ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Info: Fiery fusion: Eye-catching colors in this photo of a soldier welding two metal pieces together.
Support -- ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment I feel some of the CA removal also stripped natural lighting (reflections of both the pinkish IR and dark blue light from the arc, for example the left-side clamp). Maybe that's just CA, though. JayCubby (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, whatever the light there is, was there in the original I had to work with (check upload history). I only made some very minor purple correction on the man below the helmet and his gloves. The rest of the image was masked out and untouched since I couldn't tell if the strong purple on the clamp is from the arc light or just CA. I don't want to mess with other people's photos more than needed and removing it would significantly alter the image compo. --Cart (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- For the record,
support. The pinkish light on the clamp might just be a consequence of the camera picking up infrared or near-IR light that the human eye can't see. Neat composition. I've photographed electric arcs like this before, but have not had the foresight to only image the silhouette. JayCubby (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Thanks for the comments. I imagine it is quite a challenge to photograph such intense light.- ERcheck (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Nothing wrong with the quality (with odd light comes odd colors), but the close crop is what photo journalists go for, and for an FP I would have liked the whole helmet and gloves in the photo. This is very boxed in. Sure, a really close crop can be good, but this is neither nor. --Cart (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with you Cart - I wish the whole helmet was visible. Nonetheless, per Cmao20, I find it striking. ERcheck (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cart's criticisms may be valid but I enjoy this picture anyway Cmao20 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20 --Harlock81 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 19:39:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cricetidae_(Cricetids)
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Needsmoreritalin -- Needsmoreritalin (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- There are no Featured Pictures for the genus, Microtus. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Another rodent, this is my lucky day! :) I've seen videos of foxes listening for something under the snow and then jump for it. Now I know what they were hearing. --Cart (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- More rodents to come, I promise! Needsmoreritalin (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support ! -Terragio67 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Question What made the second reflection to the right of the sun at the 2 o'clock position in the eye (at the limits of the clouds?), which is shaped like a vehicle headlight? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added an image note to make sure I understand what you are asking about. I went through other images from the day and I can see the sun in the vole's eye, but nothing else. I wonder if its from the snow/ice? There was a parking area by the trailhead, so its possible its a car headlight, but I don't think so. EXIF says the images were shot at 3:30PM Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- The snow and water on the vole's fur is causing all sorts of dazzling lights, so I wouldn't be surprised if it reflected in its eye too the way snow crystals do (the light often bounce off them). --Cart (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I asked out of curiosity. Because I often want to learn how good images were taken, I'm then going to explore them in depth. Here, I wanted to see whether I could discern how far away you were - a photographer's reflection in animal eyes is often telltale. That's why I spotted the smaller highlight. Anyway,
Support for FP! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Curiosity is good. I will admit that I often times carry a speedlight and use a Gary Fong Cloud. If I am shooting in overcast skies or when it is raining, I want to get that little glint of life in the subject's eye. I know at least one of my featured pictures was taken using a flash. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- I asked out of curiosity. Because I often want to learn how good images were taken, I'm then going to explore them in depth. Here, I wanted to see whether I could discern how far away you were - a photographer's reflection in animal eyes is often telltale. That's why I spotted the smaller highlight. Anyway,
- The snow and water on the vole's fur is causing all sorts of dazzling lights, so I wouldn't be surprised if it reflected in its eye too the way snow crystals do (the light often bounce off them). --Cart (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added an image note to make sure I understand what you are asking about. I went through other images from the day and I can see the sun in the vole's eye, but nothing else. I wonder if its from the snow/ice? There was a parking area by the trailhead, so its possible its a car headlight, but I don't think so. EXIF says the images were shot at 3:30PM Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a shame the nose is out of focus, but this is too good not to feature Cmao20 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I started the series shooting at f/8 and then in this one went to f/10, but still not enough, and I certainly didn't want to scare off the vole. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Cmao20 -- Jakubhal 03:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 18:54:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
Info Large Peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri (also know as House of Castor & Pollux), ancient roman city of Pompeii, Italy. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support These villas are fantastic. --Cart (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, but it looks slightly tilted to me. I also wonder if you could add a bit more contrast, I wonder if the shadows have been lifted a bit too much Cmao20 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I applied a bit of contrast and a slight tilt, but there is gonna be something tilted here anyhow. You cannot expect that a building like this is perfectly straight. I could make it straight applying some distortion, but I think that I'd go too far then. Poco a poco (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - I do think this version is an improvement. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - very nice. I feel like I'm there, and, I wish I were there. :-) - ERcheck (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support nice photo -- E.IMANCOMMONS 12:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 18:46:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Sehr ordentlich. