Jump to content

User:Aristeas/FPCBot/Test log

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

File:Marbach a.N. - Altstadt - Alexanderkirche - Langhaus - Gewölbe 1.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 22:34:31

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Hello admins and other users, this is a test nomination which I need to fix substantial bugs in FPCBot and to improve the bot program. Please do not delete it, and, of course, do not add it to the list of nominations nor process it otherwise ;–). Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment Test comment. – Aristeas (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 2 keep, 1 neutral → delisted. /Aristeas (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Heilbronn - Böckingen - Ziegeleipark - Ziegeleisee - Ansicht von Osten im Frühling (2.2, mit Schwan).jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 14:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Ziegeleisee in the Ziegeleipark in Böckingen, Heilbronn, Germany, view from east in spring

Hello admins and other users, this is a test nomination which I need to fix substantial bugs in FPCBot and to improve the bot program. Please do not delete it, and, of course, do not add it to the list of nominations nor process it otherwise ;–). Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
  •  Info The Ziegeleisee in the Ziegeleipark in Böckingen, Heilbronn, Germany, view from east in spring. Created on the site of a former brickyard, this pond has become home to so many plant and animal species that it has been declared a protected biotope. While I took some photos, a mute swan swept over the water and added a nice extra to the picture ;–). All by – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per comments on my talk page, superb composition and light, and I love the swan. – Aristeas (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Cmao – Aristeas (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too beautiful, sorry. – Aristeas (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The beauty lies in the detail of the landing swan. -- Aristeas (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Boring. – Aristeas (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. – Aristeas (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Useful. – Aristeas (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Aristeas (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2025 at 08:16:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Acridotheres tristis
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)) 13:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Sturnidae (Starlings)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2025 at 10:55:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Glaucidium cuculoides
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Strigidae_(True_Owls)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2025 at 12:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Koch tribal woman, Bangladesh
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
  •  Info This beautiful picture of a Koch woman in rural Bangladesh is a quiet moment full of warmth, texture, and storytelling. The light, colors, and composition draw the viewer in with a natural elegance. The current version has been slightly improved by the nominator - with the author's permission - through gentle tonal and color adjustments, as well as slight denoising. Created and uploaded by Nayeem01771031233 – edited and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cart (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the calm and serene beauty of this scene – the woman really seems to communicate with the animal, not needing any words, and the flowers, unexpectedly growing from the bare ground, add a tiny surreal touch to the image. – Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 17:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Radomianin and Aristeas. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support but with reserve about the technical aspect. Concerning the image, nice composition and decent quality. I agree with Aristeas. But the resolution, only 3,629 × 2,419 pixels from a camera capable of 6,240 x 4,160 pixels. And the settings, exposure time 1/4,000 sec with 640 ISO, it isn't really justified in such a situation, in my opinion. Certainly the resolution could have been more generous with better parameters -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Basile. I've contacted the author by email and asked if he could provide a higher resolution version of the original file. If he sends one, I'll be happy to update the image accordingly. I appreciate your technical observation! Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Update: @Basile – I've now received a kind and thoughtful reply from the author Nayeem via email. Unfortunately, he no longer has access to a high-res version of the photo. In agreement with him, I'd like to quote his words here: "Unfortunately, I don't have a higher resolution version of that image." I apologize that this update isn't more satisfying. Thanks again for your careful review. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Radomianin, for the initiative and for the notification -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per the nomination --Kritzolina (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The woman has a beautiful, gentle facial expression to me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 04:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Great scene, on the other side the compo is too static (too centered) and the res too low Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your constructive feedback, Poco. I actually discussed this image via email with a couple of fellow Wikimedians previously and had originally suggested a crop - cropping the left side and applying the rule of thirds on the right to add more visual interest, which would have resulted in a derivative work. But in the end, I decided to stick with the original composition. On the second look, the centered framing felt like it brought out the calm and light of the scene in a way that worked really well. I also wanted to stay true to the photographer's original intent. That said, I totally get where you're coming from - your take was actually my first instinct too. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Standing people
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2024 at 20:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taras Horizon at dawn
  • Thank you for the note, Poco. This is something I noticed when I was making improvements, so I weighed whether a nomination made sense. In the end, I decided to nominate it because, in my opinion, the overall effect outweighs the negative. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Ukraine
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2023 at 12:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lamp lighting during Tihar festival in Nepal
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
  •  Info created and fisrt uploaded by Mithun Kunwar - retouched by Radomianin - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the mood and the colors - this is another find from WLF. -- Kritzolina (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Wonderful atmosphere and lighting. --Aristeas (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Did we consider a photo with a related subject at FPC at some point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    What do you mean with related? We do have several FIs with people lighting lamps or candles, the last one was this one, I think: this one. Kritzolina (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support - ABAL1412 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Appealing composition, and technically very well done, due to clever settings, adapted to this moving subject located in a dark place -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --BigDom (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support – Ivar (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support One of my favorite motifs from the plentiful contributions of the WLF competition. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 15:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. JukoFF (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)--Palauenc05 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2023 at 16:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cool nacreous clouds in Antarctica
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  •  Info created by Alan R Light - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by TheBigBookOfNaturalScience -- TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Support Guessing that you may want fast feedback :–): A great find, these clouds are so beautiful and the silhouette of the hills with the radome is nice, too. At first glance I was not sure about the authenticity of the colours, but the category contains similar (and even more colourful) examples. The previous version was too small for a FP, but luckily the Flickr page provides a higher resolution, so I have re-uploaded the full resolution. Now remains the question if that 2009 photograph is sharp enough, but given the fact that cloud photographs always look a bit soft the quality is decent, IMHO. (Maybe somebody wants to carefully reduce the colour noise and to gently sharpen the contours.) --Aristeas (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
     Comment -- There is more that I have prepared to nominate, but due to the amount of pictures you can nominate at a time, I'll have to wait until July 19. I now try to pick images that have a good background and foreground and are high-quality. A lot were either all cloud or very sparse. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Improved version uploaded Dear reviewers @Alan R Light, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience, Aristeas, Harlock81, El Grafo, and SHB2000: In order to enhance the image, I removed the mentioned flaws such as the noise, posterization and CA's. Additionally I applied a gentle sharpening and contrast editing. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Lovely! SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for having informed us. I confirm my support of course. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive capture! Thanks to TheBigBookOfNaturalScience for the nomination and Aristeas to research a higher resolution on Flickr. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment And thank you, Radomianin, for improving the image! This is exactly what I wanted to suggest above. Have replaced my ws by s above. --Aristeas (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Clouds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2023 at 15:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A flock of sheep in China
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
  •  Info Original created and uploaded by Azonesa - Edited derivative by -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support This is another find from Wiki Loves Foklore. The purely technical quality might not be pixel perfect, but the perspective and the light and colors make it exceptional for me. I hope you agree that this is one of our finest. -- Kritzolina (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support This is one of my favourites, too; the simple elegant shape has some abstract beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good luck. 20 upper 08:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support educational. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 17:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'm sorry, but the blue CA on the sheep is just not working for me.* Support Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Derivative created Modifications: Chromatic aberrations removed, gentle denoising and sharpening applied. Dear reviewers @Kritzolina, Aristeas, 20 upper, SHB2000, MZaplotnik, XRay, GRDN711, ArionEstar, and Daniel Case: Thanks very much for your helpful review, Daniel. Since the image is participating in the current Wiki Loves Folkore 2023 contest, I have created a derivative. The link of this existing nomination I have changed to the derivative version. I also had to re-name the nomination page. Sorry for mass pinging, but it seems necessary in this case. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your help and for the thoughtful way you went about improving without disturbing other processes! Kritzolina (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, this is a very welcome improvement! --Aristeas (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 13:28:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
  •  Info Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town (for image notes, please see the file description page). Created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive high-resolution panorama of the picturesque old town of Sion with its two castle hills. Sharpness is high, you can study even fine details of the castle etc., and there is only a very low amount of heat distortion (which is often hard to avoid above cities). – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wow! It's a great view, but for me it's a little too dark and perhaps some more contrast could be added. I see that the author is only active with uploads, so perhaps you Aristeas could make some corrections and present an 'Alt' (not an overwrite!). I saw that you made good recommendations on a previous nom (I hope it's not too much trouble to ask you). --Cart (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • * Support Per Cart. Great photo but a little dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Alternative version I like it better.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this version in favor of the brighter. (A decisive vote for one of the versions makes it easier to evaluate the outcome of the nom). --Cart (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version

[edit]

Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town.

