Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
This project page in other languages:

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month.

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

Formal things

Nominating

Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

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

Set nominations

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

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

Simple tutorial for new users

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

STEP 1

  • STEP 1
    STEP 1

STEP 2

  • STEP 2
    STEP 2

STEP 3

  • STEP 3
    STEP 3

STEP 4

  • STEP 4
    STEP 4

STEP 5

  • STEP 5
    STEP 5

STEP 6

  • STEP 6
    STEP 6

STEP 7

  • STEP 7
    STEP 7

STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)
    STEP 8 (last step)

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

Adding a new nomination

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

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

All single files:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting

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

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} ( Support),
  • {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} ( Comment),
  • {{Info}} ( Info),
  • {{Question}} ( Question),
  • {{Request}} ( Request).

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

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

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

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

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP.
{{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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


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

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

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

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

General rules

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5):
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have fewer than two support votes.
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules

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

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, they should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.
  5. Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

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

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

Above all, be polite

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

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

See also

Table of contents

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

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

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

File:Catedral de la Natividad, Chisináu, Moldavia, 2023-11-03, DD 36-38 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 06:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iconostasis of the Nativity Cathedral, Chișinău, Moldova.

File:Catedral, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14, DD 48-50 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 06:00:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Capilla del Sagrario of the cathedral of Segovia, Spain.

File:Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak dllu.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 22:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak

File:Cucumis metuliferus fruit - whole and cross section.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 20:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Djebel Ayachi, Eastern High Atlas, Morocco By Mounir NEDDI.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 17:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This valley (in green) alone produces more than 80 percent of Morocco's apples. It makes Morocco the second largest apple producer in the Arab region. This valley is located in the center of the Ait Ayach commune. To take a picture of this commune, you must climb the summit of Mount Ayachi in the eastern High Atlas, at an altitude of about 3,800 meters above sea level.

File:Giovane storno nel nido.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Portrait a man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality, Nepal-4556.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 16:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait a man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality, Nepal

File:Torre de Hércules 2023.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower of Hercules, an ancient Roman lighthouse in Spain.

File:Open wing Basking of Papilio crino (Fabricius, 1793) - Common Banded Peacock WLB.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, noisy, jpg artifacts, --Wilfredor (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] 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:Max Planck by Hugo Erfurth 1938cr - restoration1.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 14:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Max Planck by Hugo Erfurth, 1938

File:Estrada Regional 105 mountain road in Ribeira Brava, Madeira, 2023 May - 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 01:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Estrada Regional 105, Madeira

File:Hệ Mặt Trời trong con mắt của tàu vũ trụ (2024).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 22:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solar System Diagram
  • For categorization, see COM:CAT. For language, the problem is in the file page. You write "English" for descriptions not in English. Idem caption. Of course, an additional description and caption in English would be a nice addition. But first, fix the current one, please. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry but while this is a useful diagram, the standard for diagrams at FP should be SVG, not JPEG. I'm also not convinced by the way Saturn's rings are depicted. Cmao20 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the images taken of planets and moons are in the raster format and converting it to SVG will have no benefit, as you couldn't scale up a raster image. Making a diagram of these planets in SVG might be possible, but it would have an insanely big filesize and would not be able to capture these bodies realistically. WhatisMars (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing this in SVG allows for easier editing, simpler translation, etc. Wilfredor (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romain Bardet during Simacourbe climb of Tour de France 2024 stage 13.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 20:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Romain Bardet during Tour de France 2024

File:Bab al Soufara, Remparts of Almohad, Rabat (باب السفراء، باب السفارة - الرباط).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bab al Soufara (Soufara Gates), Remparts of Almohad, Rabat (باب السفراء، باب السفارة - الرباط)

File:Шуховская башня Дзержинск.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 13:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High tension poles

File:Усадьба Шишокина.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 12:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Architectural monument, wooden manor house

File:Open wing basking position of Cethosia biblis (Drury,1773) - Red Lacewing.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 11:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Open wing basking position of Cethosia biblis (Drury,1773) - Red Lacewing
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, jpg artifacts, --Wilfredor (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] 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:Open wing basking position of Euthalia franciae (Gray, 1846) - French Duke.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 11:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Open wing basking position of Euthalia franciae (Gray, 1846) - French Duke
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, jpg artifacts. Please compare with anothers FP in the category --Wilfredor (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] 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:Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park, October 2024 - 4185.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 23:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park.