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A beautiful building, well captured under pleasant light conditions Cmao20 (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A nice little building Jon698 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 18:40:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Info This sculpture shows Saint Damian, one of the twin brothers Cosmas and Damian, located at the entrance of the Essen Cathedral Treasury. The figure is made of wood, gilded and silvered. It dates from 1715 and was donated by Princess Bernhardine of Hesse-Rheinfels. Photgraphic technique: Focus-stacked image (hand-held)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment My immediate instinct is that it isn't the best angle from which to depict this sculpture. Few sculptures of people look their best when the camera is below their eye-level. I think this sculpture would look a lot more imposing if it had been shot from a higher perspective. Cmao20 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree with Cmao20 that sculptures normally look best when photographed (or painted, etc.) at eye level, just like real people. However I have learned apropos of this FP nomination (which was taken with a Rolleiflex, a camera you normally hold at waist level) that photographing people from a lower angle can yield interesting results, and the same will apply to sculptures. Of course in this case the effect is different because the photo has been taken from a very short distance, hence the angle to the face is much steeper than in the Rolleiflex example; and indeed there is a little distortion of the proportions. So the problem is rather the short distance. But I assume this is unavoidable due to the glass display case (to minimize the effect of a glass surface one must hold the lens directly at the glass), and considering these difficult circumstances I regard the result as decent and impressive. – Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 10:33:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Finland
Info created by Osmo Lundell – uploaded by Osmo Lundell – nominated by Osmo Lundell -- --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Hi Osmo, and welcome to FPC. This is a very beautiful view, and I would love to see a photo of this archipelago as FP. Unfortunately an iPhone can almost never provide enough detail and image quality for this, especially for such panoramic photos. The best way to get acquainted with what quality is good enough is to first nominate your photos at COM:QIC. That way you are guided into the process in a more gentle way and get feedback for your photos. Best, --Cart (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hey! Thank you for your kind response. Is the quality an actual issue here? The quality is very good and in the same level as any other photos of panoramic views (in my opinion of course). I think that you might have gotten this idea from your personal opinion of photography with phones? Or is it general consensus-driven "rule of thumb" that pictures can't be featured if they have been taken with a phone? Sorry I'm not trying to be an AH, I'm genuinely confused. --Osmo Lundell hey 00:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- All images are evaluated at 100% magnification. The standards for quality for FPs is very high, it's only lately that some phones aided by good editing programs have been able to compete here. Take a look at some of the other nominations here with a lot of support. Open them up full and you'll see the difference. Also see my comment below about images from phones. It's usually something of a shock for people who are used to phone photos, how much more image quality is required here. This is because FPs are expected to hold quality enough to have partial images extracted from it if necessary, or to be printed in large format. Also none of us here go by just our own experiences with phone photos. Many of us have been reviewing photos here for years, thousands of photos each year, so we have seen all sorts of photos from all sorts of cameras. Sometimes a photo from a cheap compact camera can outshine a photo taken by an insanely expensive Hasselblad or a shot that NASA spent millions to get. It all depends on how good a photographer and editor you are. --Cart (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hey! Thank you for your kind response. Is the quality an actual issue here? The quality is very good and in the same level as any other photos of panoramic views (in my opinion of course). I think that you might have gotten this idea from your personal opinion of photography with phones? Or is it general consensus-driven "rule of thumb" that pictures can't be featured if they have been taken with a phone? Sorry I'm not trying to be an AH, I'm genuinely confused. --Osmo Lundell hey 00:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sadly I would not say the quality is 'very good'. It is good for a phone camera but I fear this will not cut it at FPC. The detail at full size is not really there - zoom in to pixel level size and look how little sharpness and definition there is on anything - compare to the nominations on this page right now that have a lot of support and the difference is clear. Nevertheless I think the motif is great and I really like the composition. But I don't think it can be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Osmo dont let to kill mans ambition for photo. I think smartphones are good enough today to made more than good shot. We already have many FP, even from cheaper phones. With some edit, and horizon is rotated. I would go normal "non-binned" 12 Mpx. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Mile, I know you mean well and hopefully you won't take this the wrong way, but sometimes your English is a little hard to understand. Can you please explain the first and last sentences in your post here, I don't understand what you are saying and I really want to since you know so much about photography. I'm always ready to listen to your advice. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart, phones can provide good quality and FP can be made with them, but often edition is needed. Don't we have Category "Made with Smartphone" yet ? We should if it doesnt exist. --Mile (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I know that it has happened in some cases (like this or this where not much detail is needed, both made in good light, while this nom is trying a very-hard-to-do light situation), but it's still much harder to get the detail and sharpness needed for FPs with a phone, and like you say some editing is usually needed. We don't rank FPs by the camera they were made with, that is beside the point, only the end-result matters. Some motifs are easier to capture well with a phone, and panoramas are among the hardest. I don't dismiss phone photos in general, I always examine them carefully and sometimes I'm surprised by how good they are, but this one is too blotchy for me. It looks like there is a strong wind, and all that motion makes it even harder for the phone to perform well. Take a look at these two images, both taken by me with the same phone, both edited as well as I could with the same Photoshop version, and notice the difference between the windy one and the one taken on a calm day. I could almost be thinking about nominating the "calm" photo, but people here would think I was nuts if I tried the "windy" one. --Cart (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart, phones can provide good quality and FP can be made with them, but often edition is needed. Don't we have Category "Made with Smartphone" yet ? We should if it doesnt exist. --Mile (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The concept of the image is nice, and the composition through the aperture of the tower is cool. But when viewed at full resolution, the pixels are blotchy. The image isn't sharp, especially the grasses, but even the wood of the tower. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think my color correction export might have f'd the result. I'm willing to just up the RAW file, but Commons doesn't support it I guess? Thanks for your comment and for kind words too! --Osmo Lundell hey 00:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment It absolutely is possible to get FPs from smartphones, (this picture I took, for example), but this image really lacks the required sharpness. Also, my picture was taken on the iPhone's RawMAX settings, which produces large raw images with more detail captured than with usual that can be edited in post-proccessing. It might be worth trying if available.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- No one is saying it isn't possible to get FPs from phones, we have several examples of that (about 0.08% of all FPs are) , just that it's much harder than with larger sensor cameras. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I know that, Cart, of course. I was responding to Osmo Lundell and others who may be under the impression that the oppose votes are due to it being a phone picture. The quality just isn't there in this image. There's also perspective issues I think. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, I also think it’s not the sharpest out there definetly, but the quality smd sharpness of the individual birch leaves is not the point of the image, and the quality/sharpness is in align with other panoramif photos, for example the ones Cart gave as an example above. Additionally I responded directly to Carts comment, because indeed it was his opinion which I mistook for a general guideline. But the consensus seems clear already and I respect the community and this conversation as always. I’ll return with a different nomination soon! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) quick typo fix! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- The photos I linked to was not examples of what quality we expect from FPs, far from it! They were only meant to illustrate how wind can affect a phone photos quality, not something I would consider nominate here. Also we all express our individual view on photos, unless a guideline is explicitly quoted.
- You can wait this nom out, or if you wish, you can withdraw it by posting the {{Withdraw}} tag on it. Looking forward to other photos. I'm always happy to see work by other Nordic photographers as there aren't many of us here on FPC. ;) --Cart (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'll wait this nom out, the conversation might still keep rolling! PS. Du har rätt, Nordics unite! Fattade kopplingen först när jag slängde ett öga på din användarsida, kul! Kanske ses vi på nästa års Mello eller på nån wikimeetup om du dyker upp där! Också min point var att precis som i de där panoramorna, är hela bildens kontext det viktiga här, inte själva zoomandet. But enough of that :D --Osmo Lundell hey 12:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, I also think it’s not the sharpest out there definetly, but the quality smd sharpness of the individual birch leaves is not the point of the image, and the quality/sharpness is in align with other panoramif photos, for example the ones Cart gave as an example above. Additionally I responded directly to Carts comment, because indeed it was his opinion which I mistook for a general guideline. But the consensus seems clear already and I respect the community and this conversation as always. I’ll return with a different nomination soon! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) quick typo fix! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I know that, Cart, of course. I was responding to Osmo Lundell and others who may be under the impression that the oppose votes are due to it being a phone picture. The quality just isn't there in this image. There's also perspective issues I think. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- No one is saying it isn't possible to get FPs from phones, we have several examples of that (about 0.08% of all FPs are) , just that it's much harder than with larger sensor cameras. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support In my opinion, the composition is the whole point of the photo, you would not crop this photo and it looks good enough at full size REAL 💬 ⬆ 00:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 13:28:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
Info Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town (for image notes, please see the file description page). Created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive high-resolution panorama of the picturesque old town of Sion with its two castle hills. Sharpness is high, you can study even fine details of the castle etc., and there is only a very low amount of heat distortion (which is often hard to avoid above cities). – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Wow! It's a great view, but for me it's a little too dark and perhaps some more contrast could be added. I see that the author is only active with uploads, so perhaps you Aristeas could make some corrections and present an 'Alt' (not an overwrite!). I saw that you made good recommendations on a previous nom (I hope it's not too much trouble to ask you). --Cart (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
*Per Cart. Great photo but a little dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Alternative version I like it better.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Support
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose this version in favor of the brighter. (A decisive vote for one of the versions makes it easier to evaluate the outcome of the nom). --Cart (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Alternative version