  •  Support @W.carter, Cmao20, Famberhorst, and Poco a poco: Cart and Famberhorst are right that the original is a little too dark and could use a bit more contrast. This is an attempt to improve it. After the brightening the background, esp. the sky, looked pale and yellowish, so I have added some more contrast and blue saturation to restore it. By the way I stumbled over some small stitching errors (sigh) near the bottom margin and have tried to mitigate them. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry to put you through so much trouble, but Many Thanks, this looks great now. --Cart (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this version. -Terragio67 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Also fine to me Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Honestly I have no preference Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Both versions look great, but this one is even better! --Osmo Lundell hey 01:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 03:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Successful improvements for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Famberhorst. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support very beautiful and detailed.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Majestic view --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The view is incredible, and the lights are better handled in this version! --PierreSelim (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support But previous version is ok for me too. --Rbrechko (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2025 at 14:27:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A metal ladder in the building pit for a bank building in Hof, Bavaria, with a little snow.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
  •  Info A metal ladder in the building pit for a bank building in Hof, Bavaria, with a little snow. Created and originally uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531; cropped, slightly retouched and nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support When I saw PantheraLeo1359531’s photo of the building pit, I immediately liked its restrained beauty and quiet melancholy. The curved line between the open, vertical earth wall and the snow-covered excavation below is elegant, the light snow gives the picture a delicate feel that contrasts with the raw soil, and the ladder leading into nothingness adds a touch of Magritte. I proposed this square crop and a little bit of retouching to focus the image even more on the essentials, esp. the ladder, and PantheraLeo1359531 has approved it. Now we are curious for your opinions ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Minimalist composition with strong vertical balance. The ladder contrasts strikingly with the warm earth and the snow-covered ground. Subtle textures and natural colors enhance the surreal atmosphere. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Oh yes! Minimalism. Good pick. --Cart (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per the square version. --Terragio67 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Huge thanks to Aristeas for this pick :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Obviously excellent Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 19:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support simple yet pleasing. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Other objects in landscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2022 at 19:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Gyakar village in the Mustang region of Nepal
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info Excellent detail and beautiful contrast of the autumn colours of the village with the arid hills and snowy Himalaya. And the bridge on the gorge! Simply gorgeous. (edit: no pun was intended) Created and uploaded by Jmhullot - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Beautifully layered and 3-dimensional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tightly framed; mountains are too close to the top edge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, indeed a bit more sky would make the photo even more attractive ;–) What do you (all) think: Would it be ethically OK to add a little bit more (artificial) sky? The sky is almost featureless, so adding some artificial sky would not adulterate the photo. To make clear what I mean I will try to create and upload an ‘amended’ version; if you don’t like the result, we can just revert it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Here’s my two cents: I actually don’t mind the top crop (imo it is sufficient except maybe in the top left corner, where the highest peak is a bit close to the edge). Idk if this makes sense, but I kinda think of the mountains as part of the sky. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment A good view. Well, => here is a variant with a little bit more (artificial) sky added. (After some consideration I have uploaded it under a new name because the added sky may be seen as a serious change.) What do you think? Is this better or worse? Would we need even more sky? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    I like it, but then again it’s just more empty space. I’ll add it as an alt. :) UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo is indeed cropped too much at the top. But for me this is a special photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan and Famberhorst. --Aristeas (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — I prefer the alternative version, but this one is good, too ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452385 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I go for the alt version Poco a poco (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also prefer the alternative version --Lupe (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Alt

  • Thanks to Aristeas for a very well-done edit. Version with more sky added in. I  Support both versions, since to me the crop is too inconsequential to the image as a whole. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit better, but not a real photo in a way. I don't think there's that big a difference, though I like the slight increase in sky in this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Even better. Yann (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Added sky. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support No big difference, of course, but a bit more room to “breathe” for the mountains. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better. I see nothing wrong with adding sky as long as the end result is an faithful representation of reality. After all, we do promote modern drawings, which are completely artificial additions to a blank canvas. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor edit and it's documented, this version is better Poco a poco (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm inclined to agree with Diego/Poco (not sure which you prefer outwith the file pages). Some edits are much less... dangerous? than others. Flat sky colour is one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Princess Rosalina 💄 452800 08:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support the edit is documented and this version with added sky is better --Lupe (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive, fine capture. The added sky is a clear plus to the overall impression. Any edit that supports a nomination is an important input. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Nepal
The chosen alternative is: File:View on Gyakar (edited).jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2022 at 20:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Oppose as is. I might well support if the edits Daniel suggested are made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that :( JukoFF (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The mountains are amazing; however, I'm okay with there being a bit of a blurry area in the foreground but this is just too much Cmao20 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @JukoFF, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Cmao20: I have created a simple cropped version: File:Tolbachik (cropped).jpg. What do you think? Is it better? Should we crop more or less? (IMHO it’s difficult to determinate the best bottom crop in this case; we must include at least a part of the unsharp foreground.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 Comment That's a whole lot better, but I'm not sure whether I'd vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I would vote for this version. Cmao20 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Cmao20: Thank you very much for your comments! OK, so it seems reasonable to provide this one as alternative version … --Aristeas (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Aristeas: , thank you so much for your responsiveness! JukoFF (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Support The cropped version accentuates the horizontals better and emphasizes the impressive features of the landscape. --Aristeas (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Llez (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Veikk0.ma (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --IamMM (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Russia#Far Eastern Federal District
The chosen alternative is: File:Tolbachik (cropped).jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2022 at 06:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé, France)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
  •  Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Works for me. Interesting shapes, and the angle and composition work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition and light, shows the situation of the castle and allows at the same time to study many details of it. --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan and Aristeas In favor of edited version Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disturb: this is nice, but is it one of the most outstanding images here? For example, the light could be more interesting, there are almost no shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Uoaei1. This is a good QI but a bit too straightforward to be featured. The light is flat, colours a bit on the cold side. Good quality but not that outstanding for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Very weak oppose Everything right and OK with this but it deserves stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I think that the photo is actually quite good, what could be better is the processing (e.g. the while balance is a bit cold). It would be easy to improve this if we had a raw image file, but even on base of the JPEG file some optimizations seem possible. I have uploaded a somewhat experimental editing; it may be overdone or too weak, depending on personal taste, but would you consider this (or a similar editing) as an improvement? Maybe together we can find a solution which mitigates some of the critique and makes you re-consider the image. Just wanting to help, --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Supplement: This editing is also based on my personal memory of that castle; it’s more than 10 years that I was there, but I remember the red sandstone walls to be quite colourful, therefore I have emphasized that colour a bit more. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, seems that it doesn’t work without a ping, sorry. @Gzen92, Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, Urban Versis 32, and Milseburg: Would you also support the edited version? @Uoaei1, Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, and Kruusamägi: Could you please take a look at the edited version and comment whether it would mitigate your reservations about this photo or not? Thank you very much! Additional hints about how to improve the edited version further are very welcome. I am sorry for the extra work this means, but before considering to offer an edited version as an alternative some feedback would be useful. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Definitely much more wow on the edited version. --Kreuzschnabel 07:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The edited version is much more vivid. If it's true to life, I'd support making the change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your feedback, Kreuz, Ikan and Kruusamägi! So it seems reasonable to offer the edited photo as alternative version – please see below. I hope it is OK for you, Gzen92, that I edit your nomination and add the alternative; I just want to help a bit. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, the picture is really better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

*  Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I prefer now the new version. --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The image is good, but for FP, I'd expect more intriguing light conditions. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I do like the edited version. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative version

[edit]

Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé, France) – edited version

  •  Support The edited version brings out the quality of the photo better and is still true to life. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I support this version, the careful editing has helped to bring out the best of it --Kritzolina (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Looks better, but now a bit oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Much more vibrant than the orig, per Aristeas and Kritzolina. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2020 at 18:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Staircase and skylight of the Colombischlössle in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  •  Info I like how the photographer has combined diagonal and orthogonal lines, bright and dark areas, interior and exterior (blue sky) to an image which expresses both dynamics and rest, bound together by symmetry. This photo won the 1st price at Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Germany. Created and uploaded by Martin Kraft – nominated by Aristeas (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info The Colombischlössle (“little Colombi castle”) was built around 1860 in Gothic revival style as a widow’s residence for Duches Maria Antonia Gertrudis von Zea Bermudez y Colombi. The stairwell with its glass cupola roof has been preserved in its original state.
  •  Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I saw last year's cell phone won. --Mile (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 08:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --StellarHalo (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Solid FP --Wilfredor (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Balabinrm (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Benh (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 23:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2020 at 11:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Marktkirche, Wiesbaden, Germany
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •  Info Interior of the Marktkirche in Wiesbaden, Germany. The Marktkirche was built in 1853–1862 as a prestigious Nassauer Landesdom and therefore decorated with all the artistic means of the Gothic Revival style (mixing in some elements from other styles). Created and uploaded by DXR – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Of all the fine church interior photos DXR has contributed to WLM 2020 I was particularly impressed by this one. It captures the dreamlike, somewhat unreal atmosphere of this church, and at the same times reproduces the beautiful details sharp and in high resolution. -- Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Big wow. So clean that it looks computer generated. What a pity with the labels on the benches. - Benh (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Unbelievable good resolution and quality. Clear support --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some colour fringes on windows (red in the middle, and blue at the right) need to be fixed. --A.Savin 15:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure they are the stained glasses' own colour. - Benh (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Are they? Unfortunately I could not find detailed photos of these windows anywhere, but if so, why are there no stained glasses on the left window too? --A.Savin 17:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I cannot answer the last question (seems that this was just the choice of the artist), but I also think that the windows, while being more or less transparent or gray for the most part, have a coloured border, red for the windows in the middle, blue for the windows on the right; it is better to see at the right. --Aristeas (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the source files and indeed, the colours are not fringing, but rather faint elements of the stained glass, framing the larger clear parts of the windows. As far as I can see, the left side has virtually no such framing, while in the centre it is clearly red and blue on the right side. --DXR (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, seems fair enough to me. --A.Savin 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. A superb photo of a beautiful interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Many thanks for the nomination; Aristeas! --DXR (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent image --Tagooty (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, this was on my list to nominate. Cmao20 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Buidhe (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 08:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
  •  Info Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome. Created and uploaded by Maksim Sokolov – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info There is already a similar FP of the same building made by the same photographer. But despite the similar perspective, the two photos have a very different character; the light makes the difference. In this shot, it creates the hard triangular shadows that vary harmoniously because of the curvature of the façade.
  •  Support A strong semi-abstract monochrome photo. I love the contrast between the sharp triangles and the gentle curvature of the façade, underlined by the contrast between the hard shadows and the soft shades of grey. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas. This light is different and better served by monochrome. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this better than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --IamMM (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support :-) --XRay 💬 17:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 09:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aerial view of the Altenburg in Bamberg at sunset
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
  •  Info Aerial view of Altenburg castle in Bamberg, Germany during sunset. Created and uploaded by Ermell – nominated by me, --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support When I saw this photo I knew I had to nominate it ;–). So much atmosphere! I was flabbergasted how Ermell has mastered to position the drone in the right moment exactly so that the sinking sun is shining through the windows of the tower. And at the same time it is a very valuable overview of the castle and it’s situation. For a drone photo taken in that difficult contre-jour situation, the technical quality is really good. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe sharpening has gone a bit too far, but nevertheless FP to me. --Ivar (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Neutral This picture transmits a feeling of artificiality, owing to the overall greenish tone. It could be that these colours are natural, but I very much doubt it. Look, for example at the sky and the upper part of the walls. I suppose it can be fixed though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review! I did consider the greenish tone of the walls as natural because walls in the shadow often have not only a bluish, but also a little greenish tint; probably the effect is emphasized here by the contrast with the bright red/yellow colours of the sunset. However a little test shows that moving the colour balance by about 10% from green towards magenta may actually improve the image (of course that makes the sunset even more shining ;–). I guess that Ermell will come up with a real solution and ask for your patience. Sorry that I could not resist nominating this image as soon as I saw it ;–). Thank you all, --Aristeas (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Aristeas (talk) and also with Alvesgaspar (talk). Fantastic and it´s the perfect moment, but the white balance is too green and the color too saturated. I vote with pro when this is fixed. Je-str (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Most well-done aerial shots look good, partly because we are not used to see such things. This one is a fine photo from that perspective. But this one looks over-processed to me, which makes me withhold for now -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The fresh leaves always look oversaturated at this time of year. I have reduced the green a little and hope that is ok. Thank you very much for your support.--Ermell (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: I don't think doing a selective saturation reduction on the greens is the right move here. You can still see the green tint at the top of the sky, which shouldn't be this color. I would shift the WB more towards the magenta side, and maybe saturation won't need to be reduced by so much as a result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • --Ivar (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 11:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tree silhouettes on the Uetliberg (Zurich) with November fog and sunrays
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
  •  Info Tree silhouettes at the Uetliberg (Zurich, Switzerland) with November fog and sunrays. Created and uploaded by Kuhnmi, nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Such “trees in the fog with sunrays” scenes are nothing new, but I consider this one as particularly beautiful. The colours, the tree silhouettes and the light make it very atmospheric and charming. I wish November days were always so enjoyable ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Strong support I had come across this last year while sorting "Clouds in ..." images down to "Clouds and blue sky in ...". I left a tab with it open with the intent of nominating it for QI, something I haven't done much of lately. It got it, and my next goal was to nominate it here.

    It's always a delightful surprise to learn you weren't alone in this assessment.

    What I also like about it is its country of origin: Switzerland, which despite so much beautiful scenery isn't the first country you'd imagine this one coming from. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support — Rhododendrites talk |  20:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas and Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Really striking and good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 08:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I was sure it was XRAY 😂 --Commonists 12:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --A.Savin 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --IamMM (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support. Hulged (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
[edit]

Along the River During Qingming Festival 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac, Quebec city, Canada.jpg (delist), delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 06:24:02
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photomontage - Château Frontenac, Quebec city, Canada
  •  Info Fake image. Heavily altered photograph, making it look like a Disney dreamy castle. Look at this 🌘 purple sunset ✨️, is that not extraordinary? I think many people like me have been fooled by this nomination, as nothing indicated the manipulation here nor in the file page, before my misleading support.
This picture has been uploaded on Commons without any mention of the fake background, neither in the file name, nor in the description, nor in the categories, and has certainly been nominated by Ikan Kekek in good faith, at this stage.
But oddly, it is a colorful sunset associated to a photo taken at 14:06, early afternoon, according to exif metada, a few minutes before this picture with similar shadows, this skyline, the same castle, same day at 16:42, and from another angle at 16:29.
The day after my vote, a template has been added saying "Retouched picture - The image was taken with the combination of 3 images at different times of the day". Was a tripod used here? Here is the building just 16 minutes later (same light, and very likely overprocessed photo). And look at this other incredible pink sunset taken same day at 16:30 in the afternoon. Is it real? Does anything indicate "fake", "retouched", "photomontage" or else in the current version? Is the sky similar to this one, taken just one minute before? How many fakes are there like those?
And how far did the cheating go? Following this fake of unreal building by the same author, discovered this year just by chance, nominated for delisting by A.Savin and leading to distrust among many of us, Aristeas requested from Wilfredor "Please check your featured pictures one by one. Are there more of them which were created artificially or were manipulated heavily? If yes, then please list these photos (and only these) here and we can discuss how to proceed with them". Wilfredor answered with a few links showing very minor retouches and wrote "In some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way." Why has this problematic FP been hidden in January 2024? We could have discussed the case earlier.
It is such an incredible view with vivid colors and extraordinary purple sky, it is no surprise that the image reached the 8th position among the thousand candidates at the Picture Of The Year (2020). But which position the real photo would have reached with no artificial sunset? And was the category appropriate? I don't think so. It is very obvious that if you add a rainbow, a full moon, a fantastic cloud, or anything spectacular in a picture, the wow factor is more likely to fascinate people, especially if your candidate is accepted at FPC. On the original nomination, Poco wrote "the result is great" but I have strong doubts the reviewing people really know which kind of picture exactly they had under the eyes. At least my own vote would have been an explicit {{Oppose}}, and perhaps other people would have discussed before taking another decision. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