File:Gotland Grand National October 2023 12.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 18:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Riders during Gotland Grand National 2023

File:Korczew Palace.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 17:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front view of the palace in Korczew, Poland.

File:Stift Göttweig 20230810 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 15:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Göttweig Abbey

100 Ruble "History of Monetary Circulation of Russia" commemorative coin (2009)

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 12:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Obverse
    Obverse
  • Reverse
    Reverse

File:River is dying.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 11:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fishermen fishing with a big net in River Padma, district of Rajshahi, Bangladesh

File:Rom (IT), Kolosseum -- 2024 -- 0610.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colosseum in Rome, Italy at blue hour
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me --A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very beautiful and well done. The problem is that your photo directly competes with this very similar FP which has been taken by Diliff in 2007. It’s not one of his very best photos, but still a very strong competitor with high sharpness of details. Of course there are misc. differences – your photo is more of a night view, while Diliff’s one is a blue-hour shot; Diliff’s version shows misc. persons while your one is free of them; etc. In the end I think the point of view is different enough and better in your shot – the central way leading to the entrance is a clear advantage. So we can keep Diliff’s FP as FP because of the beautiful blue hour atmosphere and the details sharpness, and feature your new photo because of the somewhat better perspective and the better lighting of the arches. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there were a few people around the Colosseum, when I was there to take some night shots. Unfortunately some of them were launching flying LED toys into the air, which caused unwanted light trails… To manage this and still capture the scene cleanly, I opted for a 15-minute long exposure. This helped me minimize the distracting elements while enhancing the lighting of the arches and overall atmosphere. Meanwhile, a police car drove past twice, but due to the long exposure time, it's not to be seen here. --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked, if he is on Commons. He showed me some photographs of one of his friends, who uses Sony, but to my shame I haven't noticed his Instagram username. If it helps, he had a Nikon Z9, which he had bought a short time earlier. Perhaps we should attach small Commons badges to our camera straps or tripods so that we can recognize each other (satire - or not). --A. Öztas 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a sock puppet (openly declared and linked as such) for a few days for some edits because I could not edit in Wikipedia via this user account due to Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the No open proxies Policy. I had already written to the steward team about this at the time. I have replaced the image because I believe that this (17 years later) image is also good and suitable. I was not aware that there is a grandfathering clause. Fortunately, this is an open project and you can undo any changes. Even if the picture is rejected by you as an FP for this reason - or do you have any comments on what I could do better in future shots, because that's what we're talking about here? I'm always trying to get better at what I do, so this would help in that regard too. By the way I don't know what you mean by "Livio/Commonists is greeting", but perhaps you could elaborate on that. --A. Öztas 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Colosseum has changed much in all this time. I consider Diliff's Photo to be superior. Usually, out of politeness, such a change is put up for debate on the article's discussion page. Wilfredor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Careless replace of pictures is exactly what the person behind accounts "Livioandronico", "Comminists", "Spartakos" etc.pp. did. We don't replace excellent pictures, unless significant update is necessary. Why don't you replace this one instead (still being used on four pages)? Again, you replace because you care about quality of Wikipedia or because it's your picture you would like to showcase? --A.Savin 05:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not that familiar with meta-discussions about other users, but that's also not the reason why I participate in Wikimedia projects. So please understand that I will not go into further detail in this regard. Regarding your actual question: I have already explained why I replaced the image. The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image. This is not about ego or the need to showcase my image, as you subtly imply, but about offering an image that I believe is equivalent and more current - even if not much changed about the Colosseum itself in that time. I am active on Wikimedia almost exclusively on Commons. Other users tend to work in different projects, some have a balanced mix. For me, it usually works like this: I publish photos on Commons for which I think a free licence would be useful, and then see whether some of them could also offer added value in articles. Unfortunately, you haven't said anything about the photo itself yet, although that's exactly what this is about here. As I've already mentioned, I'm always endeavouring to improve my photography skills and would appreciate your expert feedback. I've already said everything I need to say on the other points you've raised here and anything more would just be repetitive, which is why I consider the discussion closed for me at this point. However, if you consider it necessary, we can continue the discussion in a suitable place. --A. Öztas 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the user who has suspicions, I also made a comment to which you did not respond. In a structure like the Colosseum in Rome you don't see changes in 10, 20, 30 years but in centuries, and I continue to find the Diliff photo above. I would just like to ask you a question to be sure and close this topic, do you have any relationship with the user @Livioandronico2013: ?. Thanks for answer Wilfredor (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) - Common Mime (Male) ( From Dissimilis) WLB.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) - Common Mime (Male) From Dissimilis