Support @W.carter, Cmao20, Famberhorst, and Poco a poco: Cart and Famberhorst are right that the original is a little too dark and could use a bit more contrast. This is an attempt to improve it. After the brightening the background, esp. the sky, looked pale and yellowish, so I have added some more contrast and blue saturation to restore it. By the way I stumbled over some small stitching errors (sigh) near the bottom margin and have tried to mitigate them. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Sorry to put you through so much trouble, but Many Thanks, this looks great now. --Cart (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I prefer this version. -Terragio67 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Also fine to me Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Honestly I have no preference Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Both versions look great, but this one is even better! --Osmo Lundell hey 01:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 03:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Good Successful improvements for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Famberhorst. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support very beautiful and detailed.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Majestic view --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The view is incredible, and the lights are better handled in this version! --PierreSelim (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support But previous version is ok for me too. --Rbrechko (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 10:27:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Dasyproctidae (Agoutis and Acouchis)
Info One FP from last year. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes! A great photo of a mammal that is not a feline. --Cart (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality and composition Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - While I'm not a rodent fan, this is an excellent photo. - ERcheck (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- We need rodent FPs. I've seen this now that I've been working on the galleries. While we have so many of exotic animals, we have very, very few of the ordinary animals that surrounds us. So bring on the mice, rats, voles, moles, lemmings, etc. Preferably in the same excellent quality as the one above. --Cart (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 19:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice portrait of the agouti. Sharp details and low noise even at a higher ISO. Love the reflection of the trees caught in teh Agouti's eye. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Great shot. At full size, in the left third, there are several distracting tiny high-contrast bright spots in the background that look like camera artefacts to me because they are surrounded by an otherwise smooth bokeh (?), another one northeast of the ear, the hair pointing towards it. But if they were artefacts, you would have removed them before nominating, I guess. There's also that bigger, less contrasting spot visible even from the thumbnail, but that one doesn't look like an artefact but rather like a flying insect. 87.128.15.237 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- AI denoising will sometimes create these little spots when they come across a small area of lighter shade, like in the middle of a bokeh. It's always good to go over an image and hunt for such if you have used some AI. I have seen them before with Topaz, like I think is used here. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to all. New version uploaded. I removed about 12 spots. One definitely a Topaz artefact. Most were natural dust or whatever. Topaz produces the artefacts randomly, usually with adding a bit or red, not just in bokeh and I look for them, but sometimes miss them, especially when there are natural things around too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- AI denoising will sometimes create these little spots when they come across a small area of lighter shade, like in the middle of a bokeh. It's always good to go over an image and hunt for such if you have used some AI. I have seen them before with Topaz, like I think is used here. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Support from the rodent specialist --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cart. – Aristeas (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice portrait. --Rbrechko (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 10:06:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Corvidae#Genus : Cyanocorax
Info One current FP. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A nice complement to the current FP, which is an image of the full bird Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree – a nice portrait of this beautiful bird. – Aristeas (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support It's hard to get that good of a close image of a songbird, well done. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support and
Comment: @Charlesjsharp: , are the white regions (highlighted here) dust/reflective patches on the bird, or are they artifacts? If they're artifacts, I've removed them here. JayCubby (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Done Yes, another artefact or two. Thanks. New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 05:30:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
Info created and uploaded by KennyOMG – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Originally nominated by me in 2022, when it quickly gained a momentum towards feature but I withdrew the nomination after a stitching error was pointed out (and an accidental second nom a day earlier). That original stitching error has since been fixed by the creator and a higher resolution version uploaded over it. I do not see any reason now to not renominate, the wow is still there for me and now with better resolution. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as I did in 2022 Cmao20 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A very impressive place, and technically much better now. – Aristeas (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 19:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - ERcheck (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- E.IMANCOMMONS 08:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 01:16:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by Acroterion – uploaded by Acroterion – nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Info The Point Lookout Lighthouse on Chesapeake Bay, at the mouth of the Potomac River, Maryland
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support crisp image, nice light, nice mood and kind of gives me a 'building in the middle of nowhere' feeling. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per UnpetitproleX. – Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition and nice light Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - ERcheck (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -Terragio67 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 03:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20 --Harlock81 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2025 at 19:43:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info Expedition ship, Ocean Endeavour, sailing in the fjords of Western Greenland.