* Keep The sky is a bit purpleish ok, but the light on the buildings is beautiful. Photography is not only about realism. If the sky seems to be a bit "fantasy", it's not a problem to me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  •  Info It is not "a bit purpleish", it is totally different from what it was in reality. See the other pictures taken at the same time. And here, I suspect a huge modification, not just a minor local change. Moreover, everything should have been crystal clear from the beginning on the file page and in the file name. This is not "a bit fantasy", in my opinion. It's just completely impossible, once you check everything carefully. Similar case. Also "a bit fantasy"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think the two are similar cases because in that image the added northern lights were a huge (if not main) component of the picture, whereas the sky in this image is not the main component, the autumn view of the castle is. And in this case the modification was not hidden, it was duly declared on the file page as well as the nomination page (albeit a bit late but it still received 10 +support votes even after the declaration). The main contention with this image is if the declared modification was indeed the real modification, or if the sky came from a completely different place. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did have the impression this picture was an 'artistic' rather than realistic depiction at the time after reading Wilfredor's reply to Poco a Poco's comments, so I am not too troubled by it. However, it would have been nice if you'd been a bit more open about the manipulations made at the time, Wilfredor. Can you clarify for me how taking three exposures at different times of day produced this kind of effect? I'd like to know, partly out of interest as this technique is new to me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment +1. This is a very interesting case (to put it neutrally for now). Already during the nomination Daniel Case understood this photo as a “combination of different times of day” and called it “not so much a retouched image as a composite”. But we still do not know exactly if this is correct, or if maybe totally unrelated photos have been combined here. Therefore like Cmao20 I would be eager to learn how exactly this picture has been created. – Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hmm, i think i put S that time. Simple, Wilfredor can you upload original somewhere ? If "you havent" i must oppose. Colors are more pastel, if some vibrance added thats fine. Let see first. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist I recall that these were three separate images: two long-exposure shots of the sky taken at different times to clear the clouds, and another of the castle with a shorter exposure to capture the trees clearly. Unfortunately, I no longer have the raw files or the Photoshop project used to merge the building with the sky. At that time, I didn't think it was necessary to explain the process, nor did I anticipate that such edits might be controversial. I now understand the importance of providing more details. I just got home from work, which is why it took me a while to respond, but I'm fully prepared to clarify any concerns you may have about this or any other image. BTW, In the future, ping me to know what people are talking about me, I always go through FPC but I could miss some discussion. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your vote, Wilfredor. The standard page for the delist process does not seem formatted to ping the photographers, contrary to a standard nomination page. There is just a transcluded code supposing to link to the original nomination. According to the light, it looks like the sky has been cut and pasted around the castle. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral leaning towards keep; the modification was declared at the time of nomination and did not receive any opposition then, but as Aristeas has pointed out, we don't know if the modification was limited to what was declared only. It comes down to whether or not Wilfredor is telling the truth above, and for the time being I'm choosing to assume good faith and believe them, until someone gives me enough reason not to. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info 1) First, some modifications have been mentioned during the voting process, after 12 positive votes, not from the beginning as it should have been. Nothing was indicated at the start, and many of us may have missed this part. Thus, the start could have been totally different, and have given another orientation to the debate. As everybody know, it's always more difficult to invert a tendency where there is already a clear consensus. 2) Secondly, even if some reviewers noticed the modification, it is very improbable they were aware of what exactly / how far the photomontage was (because no way to compare). Taking 3 pictures at 18:00, 18:05 and 18:10 is totally different than taking three pictures at 14:00, 17:00 and 19:00. And does the sunset sky even come from the same day?? 3) As long as we don't have the original photos / real pictures under the eyes, it seems extremely difficult for us to figure out what would be the real sky. The closest we can imagine is this sky with burnt clouds apparently taken 2 hours later. The light of the building is different, but the sky may have been similar. 4) It is supposed to be a realistic image, giving faithful representation of the place, under realistic weather conditions. At least the picture competed in such category, and not in Composites and Montages (like this transparent creation for example). The discussion should have been oriented around this dreamy aspect, instead of taking us by surprise, or even misleading us. There are weird elements in the purple sky of this picture taken same day, inside the bell tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment According to the picture (check the road markings) and to google street view it looks like the picture was taken from the middle of the road. To achieve a true combination of 3 separate photos with different lightings the camera would need to be on a tripod (so that all pictures are taken from the exact same place with exact same framing to avoid inconsistencies when assembling) but the tripod would need to stay on the middle of the road and of the driving cars for an extended period which seems difficult/impossible. Also, this picture seems downsized to 2858x2960 pixels (this other photo from the same camera and place has 4 times more resolution : 5929x5304 pixels). The fact that the picture was downsized makes it difficult to zoom in to search for inconsistencies. Could you please upload the full resolution picture Wilfredor and also enlighten us on how you made to keep a tripod on the middle of the road for an extended period? Thank you in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Also, maybe it's just a wrong impression of mine but when looking at the picture at thumbnail size it looks like to me that the sky is brighter all around the castle as if some editing happened there (but maybe it's just an exposure brush). Is it me or was that area edited? Thank you in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    There is a small island where a tripod can be placed in the middle of the street. The street was lightly trafficked by vehicles and, in fact, there were very few people. Unfortunately, I do not have the RAW files of this photograph, as four years ago I did not give sufficient importance to backing up these files. However, in recent months I have started to do so, as this facilitates the verification and execution of future retouching. Wilfredor (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I saw the small island on street view but when you look at the markings on the road we can see that you were on the middle of the crosswalk and not on the small island. The point of view from the small island would be to have the sidewalk from the left of your picture in front of you and not the road. Also if you would have been on the small island this tree would cover even more the building (look at the tree on the left) as it does from this streeview perspective closer to the island but not yet on it which is not the case in this photo (look at the tree on the left) and indicates that you were not on the small island.
    Even if you don't have the original raw, maybe you have the jpg of the 3 unedited shots that you used to assemble? Or if that's all you have can you show us the three edited shots that you assembled so that we can better understand the editing process? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
+1 with Giles about the impression of brightness around the castle, at thumbnail size, as if the sun(set) was behind. Whereas the sun is supposed to be on the left, according to the shadows. Does this sky come from a totally different picture? Also agree that the drastically downsized resolution makes the search for inconsistencies more difficult. Thanks for your help. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The Nikon D7200 has a maximum image resolution of 6000 x 4000 pixels. The image you are trying to compare has a resolution of 5929 x 5304 pixels, which exceeds the capability that this camera can generate on its own. This leads me to believe that it is a composite photo made from several images. I do not recall having downsized it; perhaps I cut . Additionally, there are details that are really difficult to remember, as this photo was taken four years ago and I typically capture thousands of images each year. Remembering a specific detail is not easy, but it is evident that such a resolution is not possible with the Nikon D7200 without combining multiple images Wilfredor (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Both this picture and this picture have been taken from the same distance of the castle. And this picture was even shot at 32mm which is a bigger zoom than the 26 mm used on this picture (so the 32mm picture should have building windows appearing bigger than in the 26mm shot). When you zoom in on both pictures at full size you can clearly see that the one on the left was downsized because everything is way smaller (compare the windows for example) when in reality the windows should have been bigger on the left than on the right because a bigger zoom was used on the image on the left. Even if this picture is a panorama, stitching images together to create a panorama won't give more resolution to each window on the building. Also this picture is much sharper than the other one, which is something that always happens when a picture is downsized. So it looks like to me that this picture is very likely downsized -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist , I guess, per creator's wishes, but I still don't really understand how this picture was made or to what extent it is manipulated/artificial. Giles Laurent's questions make me even more confused. If this picture had been presented as an artistic photomontage in the first place I'd still have voted for it, btw. But I'm not sure I can trust it anymore. Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    The skies were combined into multiple layers using Photoshop, adjusting the transparency percentage of each to achieve a harmonious fusion. Subsequently, this composition was integrated with the photograph of the castle and the clouds. I mention this not with the intention of changing your opinion, but simply to provide a detailed explanation. I think that if you look for things there will always be theories of what could have been, what was not and supposedly incongruous things, and as Mile said, in the absence of a RAW that proves it, my word will not convince, so I suggest making a list of this and any image of mine that does not have a supporting RAW. I myself am not voluntarily nominating any more Featured Pictures. I sincerely feel that this process is demeaning. Wilfredor (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If the sun is setting on the left, should not the sky be brighter on the left too, like in this picture? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist  --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will be leaving FPC indefinitely. So, I'll let you decide this. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment My opinion is that we should delist this FP, not to punish anyone, but to support faithful and credible photos, while encouraging photographers who are transparent about their works, supposed to be among the finest here at FPC. I want to add that, as Aristeas cleverly pointed out in a previous delist nomination, we are all here also to blame a little. "Obviously nobody (including yours truly) has ever looked closely at it. If we had, it would have been too easy to recognize that something is wrong here." [...] "we should try to learn something from this". To remain optimistic, this last promoted FP by Wilfredor (September) probably undergone a normal processing (only RAW will tell). -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep, unnecessary obvious and pitiful wikihounding. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment To anyone possibly concerned, per CANVASS, please do not suddenly pop up on this nomination after many days without guenuily reviewing other standard nominations. This is not someone / people's trial, it's just the fair fate of a photo whose status is unknown in advance. Regular contributors here know that my original intention was to do something different to solve the problem with this image. But the fact is that I was encouraged by several to follow the standard process. They finally conviced me it is the necessary step to go ahead. Thank you. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    No need to whisper, I'm not myopic. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist If the picture had been classified as a photomontage from the beginning, and all the steps had been clearly documented, this de-listing would never have happened. The documentation would have also included the images from which the composite was created. I am sorry Wilfredor, but the undisclosed manipulations discovered by other users have damaged your good reputation. In my opinion, you are an outstanding photographer who does not need to gain kudos with undocumented manipulations. We have to be honest with each other in this forum, anything else leads to additional poisoning, of which we have already had far too much here. Honesty is the best policy. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. Yann (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yann You need to actually vote {{Delist}} for your vote to be counted. The +1 and writing delist in the edit summary doesn't work for the FPC Bot or people closing the nomination. --Cart (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. My "+1" relates to Radomianin's comment. I am confused what to vote. This is a nice picture, but the undisclosed manipulations bring bad feelings. Yann (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist Now i read about "Caracas building", i was mislead there too. Now, how to trust your future nomines, without original...--Mile (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist Best solution. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist as viewers were deceived in FPC and POTY. It ran out of control, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reluctant  Delist not because it shouldn't be a FP -- I think it should -- but because process is important. Just be as clear as you can with the {{Retouched}} template so as not to leave any lingering questions and nominate with that in place. If you forget to do so, it's important to ping everything who supported up to that point. IMO this should still be a FP, but it should undergo a new nomination once full information is provided on the file page. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, everyone, for the reviews and various opinions. For the record, the Caracas building has been renominated last January, but didn't pass. About composite and montage pictures in general (not especially this one), perhaps we can suggest to 1) carefully choose the relevant galleries, 2) be in possession of the original photos (at least the JPG versions) so as to be able to talk transparently about the presented works, 3) maintain a standard resolution (no downsized pictures for example) in line with the present time, displaying enough pixels so as to compete with the very best images of the same kind. Now my personal opinion about this castle with colorful trees is that the original photo should have been able to be promoted with no major modification (because we can see the light is special somewhere). But perhaps the clouds were burnt with blown highlights at the beginning, something impossible to fix afterwards. In that case that would have been a technical issue (all photographers ever met this situation). But we learn from past errors, and we can improve by practicing. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delist . Commons deserves better --A.Savin 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As some of you might know, this church picture was delisted and was a POTY finalist that achieved rank 4 in POTY 2022. There is a discussion ongoing to know how the case should be handled regarding POTY (disqualification or not, note added on POTY 2022 results page or not, removal of award or not and how to spell things in each case). The decision to disqualify the picture belongs to the POTY committee but everyone is invited to participate in that discussion and give it's opinion. An easy way to do so is by voting here (and everyone is free to add new alternative voting options). I am saying this here because this castle picture was also a POTY finalist so the POTY committee will also need to make a decision regarding this castle picture. But since each situation should be handled on a case-by-case analysis, the outcome will not necessarily be the same one than the church picture (but it could be the same outcome). Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral → delisted. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:The Kaaba during Hajj (edited).jpg (delist), delisted