File:Mirador Muelle el Caleuche A74117020240109.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 17:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Quedlinburg - Rathaus 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 16:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portal, Town Hall (1 Markt), Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany

File:Balancing rock, Atsgara Valley, Mount Zagedan, Caucasus Mountains.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 12:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Atsgara Valley, Caucasus Mountains.
The theme of the photograph is the rock in the context of the surrounding valley and distant cliffs. So it’s not just the rock, but the rock in the valley around it, under a blue sky, in very sunny weather. The rock itself is naturally dark, maybe be even graphite/black because of granite intrusions, and it contrasts with the chalky white cliffs in the distance, which have a different mineral composition. And the shadow on the side of the rock makes it look darker to isolate it further in the landscape. For me, this is a pleasant shadow that reinforces the composition. Like when something is dark, it looks better in the dark. Like a dark spot under the radiant sun. The shadow also highlights the rock’s shape and form, giving it more silhouette, which is again more important here than texture. Thanks for your feedback. Anyway, I made a little shadow lift and will upload it soon. It still looks dark as expected, but maybe less menacing and with more detail and texture in the shadow. There’s plenty of information in the shadows, they don’t look underexposed to me. --Argenberg (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of light.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 11:13:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of light
  •  Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Why is this request coming from a 20-minute-old account? (in addition to what's been mentioned by Cart below) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) All images created by combining 2 or more photos or should be properly categorised ho highlight this, right? There are rules for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria) and this picture clearly violates them.
    2) HDR should be just a series of pictures stacked together, but shot in the same time and place. I would be OK if this was the case. However, it looks like night sky was combined with a daylight foreground. I am not convinced that Moon or any other light source would create such hard shadows. Compared to other daylight shots (e.g https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/53735747194/), the light looks very similar. Compared to ther night shots (https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-vik-church-546515572), the light is very different. In reality, there are spotlights around the church and nothing to cast light on the mountains around.
    4) I believe that the encyclopedical value of FPs should come from the fact that they show the reality, which is not the case here. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I recommend confirming the date of the photo with the Northern Lights at that time. I think there should be no problem combining photos from the same place regardless of the time or day. Having this information in the image description would be much appreciated but many users do not know how to do this or do not find it necessary. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Having been twice to Vík í Mýrdal in Iceland and seen that church on a hill on top of the city I am not sure wether this is a single photo or the combination of multiple photos. With long exposure at night, any small light source gets exponentially increased and pictures can look like as if they were taken in day time even though they were taken at night. I can't exclude that the illumination of this picture takes it's source from city light + moon light + aurora light. For example on this picture that I took at 22:01 in Switzerland when it was completely dark to the human eye, the mountain on the photo has harsh light and shadows that only come from the moon and nothing else (but to the human eye the light and shadows were not that harsh, only to the camera because of long exposure)! And the effect is even bigger on white surfaces such as with the snow or the church painting. Conclusion : yes it is possible to have harsh light and shadows on photos taken in complete darkness with long exposure and I can't exclude that this picture is just 1 picture and not a combination of multiple pictures -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had an occasion were I had chromatic aberrations on the middle-top of a picture so it can happen even with good equipment but you're right that normally one side is red and the other is blue and that in this case it's two blue sides on the church tower. The difference of noise level is also present when comparing the illuminated parts and the not illuminated parts of this picture that I did but you're right that in the case of the church picture the difference seems a bit too big. Also it's very strange that the cross of the church was removed. Finally in light of this I have no doubt anymore that the church picture is unfortunately not real. The position of the northern light also felt too perfect to be true (even if sometimes people can get very lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately all these hypotheses can be classified with the presentation of the RAW, something that I proposed some time ago is that each FPC should have its respective RAW to support the editions. Wilfredor (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support what you have written. It is common that all serious photo competitions require the participants to be able to provide the original RAW files. Wikipedia does not require this so I am sure there are many more secretly manipulated pictures around here. I would be OK with this picture, if it would be properly categorised as manipulated (as all the panoramas and other merged shots should be) and if the manipulation would be done properly (no visible transitions, no artifacts, no ghosts and no alternation of the objects in the scene – like e.g. the cross on the tower, which is missing). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As an original supporter of the nomination, I'm leaning towards a Neutral Delist vote. On the one hand, the indications are in favor of delisting, but on the other hand, the arguments of Cart, Giles, and Wilfredor need to be considered. Because of the recent cases of undeclared manipulation that have come to light, I am more sensitive these days than I was 2 ½ years ago when I supported the image in good faith. If retouching goes beyond the norm, it must be disclosed on the file page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just found out that not only the cross on the top of the tower is missing, but also a lamp was painted out. Here is a Google Street View for comparison. Everyone can clearly see that the lamp used to be in the picture, but was retouched. You can still see the leftover around pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. With all due respect to the image author, I believe he is indeed a good photographer, but a very poor photo editor. If someone could please turn on image notes on this page, I can highlight all the issues directly in the picture. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain for now, but tending to {{Delist}} because the orientation of the shadows / light seems different on the church versus on the mountains behind. Church : light comes from the right, while mountains : light comes from the left. Or is it an illusion / perspective effect? However, I find SHB2000's question legitimate, and think it deserves an answer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to make fun of you, believe me. If you have that feeling, I am very sorry for that. Please notice that I am not attacking anybody. I am here to raise awareness that cheating with photos is unfortunately a big topic here on Wikipedia and that the community here needs to focus on it a bit more. Pictures by this author are an easy example, but in the nearby future, AI generated / edited pictures will bring more difficult challenges, where it will be very hard to distinguish original vs fake images... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New account, you want to teach us something on Commons, but you've also like completely lost your background / history / identity before entering here. Obviously you're an experienced user with knowledge on the process, the site, the image note gadget, etc. and for whatever reason do not want to reveal these elements of your profile. Pardon me, but that's rather odd, unless you're the real Zorro? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here is my another contribution. I have checked other photos made by the same author, AstroAnthony. He received a honorary mention in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2019/Winners/Ireland for this picture: File:The stars and man.jpg. The picture is again a fake. The background can be found in another upload here: File:Milky way nebula.jpg. The foreground is copy-pasted from another photo. Put the images one over another as layers and you will see it. What's the point of awarding a photomanipulation? All heavily manipulated images should be properly categorized and described. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing this comment I went to see for other uploads of the uploader and I found this picture were there is absolutely no doubt that it is fake with three layers. There is a big difference in detail and focus between the man and the rock on which he is standing. The light on the man is completely different and doesn't match the light of the rock. Also, the man seems badly placed. Finally, we can see that the rocks were cut from their original picture...
So with all the hints on the other images as well it seems many night shots of this user are not true...
The position of the aurora on the church also seemed a bit too perfect to be true (but I was hoping that the photographer was just lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked some of his other photos. This and this are also suspicious – a man on the rock is inserted. See the different levels of sharpness and contrast. The second photo also won an award outside Wikipedia. Is there any place on Wiki where we could discuss this topic further? I guess this page should stay focused on the church picture... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delist Thanks for the helpful comments -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist The arguments above have convinced me. This isn't just normal HDR, the transitions between land and sky are too abrupt for this to be the result of one frame. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I don’t see a problem if this photo is composed from two or more different exposures taken at the same date in the same place; this is a common approach in astrophotography – normally one or more frames of the sky are combined with a shot for the foreground which benefits from very different exposure times, ISO and/or aperture settings. Of course it would be much better if that was explained in the description page. It‘s also possible that the combined shots were taken at different dates or times of the day; this certainly would require to be documented; but that’s not sure. But what is sure (and what convinces me to vote for delisting) is that there are some obvious defects, like the missing cross and the coarse contours, which indicate that the montage has been done in a rather careless way. This is indeed a clear argument against the FP status, independent from the other questions. So many thanks to RealPhotoManiac for bringing this to our attention, and also many thanks to other participants, especially to Giles Laurent for the solid information. – Aristeas (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist For example the missing cross is too obvious problem. --Thi (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Many thanks to all involved for the wide range of information that now provides a conclusive overview to make a reliable decision. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist It now became very clear to me, thanks RealPhotoManiac for the new arguments. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist as per all above explanation. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aurora
4th position at Picture of the year, that's not far from the podium. I wonder which place(s) would have reached the background and the church separately :-) But would they just reach the start of the competition? Not sure. I would love to see this church with its natural sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I wonder how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022. I also wonder how many other competitions was this guy able to cheat with fake pictures. And the worst thing is that nobody was able to recognize it. I can understand somebody is cheating, but I cannot believe that the community here is so easily fooled by so poor photomanipulations. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We're not superheros.
  2. You're not a superhero.
  3. Why nature manipulates us? To answer your question "how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022", that's because it was nominated at FPC in 2022, same year as this painting of 1913. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 update Coincidence or not, suddenly the link given above seems disabled. In any case, there are other "real photo maniacs" according to Google. The link targeted a public account on Instagram, with mobile phone pics of nature and text in Cyrillic script. Maybe nothing in relation with RealPhotoManiac, though, apart from the name -- BM alias Sherlock Holmes (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not a superhero and I do not expect others to be superheros. But it doesn't need a superhero to invest more than 3 seconds checking the picture or to put in the competition rules and FP guidelines a line stating that uploaders need to provide the orginal raw files. After seeing what is possible and what seems to be widely accepted here, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I am doing all these my actions to draw attention to this topic in hope that the rules and guidelines would be improved and that at least some members of this community would learn to have their eyes a bit more open next time. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"3 seconds", only?!
About RAW images, see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 21#Comment: RAW with FPCs (2019 discussion)
And Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#A necessary requirement (October 2024). -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in life has trade-offs. Instituting a rule to require RAW files would marginally improve the authenticity/security of nominations and prevent cases like this, but it is also clear that it would gut participation in FPC and that the vast majority of regulars strongly oppose it. We are not a professional photo competition in a position to award prize money, we are a volunteer site and should be greatful to those generous enough to upload their frequently superb content here. Not make their lives harder by adding more onerous requirements. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theyyam of Kerala by Shagil Kannur 213.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 07:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Theyyam is a ritual art form of Kerala