Info c/u/n by GRDN711
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition. It makes the ship and its surroundings both look quite magical. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A little odd seeing a ship registered in Nassau in these surroundings. ;) --Cart (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful to look at – amazing capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - ERcheck (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -Terragio67 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- GGOTCC (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2025 at 04:53:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created and uploaded by Euphoric Captures – nominated by Kelly zhrm -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 09:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The scene and composition are great, but then a filter seems to have been added in editing, giving the the whole photo black borders and halos. That might be a setting on the phone it was taken with, and unfortunately it's not a quality for FPs for me. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Her face is similar to edge crop of wide angle shot. But its still nice. --Mile (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Detail is too low, it also lacks perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. Great composition but sadly typical 'phone camera quality.' Cmao20 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support We can't expect everyone to have access to a DSLR. The halos and borders, to me, are characteristics of cell phone cameras, not a filter. The image looks decent, even at moderate zoom levels. JayCubby (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose "We can't expect everyone to have access to a DSLR". So with this arg, every camera can take good picture ? No. Sorry but Samsung Galaxy A series aren't good cameras. Ok for QI, but not FP standards, especially in 2025. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2025 at 20:33:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info created by JayCubby – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Info Surrender of Japan, Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945: Representatives of the Empire of Japan on board USS Missouri (BB-63) during the surrender ceremonies.
Support -- restoration is as good as I can get without spending hours and hours removing 2 x 2 px dust spots. JayCubby (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Notes about code
|
---|
|
Support Good restoration. Historical value. We have very few color images such as this one. I noted a few spots to remove when you have the time. Yann (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Valuable historic documentary photo. Also a good example of how you can use a photo to belittle your enemy. They didn't have perspective correction in those days, so the photographer had to choose which group of people would be upright. This is made by an US photographer, so the US officers are upright while the Japanese delegation is tilted and appears "inferior". Tilt it yourselves and see how it would have looked if the Japanese were pictured upright, how the power balance in the photo is altered. --Cart (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your edit, File:Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri (restored) - modern editing.jpg, is interesting. Good eye! JayCubby (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support valuable and educational. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Felino Volador (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Jon698 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2025 at 16:38:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Info Solitary tree in a winter scene --XRay 💬 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I love everything about it - the frosted colors, the geometry that isn't perfect, the way I can loose myself in the tree like in a well --Kritzolina (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral - leaning towards oppose. Sorry, but I'm not so taken by this. From this angle it's hard to tell if this is frost or or if the area is afflicted by a drought, you need to go to the categories for this info since it's not mentioned in the description. A photo much closer to the tree might have been better. Also a bit of chroma noise in the tree. --Cart (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the CAs, but I tried to reduce them. Description is improved too. --XRay 💬 18:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A different POV but the resulting compo is too static too me, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The calm, graphic effect and the strong light-dark contrast make this aerial photograph visually striking. The slight chroma noise in the branches could be easily reduced. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Sharpness is a bit lower than I'd like but the abstract forms do work for me, per Kritzolina Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2025 at 12:50:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#India
Info Yugar is a small village on the left bank of the Tsarap River at an elevation of 3,850 m (12,630 ft) in the Indian Himalayas. In this arid terrain above the tree line, villagers rely on water from the snow-fed Phu Nala for their fields. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
(see below) It's a nice view, but the light on the settlement and mountains is very dull even though it's a sunny day with clear sky. Looks like the photo was taken when a cloud covered the sun, and that doesn't give the photo the edge it could have had. --Cart (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Neutral
Support I think the shadow play on the mountain in the background adds to the image, and the fields and village are not in shadow which is good. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per cart, level of detail not at FP level and the buildings don't really add value, they are rather ruins. Poco a poco (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those are old traditional houses. The hay on the roofs suggests to me they are still being lived in. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: The houses are lived in. This is the traditional style of construction. See this closer image. --Tagooty (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those are old traditional houses. The hay on the roofs suggests to me they are still being lived in. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cart. The view is great, but with a dull light ---- Jakubhal 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
as per Cart, but leaning towards opposing. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Neutral
weakSupport I wonder whether the criticized impression is caused by the backlit situation which leads to some underexposure and a tiny bit of veiling at the top left. Here is a little experiment: I have lifted the exposure by about 0.5 EV, increased contrast by +5, reduced the highlights by -25, raised the shadows by +25, reduced the blacks by -20. (That was conservative – one could also go with less highlight/shadow adjustments to gain more contrast.) Under colours, I added a bit of vibrance (+10) and shifted the white balance a little bit towards warmer tones (+4) which makes an astonishing difference. The only areas which do not profit from this are the mountain at the top left and the sky, so I have added a circular mask to the top left corner with dehaze +0.15 and an automatic mask to the sky with exposure -0.25. The result still remains true to the backlit situation, but appears less dull. @Tagooty Maybe you can take this as a stimulus to experiment a bit with your raw development settings? Taste differs, but I think you can get more out of your raw image file … – Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: Thanks for your detailed suggestions for improvement. I've reworked the exposure settings and uploaded an improved image. @Radomianin, Jakubhal, W.carter, and Poco a poco: Please review the new version which has better lighting. --Tagooty (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Thank you for the reworking – I think this is a significant improvement. – Aristeas (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Well that changes things. Now we've got interesting lines and other things to look at. Thanks Aristeas for the suggestion. --Cart (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Much better. I think the photo would be truly great if the village stood out more from the landscape, for example through lighting. As it is, it's still a good image, and I have no objection to its promotion -- Jakubhal 14:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I have withdrawn my neutral vote - the edit is a clear improvement. However, I still share Jakubhal's view to some extent, so my support remains reserved. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Good documentary image but for FP, something needs stand out and wow. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 18:32:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Playing (having fun)