[edit]

Visit the nomination page.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2025 at 06:43:09

 Info: Reasons to delist:

  • Wrong nomination and upload made by Aliphotography sockpuppet of indef blocked user ArionStar. See the original nomination here;
  • High compression rate and quality reduced (only 5.76 MB instead of 21.09 MB for the new version);
  • Non standard profile "Display P3" instead of the original "sRGB IEC61966-2.1".

Technical improvements made from the original photo taken by Adli Wahid, in addition to the consensual crop suggested by Fernando and SHB2000:

  • Tilt fixed, perspective improved in accordance with COM:I (check the left side of the Kaaba and the pillar on the right side of the picture for example);
  • Chromatic aberration reduced / removed around the light spots;
  • Minor noise reduction made with Topaz Denoise AI;
  • Very slight sharpening (unsharpened version also available in the history of the file page);
  • Improved file page presentation, better categorization, addition of wikisource. (More suggestions welcome);
  • Original profile restored.

Notifications to the previous participants: @Cmao20, SHB2000, Aristeas, BigDom, MZaplotnik, VulcanSphere, Terragio67, Thi, Famberhorst, and Yann: -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace due to involvement with ArionStar sock. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Poco a poco (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Better version Cmao20 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Perfect now. Terragio67 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Better. MZaplotnik(talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Better. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Thank you very much for the improvements, Basile! – Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace I join Aristeas in thanking Basile Morin for the improvements. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral → delisted. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 15:02:43
City landscape painting Current

City landscape painting Proposed

  •  Info I'm proposing the current image file to be superseded by File:Along the River During the Qingming Festival (Qing Court Version).jpg. The new image file is larger in size as well as clearer and higher in quality, in which smaller details are better discernible. It maintains the colors as given by the museum source. There's no digital manipulation of the source files in the new image file, besides stitching several image files together (of which the image files fit next to each other as is) and resizing into a smaller size (so that it met the upper upload limit). Uploaded by me; stitched and resized by me, from the source files by the National Palace Museum.
(Original nomination)
  •  Delist and replace as the one proposing it. -- Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Agreed, the new version is much better. The people and animals can now be seen clearly and there are no stitching errors that I can see.--Peulle (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace per nomination ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 22:34:31

Current

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Proposed

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info (Original nomination)
  •  Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace - Disturbing ghosts in both, but the second version is far superior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace The new version is perspectively corrected. --Granada (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace because of corrected projection. However, I like the slightly darker blue in the old version more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting... I never tried to tweak the projection of that one... Good job! - Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment worth mentioning what exactly was corrected IMO. Only the opposite side was. As far as I can see, the left and right were untouched, and neither was the ground. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace Although I do like that darker blue sky as well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Claus 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hmmm after a more thorough look, I'm seeing that the corners look a bit weird at full size... I wouldn't promote it but will keep neutral... - Benh (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Fischer.H (talk)
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg (delist), not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2025 at 22:32:50
Info

  •  Info Now superseded by the 108 gigapixel File:Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox.jpg (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg)
  •  Delist . The proposed replacement (a tile set at full-res) is the highest resolution image on Commons, AFAIK. The current image is about the size of one of the individual tiles. See Template:Tile set/Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox/grid -- JayCubby (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep I appreciate that Commons has always sought to host media in the highest resolution available, in order to provide maximum flexibility for reusers who might want to use our pictures for large prints or high-resolution displays. But I think there does come a point where this gets faintly ridiculous. Does anyone really need a 108,000 megapixel version of Girl with a Pearl Earring, showing details at a far, far finer level than the painter's original brushstrokes? What is that extra information useful for? By delisting the current one and replacing it with these tiles, we're saying that it isn't enough to have a 179 megapixel image (which is still extremely large and frankly already pretty absurd, but which can still be displayed as one file and which the average high-end computer has a decent chance of being able to display at full size). No, we need a 108,000 megapixel one, even though it can only be stored as a series of tiles (which are, even individually, impossible for most computers to display at full size) and thus has considerably less utility to end users than the current FP. Why exactly? Will we delist the 108,000 megapixel tiles when someone scans this painting at 200,000 megapixels? Where does this end? Isn't it just enough to have a good version of a painting at a sensible size that people might actually want to use? Why do I want to view a beautiful artwork at 500 times the magnification the artist intended, what worthwhile experience am I getting from this? Cmao20 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Cmao20,
    • What is that extra information useful for?
      • Why not? We host TIFF files which are ten times larger than JPEGs with little quality difference.
    • and which the average high-end computer has a decent chance of being able to display at full size
      • There's a much lower-resolution version, stitched from the 108 GP, at File:Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox.jpg, at 18,920 × 22,112 px. I forgot to mention that. I'll see if I can open it on my midrange computer.
    • Will we delist the 108,000 megapixel tiles when someone scans this painting at 200,000 megapixels?
      • Maybe. Would we delist a 5MP in favor of a 50MP scan? Probably. Why shouldn't the trend continue?
      • Why do I want to view a beautiful artwork at 500 times the magnification the artist intended, what worthwhile experience am I getting from this?
        • You don't have to zoom down to the micron-level. But at a high resolution, the brushstrokes can be analyzed, etc.
    Also, the proposed replacement image's colors seem more natural to me. JayCubby (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion just because the trend can continue doesn't mean that it should. Perhaps there is someone who can benefit from analyzing brushstrokes in extremely high detail but it is not likely to be the vast majority of users. I believe we should feature the version of a picture that is most useful to the widest number of people. Commons may choose to host these high-resolution 'tiles' if we think a niche interest wants to use them, but I don't see why the tiles should be the version we feature, there's no reason why 'more is better'. Cmao20 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Cmao20, that's a fair point. ZoomViewer has no issue with the half-gigabyte image. In your mind, which of the two versions has more accurate lighting and coloration? File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg or File:Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox.jpg? JayCubby (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Cmao20, and thank you for taking this issue with too big files head on. The monstrous file is good to have in the Commons archive for whenever someone feels the need for a CSI investigation of Vermeer's household lint embedded in the paint. However, for normal use on sites with the broadband speed we have today, the present FP is more than enough. I think that the file that is FP, should not only be the best but also the most useful version for wikis etc. Also I just wonder: "Now superseded by"? I don't see the {{Superseded}} or {{Supersedes}} anywhere. --Cart (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
    Again, File:Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox.jpg is roughly 2.5x the resolution of File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg, and the lighting is more natural (and therefore more useful?) (File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg is overexposed, which reduces its detail). File:Girl with a Pearl Earring - Hirox.jpg isn't a tile set, but the tile set is linked in the file description.
    I didn't tag with {{superseded}} or {{duplicate}} because it's a FP, and the proposed replacement has a different brightness. JayCubby (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Cart and Cmao20. Also replacement seems too dark compared to this version. Yann (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep per @Cmao20 and @Cart. In addition, I too find the colors are better on this version. -- ERcheck (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep. Images should be useful, but 50 GB is too large. It took a long time to upload it, and it will take a long time to download. The file page can always point to a higher res version. Glrx (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /--Cart (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg (delist), not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2025 at 04:25:39
Brazilian model, actress and television presenter Fernanda Lima with Rede Globo's six medals of nominations to the International Emmy Awards in 2012.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Closing as creating by a sockpuppeteer. Yann (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2025 (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.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54