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:حاجز الأمواج على شاطئ جماعة الشراط - Breakwater in Cherrat beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

People fishing on a breakwater in Bouznika on the Atlantic coast.

File:Breda beeld van een heilige - Sint-Antoniuskathedraal 2024-09-17.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of a saint, located above the facade of the St. Anthony Cathedral of Breda

File:Milano - Portico dell'Elefante - 2024-09-27 09-41-52 001.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 17:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dukes' Courtyard, Milan
  •  Comment It’s good that you dissent, Basile, because you introduce a new point of view and arguments. Only by sharing different points of view we get an informative debate. Your suggested crop is a very interesting alternative. – Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Aristeas. I also think divergent opinions allow us to move forward, within the framework of a respectful exchange. Fortunately I am not the only one nor always a dissenter here :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the photographer gives us the context that the sitting person is posing, and I find that to be important context. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, Basile, but personally I have a more favourable view of tourists taking pictures at monuments/tourist places. In this image particularly, the scene just happens to capture what I think is a gentle moment between two women—a painting within a painting kind of thing, while keeping the focus on the monument itself. That’s why I think the photographer forms important context about the woman being photographed. That said, I do also think a square(r) crop would be nice regardless of the women. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your point of view. A square crop is also interesting and I may (weakly) support. Only weakly, because the crop would be too tight at the right of the sitting woman. Thus the larger view below is in my opinion a more airy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative image, Dukes' Courtyard - Milan