Info created & uploaded by Md Rafayat Haque Khan – nominated by Kaim Amin -- Kaim (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kaim (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cute. --Ermell (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Good image. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very cute, but the image is too small -- Jakubhal 03:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support It's very small for FP but the composition is definitely there and I think it's a good illustration of the spirit of Holi. The file name is not very good, and should probably be changed - but let's wait till after the nomination is finished and then I will move it to something more useful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Support for the vibrancy and the emotions. Size is not everything --Kritzolina (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jakubhal, the image has 4 times less resolution than what the camera can provide without any mitigating reasons. Poco a poco (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support good compo but indeed size too small. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support per Cmao20 and Kritzolina. At least every pixel is used well here; that’s better than a large file with insufficient detail resolution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A fine picture, of a kind that is missing all too often on this project. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 18:28:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created & uploaded by Muhammad Amdad Hossain – nominated by Kaim Amin -- Kaim (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kaim (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral -- the noise is high. JayCubby (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment
Thisis the best denoising fix I can do. Use it if you like. --Cart (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I've added it as an alternative. pinging @JayCubby -- Kaim (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Alternative version (denoised)
Support -- Kaim (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support This is more about the extraordinary pattern the lights make than viewing the people next to them. I'm astonished that so many people can create this in such an orderly fashion. I shudder at the chaos that would be if something like this was attempted in my country! --Cart (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very impressive capture! Many thanks to Cart for the improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the improvements, Cart, it makes a big difference! --Kritzolina (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I place my
seal of approval on the denoised version. JayCubby (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Have seen many intriguing photos of Rakher Upobash, but the quality is often a problem (no wonder given the difficult circumstances). Thanks to Cart’s denoising this one is now on the level it deserves. – Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cart's alt is good enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Compelling image because of the strong contrast between the darkness and the candle light, the broken straight lines at right angles with the square structure of the temple. And this is before looking at the image at full size and seeing the rows of people. Of course, in my warped mind, I imagine the devastation that could be wrought in such a gathering by just a single domestic feline. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lol! The "single domestic feline" had me cracking up! X-D --Cart (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 04:00:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Plozessor (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Question Is the pattern natural or has it been made deliberately? Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I found it like this along the way but I guess that some other human made it. Plozessor (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose So close... If only the sepals at the top hadn't been cut by the framing. Quel dommage. --Cart (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was considering to add them with AI but then abstained ... Plozessor (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- That does you credit. And I'm sure you will think of this the next time you photograph a flower. --Cart (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would have no problem supporting an AI version if it looks convincing. Perhaps you could upload it as an alternative? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @The Cosmonaut Thanks, see below now. --Plozessor (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was considering to add them with AI but then abstained ... Plozessor (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Alternative version
Info Added 350 pixels at the top with AI. --Plozessor (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support: looks good to me! I see this no differently than manually cloning some sky, which is accepted without question here. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Support IMHO it makes not difference whether we complete an image manually with cloning etc. or by using the trendy AI stuff if the result (i) looks good and realistic, (ii) only minor parts of the subject have been edited/added, and (iii) the retouching is clearly declared. All three conditions are met here. – Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2025 at 23:42:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Ukraine#Kharkiv_Oblast
Info Atmospheric Ukrainian sunrise panorama. I love the mist and the frost. created by Balkhovitin – uploaded by Balkhovitin – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support And don't forget about the beautiful cloudscape above! --Kritzolina (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The colours are not exceptional by the bar of sunset images. --Tagooty (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's a sunrise. And I like that the colours are more muted. I have once heard someone describe sunset photos as 'a cake with cream - everyone likes it, but you can't taste the cake.' The quieter colours in this picture work for me because they don't overshadow the rest of the image and don't get in the way of my appreciation of the careful composition. But each to their own. Not trying to change your vote, just to justify my nomination to other voters. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I looked at CAT:Sunrises of Ukraine and stick with my vote. --Tagooty (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support For me the muted colours are a feature: together with the lone tree, the clouds, the frost and the mist, etc. they add up to a peaceful, a bit melancholic mood. – Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2025 at 22:19:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#India
Info created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's a pity that the building is cut off on the left-hand side. --XRay 💬 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- @XRay: uploaded alt crop with slight more margin on left. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- The large part of the building is now visible, but small parts of the building are missing. And there is a little space missing to the left of the building. In my opinion, the photo is not balanced. QI certainly, but not FP. Sorry. --XRay 💬 05:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, but no part of the building is outside the frame now. What you see on the left is a different, but adjacent, under-construction building–which I felt was best kept out of frame. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- The large part of the building is now visible, but small parts of the building are missing. And there is a little space missing to the left of the building. In my opinion, the photo is not balanced. QI certainly, but not FP. Sorry. --XRay 💬 05:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- @XRay: uploaded alt crop with slight more margin on left. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The contre-jour technique gives an unusual tint to the snow. --Tagooty (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support with the whole building. --Yann (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Good light livens the scene. --Cart (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with XRay Poco a poco (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Composition works for me, nice winter scenery and mood. – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2025 at 15:33:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Portraits, paintings
Info created by Lucas Cranach the Elder / scanned by Google, uploaded by Trzęsacz, nominated by Yann
Info Portrait of Princess Maria of Saxony by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1534.