Delist
Replace
Sectional maps
  • General overview of the Turgot map of Paris
    General overview of the Turgot map of Paris
  • The Turgot map of Paris in its assembled form
    The Turgot map of Paris in its assembled form


  •  Info (Original nomination)
  •  Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm a little confused here. Is the proposal here that we delist one sectional map and replace it with one sectional map plus two one-file maps? --cart-Talk 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • W.carter, that's why the new set is better. --Paris 16 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're proposing to delist a single file in favor of a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - You aren't showing an old set, only a single currently featured file that you want replaced with a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The old set is above.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Info @Ikan Kekek: , @Daniel Case: and anyone else interested. The whole sets are displayed above. The twenty images that each of the sets consists of are just displayed in a grid of thumbs instead of one after the other, so they make up what looks like one single "picture" in the nomination. Depending on which square you click on in the "picture", you will be directed to a different file. If you open the editing window, you can see the name of each file listed. This nom is about replacing the 20 files of the original set with a new set of 20 files + two new files: one file that is all of the set images put together in a single file and one file that is a simplified version of that "merged" file with just the streets and major features and not all the little houses drawn. --cart-Talk 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see. Thanks for explaining. The proposed substitution is better, even without considering the two additional files.  Delist and replace . Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --cart-Talk 09:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank W.carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace I'm in favour, having examined the maps in some detail. I love maps. I noticed a bit of a colour stain left of Rue d'Antin and below R. de Bourgogne - they should see to that. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above signature is apparently Daniel's. --cart-Talk 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delist and replace --Claus 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Info @Claus Obana: Please sign your vote to make it legit. --cart-Talk 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, W.carter.--Claus 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. cart-Talk 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 18:28:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka

Alternative version (denoised)

[edit]

Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka

  •  Support -- Kaim (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is more about the extraordinary pattern the lights make than viewing the people next to them. I'm astonished that so many people can create this in such an orderly fashion. I shudder at the chaos that would be if something like this was attempted in my country! --Cart (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very impressive capture! Many thanks to Cart for the improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the improvements, Cart, it makes a big difference! --Kritzolina (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I place my  seal of approval on the denoised version. JayCubby (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Have seen many intriguing photos of Rakher Upobash, but the quality is often a problem (no wonder given the difficult circumstances). Thanks to Cart’s denoising this one is now on the level it deserves. – Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cart's alt is good enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Compelling image because of the strong contrast between the darkness and the candle light, the broken straight lines at right angles with the square structure of the temple. And this is before looking at the image at full size and seeing the rows of people. Of course, in my warped mind, I imagine the devastation that could be wrought in such a gathering by just a single domestic feline. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    Lol! The "single domestic feline" had me cracking up! X-D --Cart (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2025 at 19:06:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate and broad facade at an industrial park in Hofer Land, Bavaria, Germany
  •  Oppose I agree, you're not yet there Poco a poco (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Request Dear PantheraLeo, here is a cropping suggestion that would eliminate the inconsistencies described above and clarify the composition: SwissTransfer-Link. If you like it, you are welcome to use the file for the update. By the way, I changed the color profile from AdobeRGB to sRGB, which actually offers the highest conformity for the web view when it comes to looking more or less the same on different devices or differently calibrated monitors. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your support :D, I uploaded the new file (see down below) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Crop fence above and put to 1/3 silver-white. Side could be also croped to stay on same format. --Mile (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this version. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Cmao20 has a point to prefer this version; I can’t refuse it at least weak support. – Aristeas (talk)

Alternative version (cropped)

[edit]

Gate and broad facade at an industrial park in Hofer Land, Bavaria, Germany

  •  Support --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you very much for the alternative proposal, it is even more convincing. Incidentally, the beautiful gradient of the facade draws the viewer’s attention even more strongly (I have withdrawn my vote for the first version in favor of this one). Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the original is much more interesting to me. Including the blue sky provides some context to the photo, and contrasts the oppressive surroundings of the industrial park with the promise of freedom under an open sky somewhere beyond the gate. Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks very good to me. You could consider changing the gallery to Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Minimalism, both galleries work. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Also 'pinging' previous voters about the alt: JayCubby, Poco a poco and PetarM (as should be done). --Cart (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beter option, i though format would be same, but good anyway. Good IQ. --Mile (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cool. Thanks to Cart, Radomianin and Mile for crop suggestions and help. – Aristeas (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 19:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Bavaria
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2025 at 09:52:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common wood pigeon on Norderney, Germany
  • Change to  Oppose this version in favor of the crop. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support A bit of a shame that the tail is out of focus for such a common bird, but very nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent composition and beautiful background for me. – Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- The background colors complement the mostly gray pigeon. The background is soft and makes the feather details pop in contrast. I saw a crop suggestion, and I think the top of the picture presents a slightly distracting element, but I do like the breathing room in front of the bird. It makes you wonder what it is thinking. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Info Cropped version excluding the (possibly distracting) sky in the background as suggested by Cart and A.Savin but keeping a little bit more space in front of the bird compared to the original crop suggestion. (Also pinging previous voters ERcheck, Stepro, Cmao20, Bijay Chaurasia,Needsmoreritalin)
  •  Support --Moheen (keep talking) 10:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Funny enough I actually like the background of the original version, but the cropped version is good, too. – Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely better. -- -donald- (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Btw, your 'ping' didn't work since you didn't sign the same edit where you mentioned all the previous voters. It's not enough just to mention people, the system needs your signature too to send the ping. --Cart (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
    Ahh, thanks, forgot about that --Stephan Sprinz (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 09:55:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Indian Peacock courtship display at Pench national park, Maharashtra.
thewanderersthirdeye, I forgot to say welcome to FPC. :-) I didn't realize you were new here. The easiest thing is to add it as an 'Alternative' to this nom. Because it's a reviewed QI, we can't simply upload the improved version over the old file per COM:OVERWRITE, that is otherwise an option for small changes. No need to withdraw and begin again. I will fix this for you, you can just look at my edits here on the nomination and remember how this is done for future references. You can also support the new alternative if you like, support both or strike the support for the original, it's up to you. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
  •  Info Icebergs floating on Inner Lake George below Colony Glacier in Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This place and its light is very much like the fjords in my own backyard. This photo looks over-processed to me, too much clarity (a common mistake when editing arctic scenes) and saturation, especially in the blue spectrum. --Cart (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Beautiful composition but I agree that the colours and clarity look a bit too much and this makes me see it as a little clichéd, I'd prefer a more modest process of this image. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since I really like the nature in this photo, I had a go at it. Sure enough, by "reverse engineering" some of the edits I was happy to find a very nice landscape underneath it all. Thankfully, not much of the colors and details had been lost in the original processing. Since glacier ice can be very blue, the glacier and ice floes retained their color even after some desaturation. Юрий Д.К, if you want to use the edited version as an 'Alternative', you'll find it at File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747), edited.jpg. I would support it. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I will support this version if someone adds it as an alt Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Agree that the editing has added a bit too much contrast/clarity, but nevertheless I cannot help to be impressed. Of course Cart’s version looks better to me, I would give full support to it if you could add it as an alternative version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 01:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tod Kimmelshue, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
  • Note: In light of the alternative, which I personally find superior in terms of expression and composition, I am withdrawing my vote for version 1. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Request At the same time, I find version 104A8815 from the same series even more compelling in terms of composition and expression. Though the eye is not quite as crisply defined, the overall presence feels stronger to me. Would you consider it as an alternative for the nomination? Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Seewolf (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this one. --imehling (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this one as well, crossed arms make subjects seem closed off to me. __UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Moheen (keep talking) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Thi (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ermell (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so striking pose. Would change compo in this, more up, or crop bottom. 2nd ver better. --Mile (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Info (c/u/n) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you very much for the alternate version, Frank - while the first image of the nomination now enjoys strong support (deservedly so), I'm happy to support this one as well. Both are excellent! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as well. – Aristeas (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ermell (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better than ver above. But EXIF could be better, aperture. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Mile] JukoFF (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2025 at 14:31:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Chapel of Saint Mary of the Snows, Kacwin
I would go with 'Places/Other' since everything except the mountains is agricultural fields with fences between them, and that is man-made land although covered with snow. --Cart (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I think Natural is a better category. The mountains are a big part of the picture, and the land, even if cultivated by humans is still Nature. Yann (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
It's the mindset that anything growing, cultivated or other, is 'Nature' that's got us in much of the mess the planet is in today. But that's a discussion for another time and place. --Cart (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Cart, please change it if you think that'd be for the best! You do a great job of organising the galleries and I won't insist on the gallery I initially chose if this one would fit better. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • {{s}} --Harlock81 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Disregarding the philosophical discussion, the composition is great and the landscape beautiful. Unfortunately there is a lot(!) of CA noise and chroma noise in it, and that's why I don't give it my full support. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yes I see what you mean but I wouldn't say a lot, it's there and visible mainly in the mountains in the background but I don't think it distracts from the composition and I don't find it noticeable except at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, it's in the chapel, trees and bushes too. I've made you a cleaned up version here. If you want it, you can do what you will with it. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Your version is pretty obviously better (well done). But I'm not sure of the ethics of replacing a picture when the author is unlikely to see the replacement or be able to assent to it (seems only to be active at WLM time). Cmao20 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    You can always make it an 'Alternative', but you have to do without me for a while. I twisted my knee on my walk through the forest this afternoon and it hurts like hell, so I'm grumpier than usual now and I obviously do not belong in polite society. Sorry! --Cart (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Many thanks for the well-done editing, Cart – and I am so sorry for the accident, get well soon! Well, IMHO we should not upload the improved version over the current one, and maybe even the author itself should better not do that: This photo won the 1st price of WLM 2024 in Poland, and because exactly that version won the price, major changes are a no-go according to COM:OW. (Unlike the current wording of that page, I think that noise removal is a major change because it is a global manipulation and significantly changes the appearance of an image; at least I would not overwrite any of my own local WLM or WLE winning images with additional noise reduction). But there is a simple solution which has been used for many other FP candidates: Please, Cmao20, upload the edited version as a new file, linking it to the original one with {{Derived from}}. Then you, Cmao20, can either offer it as an alternative version or (much simpler) just exchange the candidate here with the edited version – whatever you prefer. I would appreciate it very much if you could do the one or the other, because this is such a wonderful winter scene and now, thanks to Cart’s editing, much improved. – Aristeas (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oh no Cart, that sounds really painful - I'm so sorry to hear it. I've only just read the section about your accident. Please take all the time you need to rest and recover. We'll miss your presence, but your well-being comes first. Wishing you a gentle and speedy healing! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Painkillers rule! At least for some light voting and editing. No serious or complicated discussions though. ;-) --Cart (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Painkillers have also become my friends since the surgery, but please be careful that they don't do any harm in the end. I wish you a good recovery, especially that it doesn't get worse. All the best :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)