File:Gipfelkreuz Schneespitze mit Blick ins Pflerschtal.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 13:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Summit cross of the Schneespitze in the Stubai Alps and view into the Pflersch valley. In the background the Zillertal Alps

Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park - Set

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 07:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Twilight view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
    Twilight view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
  • Sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
    Sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saharna Monastery, Saharna, Moldova
  • To be more precise: after South Sudan I visited Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), Kenia, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain (not mentioning 4-5 countries in Europe) :). I just came back from Turkey, next target is Baja California. Brazil still has to wait :( Poco a poco (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Moldova

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Retrochoir of the cathedral of Segovia, Spain
  • I believe taht what you call CA is light diffraction created when the ray of light crosses the window, similar to the effect you expect when a ray of light goes through a prism. I have reduced the colours though a bit. I also reworked a bit the overexposure of the window in the top center, dehazed the center a bit and applied some sharpening overall. Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now, I think it might have been some color refraction, you were there so I'll take your word for it. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Spain

File:Albert Edelfelt - The Luxembourg Gardens, Paris.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 21:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Albert Edelfelt: The Luxembourg Gardens, Paris
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Groups

File:Auschwitz II - electric fence 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Insulator and barbed wire as part of the electric fence at Auschwitz-Birkenau
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
  •  Info All by Kritzolina. Wikimania 2024 made it possible for me to visit the KZs in Auschwitz for the first time. I did not plan to take pictures, but some happened. This one feels like it could work to show some of my feelings there. I am not sure about the gallery for this image. Please feel free to change the gallery to a more fitting one, if you have a clear idea of wher to put it. -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Effective composition that highlights the horrible nature of this place Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Doesn't work for me. Does not stand out from ordinary images.--Thi (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In my opinion, the documentary value of this shot is just as high as its artistic value. It is not a whitewashed treatment, but conveys the horror that lies in the imagination of how many people voluntarily threw themselves into this fence in order to preserve their dignity and free will, at least in death, which were denied them in the hell of Auschwitz. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Thi. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It’s almost impossible to capture the horror of Auschwitz with a photo – in the light of the day that hell on earth looks so harmless and boring. Therefore the best we can do is to make the viewers discover themselves the cruelty which hides among the everday aspects of that place. At the first glance the photo looks trivial: we see just a fence. Second glance: it’s a fence with barbed wire. Third glance: the fence is not just fixed to the fence post, as usual, it is fixed with an electric fence insulators; so this was a electric barbed-wire fence. And if we now look at the background, over the innocent grass, we discover the silhouette of the building, dark and threatening. This menacing atmosphere is enforced by the gloomy day and the muted colours. IMHO the photo successfully captures the banality of evil which is one of the most horrifying aspects of the whole NS mass murder – and that is a real achievement. It would make a perfect cover photo for a book about the NS extermination machinery. – Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Thi. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The picture has good symbolic power. --XRay 💬 18:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If you don't read the description, it's just a normal photo, and it shouldn't be. JukoFF (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The description is part and complements the process of understanding the file. ★ 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support because of the image's high educational value and strong symbolism. I agreed with Thi, but only until I read the description. Before today I was not aware of the horrible fact that there were electrified barbed fences at Nazi camps to prevent prisoners from escaping. Now I do, thanks to this image.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Thi. -- Inu06 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per JukoFF --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting image, but no FA material. It doesn't convey the idea without a description next to it. --Fernando (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a bit surprised and confused by this need several people now expressed to have an explanation for this image. This is an insulator with barbed wire fence. Even in animal husbandry electrified barbed wire is banned nowadays in many countries to protect animals from unnecessary cruelty. And this fence is no pasture fence, that is easily visible. Pasture fences look different. So even if you don't know this is an image from Auschwitz, you know it is one that is related to some kind of imprisonment - and one that goes against Human Rights. I did not necessarily expect this image to pass easily. The light is dull, this is not a "beautiful" image due to its message. But I never expected that it would be rejected on the grounds that people are unable to see the message of this image. I have to say this deeply disturbs me. Kritzolina (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be disturbed. Not many people would know what an insulator is or what it does, or how is it different than a screw to hold the wire in place. The fact that the focused barbed wire is aligned with the horizon also reduces its visibility, which drives the attention to a metal artefact joined to a concrete post. Again, the image is technically proficient, but I never would have said that it's a symbol to the horrors of the holocaust or something similar, and as such it lacks the wow or extraordinary factor that's required for a FP to me. Fernando (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, Kritzolina, the title says "Auschwitz - electric fence." That alone provides enough context, in my opinion. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volcanos Lascar left and Aguas Calientes right.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Lascar (left) and the Aguas Calientes (right) volcanoes, located in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes Mountains in Chile