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral It's a fine photo with good detail in a reasonable size, I just wish it wasn't so tightly cropped. I don't mind a bit of scruffy borders as long as all the painted details are intact. --Cart (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's the file provided by Google. Yann (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I know, I just think they could have made a better job. Just because a site/information collector is big doesn't mean they are 100% right. I looked at the other files in that category where we have a small file of the whole painting, and looking at that I think they were a bit stingy when they made this photo. --Cart (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's the file provided by Google. Yann (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cart is right but the details are amazing at full size so I can't help but support Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Анастасия Львоваru/en 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Neither a fan of Lucas Cranach d.Ä. (had to see too many copies of his podgy Luther etc. portraits ;–)) nor of the crop, but per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2025 at 10:55:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info An Epiroc SmartRoc T40 surface drill rig in action, drilling blast holes for dynamite into granite rocks at a construction site for a new house in Brastad, Sweden. A side view of this rig was on a previous FP, but they didn't work as a set. -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I am taking a lot of images of construction work at the moment and can testify that is not easy to take such excellen ones. Thanks for this one! --Kritzolina (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A surprisingly engaging image of an everyday machine. The clean composition, sharp detail, and natural colors give it both visual appeal and strong documentary value. It's a quiet reminder that even utilitarian subjects can be worth a closer look. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. :-) My motto is as usual: "An encyclopedia needs really good photos of everyday things too." --Cart (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Well executed photograph of an ordoinary subject, with an appealing composition and good colours Cmao20 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - A lot of interesting detail. (Wondering how they were able to get the rig in place without it tipping over.) — ERcheck (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- There is actually a bit of "trail" to the right of it, but it's concealed behind the large rocks in front. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose QI or VI but not unusual to make it FP for me. --Tagooty (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone along with calling this an "ordinary" or "not unusual" object, because that's what people here seems to do. But I'm honestly puzzled by this. Do people really have drill rigs like this in their backyards and see them every day? Me, I see these things about once every ten years or so, and even more rarely get this close to them while they operate. I must live a very shielded life to not have drill rigs as a constant in my life. To see one is a special event for me. --Cart (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support For me an extraordinary machine and beautifully captured.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2025 at 08:00:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created and uploaded by Fawzi Demmane – nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I love this image for its vibrancy. The colors, the smile, the eyes - it all goes perfectly together. The image was uploaded during WLF 2025. -- Kritzolina (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A beautifully authentic, very positive and approachable portrait. Very good contrast of vidid colours and muted colours, sharp and unsharp between the person and the background. – Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support It's a bit small and the crop is not optimal, hence the "weak", but very nice and authentic. Needs a better name though, it would have been better if you had fixed that before making the nom, just remember to fix that afterwards. --Cart (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and I will remember to rename! --Kritzolina (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Done Have taken the liberty to handle the renaming after discussing a better filename with Kritzolina. – Aristeas (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and I will remember to rename! --Kritzolina (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Strong portrait despite the small size - great light and mood. The file name should definitely be improved for better usability; see related discussion here. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Sorry but just too small for FP in my opinion, I would forgive it if the composition were outstanding but I don't see anything remarkable about it. QI but not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur...Poco a poco (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2025 at 05:35:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info Frozen Silence at Year's End – This striking image captures a natural winter scene in which the drainage system blends seamlessly into the frozen pond. The composition, subdued lighting and textural contrast combine to create a calm, almost meditative atmosphere. It is technically refined and visually compelling, making it a strong candidate for featured status.