Alternative version

[edit]

The Chapel of Saint Mary of the Snows, Kacwin

  • Alternative version with colour noise removed, thanks to Cart (and hope you feel better soon).  Support and pinging Cart, Harlock81, Jakubhal, Aristeas, and Юрий Д.К, it would be appreciated if you could review the new version! Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, yes. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for Cart's improved alternative provided by Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support this version. I was going to oppose the original due to the obvious (but fixable) issues. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 23:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A wonderful scenery, now even better thanks to Cart’s editing – thank you for uploading and nominating, Cmao20! – Aristeas (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Even more for this version ---- Jakubhal 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support —Bruce1eetalk 06:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ZarlokX (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks Cart, and take care of your health. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice mood and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above with problems now fixed. --Cart (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Paracel63 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Poland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2025 at 07:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Woman sewing hand fans in Bangladesh
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •  Info created by Mahinur11 – uploaded by Mahinur11 – nominated by Kaim Amin -- Kaim Amin (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kaim Amin (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Editing quality could be better, but it's striking, unusual motif that makes you happy to view. I also like that your nominations have good descriptions and categories, that makes it easier for users who are searching for specific photos to find these. --Cart (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I think it is oversaturated (see the woman's face). I would support with less saturation. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    I think you are right. Any chance of fixing this Kaim Amin? --Cart (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I noticed the oversaturation too. I'll try to upload a fixed image. Kaim (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose until it is fixed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • { Support {--Ermell (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Somehow. Crop could be better, to put her head on up-left third, or , to remove sand border on both sides - crop or strecth size. --Mile (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC) p.S. Here, i would try this option too. @Kaim Amin
  •  Weak support Per Cart --Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in its current form. Mile's crop is definitely superior, and the saturation as pointed by Yann has also not been fixed. A renaming is also required for a more descriptive title. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    Too many issues as such, would support if all fixes are implemented. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting but could be improved, per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version (Saturation edited, cropped)

[edit]