File:OTY 2O'Z UY Tangimush - Pulhokim.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

OTY 2O'Z UY with a freight train between Tangimush and Pulhokim, Uzbekistan
  • Thanks, Cmao20 and Kabelleger. Topaz Denoise AI was used in this situation. It was a very simple and efficient program, easy to use, unfortunately not available anymore as far as I know. Now it has become Topaz Photo AI, slightly more complex, but doing almost the same thing. With more options also, based on AI. Using both, I really recommend. It's 100% your work, I'm happy you plan to "upload over the existing version". -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yeah, I know what you mean. I continue to support, but I do think an oppose is entirely reasonable in this case, Kabelleger has definitely presented sharper ones. Cmao20 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JCB 215LC Padum Zanskar Jun24 A7CR 01095.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A JCB excavator in Ladakh, India

File:Décoration de la façade supérieure du minaret de la Mosquée de Mansourah, Tlemcen.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Decoration of the upper facade of the minaret of the Mosque of Mansourah in Tlemcen

File:048 Hippopotamus fight in the Serengeti National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 14:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hippopotamus fight in the Serengeti National Park

File:Basilica dos Congregados (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basílica dos Congregados in Braga, Braga District, Portugal

File:Cervia - Torre San Michele - 2024-09-29 07-36-45 001.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 17:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Michele Tower - Cervia

File:Burimun gate and pine under blue sky at Beomeosa temple in Busan, South Korea.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 12:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Burimun gate and pine under blue sky at Beomeosa temple in Busan, South Korea
  • Totally agree, and I have this view on my computer. But there are things I like also in this large composition: the stone wall, the stone buried in the ground on the left, and above all the single tree, alone in the sky, that completely breaks the symmetry. Thank you very much for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Всадник Аничков мост 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 07:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sculptural group "The Taming of the Horse" by Peter Clodt, one of the four compositions on the Anichkov Bridge in St. Petersburg
  • Ah, I see a new version has been uploaded yesterday. Which makes my comment obsolete and inaccurate. It's always better to warn participants about changes happening in the background, when their constructive criticism is relevant / taken into account, so that we can follow. But I also have the impression that the clouds are posterized. Not convinced enough by the exceptional nature of the photo cropped at the bottom, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Wed 09 Oct → Mon 14 Oct
Thu 10 Oct → Tue 15 Oct
Fri 11 Oct → Wed 16 Oct
Sat 12 Oct → Thu 17 Oct
Sun 13 Oct → Fri 18 Oct
Mon 14 Oct → Sat 19 Oct

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

Sat 05 Oct → Mon 14 Oct
Sun 06 Oct → Tue 15 Oct
Mon 07 Oct → Wed 16 Oct
Tue 08 Oct → Thu 17 Oct
Wed 09 Oct → Fri 18 Oct
Thu 10 Oct → Sat 19 Oct
Fri 11 Oct → Sun 20 Oct
Sat 12 Oct → Mon 21 Oct
Sun 13 Oct → Tue 22 Oct
Mon 14 Oct → Wed 23 Oct

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=884719385"