Created and uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531, nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Support A visually and technically compelling image. The frozen textures, natural composition, and subtle winter light create a quiet yet powerful scene. An excellent representation of seasonal stillness. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support One more of those not really abstract abstract images that I really, really like. I agree with your assessment, Radomianin and fullheartedly support. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support When the right moment (ice, a little snow like icing sugar, light from the side), the right composition (so elementary that it seems just perfect) and the right technique (sharp and crisp subject, good amount of DoF) come together … water and a mundane block of concrete become meaningful and impressive. – Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
File name discussion
|
---|
|
Support A frozen movement shot, created by nature, thanks for nominating :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Missing wow. Chossen DOF isn't suitable in my eyes. --Milseburg (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur Poco a poco (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The photo certainly fulfills all quality requirements, but for an excellent picture I find the design with a central placement of the object inappropriate. As the shadow falls to the right, a 1:2 division would perhaps have been better. --XRay 💬 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I'm with XRay here. Minimalist as this is there is something lacking in the compo. To me this looks like one of those classic "how to draw" examples of shadows and reflections from a cube. But for that to be complete, the reflection and shadows should not be cut. Now it looks more like those stacked congruent cubes geometric patterns but IRL. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Insufficient DoF and composition that does not wow. --Tagooty (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Response Thank you for the feedback. The central placement of the concrete drain is a deliberate choice by the photographer that strengthens the graphic, minimalist impact. Its cubic form emerging from the frozen pond serves as a compelling visual anchor, with the shadow adding depth and balance. While the rule of thirds is a useful guideline, it is not absolute. Here, symmetry and central focus create a sculptural effect that suits the photographer's vision better than an off-center framing. The depth of field emphasizes texture and edges, guiding attention precisely. Ultimately, the photo's strength lies in its subtlety and precise execution, inviting appreciation of minimalism over conventional Wow moments. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 May 2025 at 21:07:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail tracks
Info Baikal railway tunnel №27. Completed: 1915. The shape of the rock towers and the landscape as a whole are the result of geology, weathering, and man-made blasting. Lake Baikal. All by --Argenberg (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC).
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Well composed. Its got a muted quality to it that gives it a somewhat gloomy feel, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support although I do always worry with photos like this about the possibility of encouraging people to stand on railway tracks Cmao20 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - Nice. I can imagine sitting with my back to the tunnel wall, a good book in hand, looking over the lake. - ERcheck (talk)
Support: aside from the power line; I think it looks exactly the same as in 1915... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. --Argenberg (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
File:Östringen - Tiefenbach - Kreuzbergkapelle - Situationsansicht von Osten bei Sonnenuntergang.jpg, featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2025 at 08:31:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Germany
Info Shortly before sunset in the vineyards at the Kreuzberg near Tiefenbach, Östringen, Germany. At the right the Kreuzbergkapelle (built in 1872). Photo taken at an evening in April. All by – Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Every now and then I get stuck on this picture, which has somehow turned out quite pretty. The sun has kept still long enough, and the chapel has made its pretty silhouette stand out. ;–) I would prefer wooden posts over these metal posts, but that’s how it looks everywhere today, and we can only enjoy this view as long as there are no leaves on the vines. – Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The kind of light you can feel. :-) At least you get nice metal posts, we get rebars. --Cart (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The atmospheric light and calm composition give the chapel and cross a quiet presence that touches deeply. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I'm not in love with this big dazzling spot in front of my eyes. There are a few things around this fire ball, but not distinct enough. The contrasts between lightness / darkness are too harsh, in my opinion (like here). Perhaps it was too early in the evening, or the featureless sky, without clouds, which was lacking something. Contre-jour photos are not easy, I'm aware of that, but usually, in the other direction (sun behind), the light is so wonderful, natural, and producing a palette of vibrant nuances of colors. It might have been a marvelous walk in the nature at sunset, though :-) Just for that it's worth going again ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support What appeals to me is the beautiful progression of the photo from right to left and the warm atmosphere.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
SupportIt's a good shot and very clear given the circumstances of the backlight. Maybe (but this is a matter of taste), you can lift up the shadows a bit, so the darker areas offer more details that are visible to the eye :D. There are many areas worth to look at --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile Morin-- E.IMANCOMMONS 08:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Mon 26 May → Sat 31 May Tue 27 May → Sun 01 Jun Wed 28 May → Mon 02 Jun Thu 29 May → Tue 03 Jun Fri 30 May → Wed 04 Jun Sat 31 May → Thu 05 Jun
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Thu 22 May → Sat 31 May Fri 23 May → Sun 01 Jun Sat 24 May → Mon 02 Jun Sun 25 May → Tue 03 Jun Mon 26 May → Wed 04 Jun Tue 27 May → Thu 05 Jun Wed 28 May → Fri 06 Jun Thu 29 May → Sat 07 Jun Fri 30 May → Sun 08 Jun Sat 31 May → Mon 09 Jun
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.