Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:FPC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:FPC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

FPCandiateicon.svg

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 and current month.

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

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

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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


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



Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

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

Voting[edit]

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

You may use following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that in case of withdraw only a alternative nomination you need comment explicitly which one you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

Contents

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock/Pedra do Baú

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

(River) Rio São Francisco

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Umeda Sky Building, designed by Hiroshi Hara and completed in 1993, is the nineteenth-tallest building in Osaka Prefecture, Japan,

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Junge Kohlmeise Parus major

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pontia daplidice (Bath white)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Arcades at Nationalmuseet, Kopenhagen, Denmark
  • May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jiboia Boa constrictor
  • @ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [1] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zebras drinking

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kata Tjuta, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Northern Territory, Australia
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aleksander Uurits. "Portrait of a Lady"

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares) from Estonia
another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South African Turban

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Peblinge Sø with Søpavillonen in Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ha, thanks, now Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The entry of Cave Pešna
  • ✓ Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view of Langtang National Park from Laurebina-La Pass
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southern hawker - Aeshna cyanea, female.

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Araçari-poca.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chroicocephalus ridibundus ( Black-headed Gull )

File:Harebells by a road.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harebells by a road
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise on the Sea of Japan
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thudufushi, a vacation resort

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior view of the Shah Mosque, renamed to Imam Mosque, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, located in the northern section of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran.

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southern hawker - Aeshna cyanea, male.

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: this picture is better? Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 02.jpg --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common blue damselfly - Enallagma cyathigerum, male.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) male

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran.
Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco2 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good. :) Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco2 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eduard Wiiralt, "Hell" (1932)

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka.
Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin Poco2 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dacnis cayana
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poco2 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poco2 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like the colors. --Pine✉ 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first I thought this was an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but it's not. That loses the wow factor for me. QI, sure. FP? Not for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At first I thought this was just an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but, hey, surprise, it's not! ;-) Great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Per Martin. PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With everything going on in this photo, B&W is definitely the right choice in this light. The artistic 'old school' feel to this is very nice. --cart-Talk 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daphne Lantier 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like B&W sometimes, but the composition here doesn't wow me. --Pine✉ 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--XRay talk 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The bright left side of the tower at the bottom left ruins it for me. It's generally not a good idea to put eye-catching things at the edge of a composition, and the heightened contrast due to the B&W conversion makes it worse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, this is just too busy for me: Busy cityscape, busy sky and high contrast. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for me so to speak, I'm missing a clear subject. In this case, I think I'd prefer the color version, as the colors help me to separate the different elements of the scene. I'm certainly not opposed to B&W images at FPC in general – I'd love to see more of them being nominated here so by all means please keep them coming. --El Grafo (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Without B&W effect it would have absolutely no chance. It looks pleasant with that effect but still the scene is not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cave art depicting a Bison in Aizpitarte caves, Basque Country. Is the first time this kind of engravings has been discovered south of the Pyrinees
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diego Garate Maidagan / Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking in detail and sharpness - I know such shots are difficult but still. --Peulle (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Certainly has some WOW, but it's a bit weak in terms of sharpness. I don't really understand the camera settings (F20 @ 1/80, ISO 200). Sure, the wall looks slightly curved, but I don't think it was necessary to stop down to F20 to get sufficient depth of field at 10mm? I'd certainly support it over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, and dark area at right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exceptional but lacks technical quality. Pity as it really had potential. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this a lot; good capture as she looks at the camera just as she exits the hut.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me. I think it would benefit from additional Lead room on the right, or at least a tighter crop on the other sides. Otherwise very nice! --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose El Grafo is right - the lighting is also a bit unfortunate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We have very few images of this kind. So it is a pity that this picture has shortcomings (it looks tilt, left crop is not OK, etc.). Yann (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Indeed it has issues but we really lack this kind of pictures and I think it could fit minimum requirements as the composition is really nice and quality is tolerable. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 08:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Woman fishing for shore crabs
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A woman fishing for shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. Her technique is simple but effective. She has bait in small net bags on strings in the shallow water under a makeshift jetty. The bait attracts crabs and as soon as they climb onto the bag, she hauls all of it up and into her landing net. The crabs are collected in a bucket, later to be cooked and eaten. The complete series can be seen in the file's page. She is not bundled up to cover her identity in the photos, it was cold and windy on the fjord and this is how she looked. All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry cart, the image's really interesting (I've never seen anyone fishing like that) and somehow also quite funny - but the main subject is just not very sharp... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, capturing a moment with a moving target, handheld, strong wind and light conditions changing all the time due to clouds, this is about as good as I can make it. Anyway, some additional Lightroom sharpness added. --cart-Talk 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Thanks for the explanation - and for adding a tad additional sharpness --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sharpness problems exclude this photo as a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mønsted kalkgruber exposure fused 2014-07-18.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2017 at 20:14:45
Mønsted Limestone Mine Mønsted Limestone Mine

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Previous photo from 2014 used exposure-fusion and the limited dynamic range led to blown areas. New photo from 2017 is a full HDR generated from five exposures and tone-mapped in Lightroom. It is also sharper. The scene is a path in Mønsted limestone mine in Denmark, the largest limestone mine in the world. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Great! --Yann (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Daphne Lantier 21:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace As the creator of the current FP. Colins version is clearly better. I proposed the delist and replace to them in an email. -- Slaunger (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace per Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Pofka (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Better. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Yes.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Wolf im Wald 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace I like the changes. Thanks for the work that you put into this. --Pine✉ 05:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC))



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 16 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Wed 26 Jul

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

Wed 12 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Thu 13 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Fri 14 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Sat 15 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Sun 16 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Wed 26 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Thu 27 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Fri 28 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Sat 29 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Sun 30 Jul

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2017.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=249223450"