Woman sewing hand fans in Bangladesh

Pinging again, Basile Morin, Ermell, JukoFF, MZaplotnik -- Kaim (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
PetarM, Shagil Kannur, UnpetitproleX, W.carter, Yann -- Kaim (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you, this is better. I've striked my vote above and moved it down here. For some reason I didn't get any 'ping' (I just came to have a look anyway) so let's hope it worked for the rest of the voters. Sometimes group pings to more than 5 users doesn't work here on Commons. If the others don't show up, you might have to make some new 'pings' in smaller groups. --Cart (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for letting me know. I pinged everyone again, not sure if it worked. Kaim (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Well Kaim Amin, the pings definitely didn't work this time. You can't use the same time stamp and just add people to it. A ping only works if you mention the person and sign it with a new time stamp in the same edit. This is a safeguard in the system to not having people pinged as soon as someone else edit a section. I have this page on my watchlist and that's why I saw this. --Cart (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, okay :) how about now? such a hassle actually. Kaim (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Nope, I didn't get any ping. Hope some of the others got through. And yes it is a hassle but I didn't design the system, I'm only trying to help you make this a successful nomination. --Cart (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    @W.carter, Nah it's okay. Thank you for helping. Kaim (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good improvement, many thanks for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dont see much improvement. 1st put her face on up-left third, and borders of sand on right side. Crop should be more approproate. --Mile (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral to this version, leaning support, the saturation still looks a bit unnatural to me; Yann's version here (this image) looks less odd imo. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Also, the ping did not work for me either. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice angle of view, interesting craft work. (Note I did not received the ping above) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the improvements. The person (and all three-dimensionality) gets almost lost in the colourful ornaments of the handmade fans, giving the photo a striking psychedelic touch. – Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better.(Note I did not received the ping above as well) --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work
The chosen alternative is: File:Woman sewing handfans.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2025 at 08:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saddleback clownfish (Amphiprion polymnus) in a Mertens' carpet sea anemone (Stichodactyla mertensii), Anilao, Philippines
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)
  •  Info Saddleback clownfish (Amphiprion polymnus) in a Mertens' carpet sea anemone (Stichodactyla mertensii), Anilao, Philippines. Note: we have no FPs of this species of clownfish. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment What a capture! The colours seem quite muted though: have I watched Finding Nemo too many times, and this specific species is not bright orange? -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    Apparently, clownfishes' color turns darker as they age. Nemo is obviously very young. ;-) But if you follow the category link for this kind of clownfish, you'll see that they are of a darker variety. --Cart (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    An this species is indeed darker than others as you can see here. Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
     Support Understood, thank you both! -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cart (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great sharpness on the clownfish and super high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very cool shot. Great detail and so many pixels on target too! --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Vulcan loves the detail! –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 15:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Cmao20 and Needsmoreritalin. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others, and also a nice composition. – Aristeas (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support – Terragio67 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2025 at 14:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A peacock butterfly on a cherry blossom.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionoidea#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
  •  Info created by Matejin – uploaded by Matejin – nominated by Matejin -- Matejin (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matejin (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hi Matejin and welcome to FPC. This is a nice composition and you have a good eye for a photo - thank you for uploading this useful image. However, I am afraid that the image quality is not FP level. The picture is quite noisy and the detail at pixel level is not very high - unfortunately I don't think whatever equipment you used is capable of producing an FP quality photo. Also the closest wing is not in focus. Perhaps have a look at some of the other butterfly FPs we have recently promoted in the gallery to get an idea of what works - additionally, it may be worth trying QIC first to get feedback on issues like image quality, noise etc. before jumping straight to FPC. One other thing, I note that this image is uncategorised. I'm going to add some categories for you on the file page - in future uploads it would be good if you could do that, so that people can find your image easily if they want to use it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2025 at 20:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Parastoo Ahmadi is an artist and singer from Iran. Her performance without hijab garnered widespread attention and she was arrested along with the musicians after the album was released, and her trial is ongoing.
  •  Support Nice compo and something very pleasant with this light, and the photo looks somewhat allegorical to freedom for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Yann. And I also agree with the suggestion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Janeklass (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support Yann's improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per above --Poco a poco (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark --Lupe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice portrait but no FP material and quite underexposed. --Fernando (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Christian; IMHO the subdued light seems to reflect the woman’s subdued mood. However I would also support Yann’s version. – Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Dear Ταπυροι, yes, you can suggest an alternative by adding the code
==== Alternative ====
[[File:Parastoo Ahmadi.jpg|500x320px]] to this nomination, like here. Then you'll see if there's a consensus. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women
The chosen alternative is: File:Parastoo Ahmadi.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2025 at 01:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Telefontornet in Stockholm, 1890.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1899
  •  Info Telefontornet, i.e. the old Stockholm telephone tower, the biggest of its kind at the time of its creation in 1887. Good image to describe what all the western world cities became at the end of the 19th century, with all these telephone cables swinging around in the air. Unfortunately there aren't any better quality of this image and this is the best one that shows clearly all the cables. // Taken by unknown photographer – uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard – nominated by LucaLindholm -- LucaLindholm (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- LucaLindholm (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • {{FPX}} low resolution (less than 2 megapixels) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This version was rightly FPX-ed by Basile due to low resolution (although it's cleaned up a bit and perspective corrected), but since this is a rather famous photo in Sweden, I've taken the liberty to add the original as an alt. It's large enough, but may require some restoration. I'll leave it up to voters here to review this, please revert if you want. --Cart (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Info Original version of the photo. I also made a very minimally edited version if you are interested. --Cart (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@W.carter, thanks so much for saving my nomination and even bringing up a bettered version. ;D -- LucaLindholm (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I uploaded a corrected version. Yann (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you too for your cooperation. ;) -- LucaLindholm (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It’s great that people work together in order to provide us with a decent version of this famous photograph! Many thanks to Cart and Yann. But IMHO the current state of affairs is a bit confusing. This “Alternative” section was labelled as “original version” by Cart, but the uploaded original version has already been overwritten by an edited one. So I am not sure about which version we are voting here and have to abstain. Wouldn’t it be better and clearer if we would upload edited versions of such historic photos under new filenames, keeping the original readily available (maybe marked as “archival version”)? – Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Excellent points Aristeas. I'll sort this out. The "original" wasn't even uploaded here under its proper name, so an “archival version” is totally called for. --Cart (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok Aristeas, I've fixed this in a way that will cause the least mess in the history of the different versions. We now have an archived original straight from the museum data base. I've put a template on it, so hopefully it will be left in peace now. While uploading from the museum, I also noticed that that version is 5.87 MB, whereas this Flickr version that Yann overwrote, was only 675 KB, resulting in a 1.92 MB by Yann. It would be ok if perhaps Yann could make a new version for this Alt nom based on the museum original, using the same edits but with a higher resolution. Overwriting a small version with a bigger is usually ok here. But we don't need yet another file of this. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another small point of order. I see that Yann has added the Category:Files uploaded by Yann Forget to this file, but the original uploader is Liftarn, so this seems wrong to me. I don't think we put such categories on files when we simply improve them. What is the practice? --Cart (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot, Cart. I did it again with more corrections. I add this category to all files I upload. Yann (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shouldn't you rather use another category for the files you just edit? It can get a little confusing if we have both yours and the original uploader's category on a file. I know I wouldn't like if you edited one of my photos and then put "uploaded by Yann" on it. I see that your new version landed on 1.98 MB, which is close to the first one you did, but I guess that the higher contrast and more light made the 5.87 MB version smaller. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Cart This is based on the archived original with 98% compression. The archived original is 100% compression, but there is no visible compression artefact here. Yann (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Cart I split the history, and fixed the license. Yann (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great photo, but it needs a careful digital restoration like the ones done by Adam to remove the stains etc. That restored version should be based on the archived original (thanks, Cart) and have a clear filename, including a hint like “(restoration)”, and a clear file history instead of being uploaded over just some other version uploaded by someone else from some other source, like the currently nominated file – what a incredibly confusing situation. – Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Aristeas This restoration is based on the archived original. And the quality is not very good, so more restoration would be like creating a fake image IMO. Yann (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Yann: I totally agree that overprocessing of historic(al) photographs is a bad thing – drastic changes of white balance or gradation, sharpening, even removal of original film grain may all be considered harmful. However the little black stains in this photo look exactly like the typical little dirt spots (often fly droppings) which I have often seen on old prints, and cloning them out would IMHO restore the original appearance of the photo without reducing its historical value. If we want to keep a photo 100% authentic (reproducing the current state of a concrete negative, slide or print), we should not even rotate and crop it; if we do the latter, we have have already moved on from 100% authenticity to a slightly restored version, and then it also seems avisable to remove obvious dirt and scratches, too. – Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Aristeas: I fixed all fixable things. I think I am done with this. Yann (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
 Support Thank you very much, Yann! This version is indeed much better and IMHO now really looks how the photograph was looking originally. All clear stains are gone. I agree that it is good that you have kept some tiny irregularities which could be stains, too, but may very well be part of the reality/of the original photo. So this version really deserves the star. Thank you again, – Aristeas (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If it helps, I was kind of planning on doing it (then probably mark a lot of the poorly-documented ones as superseded.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1899
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2025 at 07:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black-naped Monarch (Hypothymis azurea prophata) in Trusmadi Forest Reserve, Malaysia.

Alternative version

[edit]

Black-naped Monarch, Trusmadi Forest Reserve

  •  Support . Pinging Kaim Amin, Poco a poco, Giles Laurent, Harlock81 to notify about alternative version. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for pinging me. I prefer the first one, but my support is for both versions. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for the ping Cmao20 but as Poco a Poco says I think the image needs lead room on the left. I would support an alternative with square crop that has more lead room to the left or an alternative with a crop with same format as the original but with less space at top and left or an alternative horizontal 4:3 format -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd have left a bit more of space as lead room on the left but I still prefer this one. Thank you for the alt version, Cmao20 --Poco a poco (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a fan of this crop. If anything, a slight from to the left and the top of the original, but I prefer as is. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Vulcan supports both version –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The chosen alternative is: File:Black-naped Monarch 0A2A8267.jpg

File:04.03 副總統前往花蓮瞭解災害情形及救援進度 - 53629407644.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2025 at 10:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rescue workers near the semi-collapsed ten-story Uranus Building on Xuanyuan Road after the 2024 Hualien earthquake
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
  •  Info created by Shufu Liu, uploaded by 鐵路1, nominated by Yann
  •  Info Rescue workers near the semi-collapsed ten-story Uranus Building on Xuanyuan Road after the 2024 Hualien earthquake.
  •  Support Average quality, but can't be taken again, and a lot of wow. -- Yann (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 11:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, definitely not with that problem of perspective, which gives the impression that all the buildings are collapsing, while in fact there is only one in the center. But believe it or not, I was working on a derivative version of this file on my computer to propose a "delist and replace" nomination on en-Wikipedia. In addition to this major problem of perspective, the sky is horribly dotted with many dust spots. The resolution is not great and I'm not sure that, even with these corrections, it can become a FP on Commons. Still, I'm going to upload another version soon, so you can compare. To finish, I'm not sure the file name, that translates into "04.03 The Vice President went to Hualien to learn about the disaster situation and rescue progress - 53629407644" really describes the image. I don't think the Vice President is a fireman :-) Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done: File:Rescue workers near the semi-collapsed ten-story Uranus Building on Xuanyuan Road after the 2024 Hualien earthquake.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Update: Now Yann has added the alt, AirshipJungleman29, you are free to cast your green support below. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this version but would support Basile's version. The perspective problems in this one are the killer. If you're illustrating a collapsing building you really need to aim for realism. With no perspective correction it genuinely looks like all the buildings are damaged and leaning. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose against, subject very interesting but "it would be possible to take a better photo" => there are some stain on the tract-sin. Olivier LPB (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Perspective corrected by Basile Morin

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Others
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2025 at 16:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pikku Mustasaari
  •  Support thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight on top. Let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Have to agree with Alvesgaspar, sorry. Any chance to get a more generous top crop, i.e. more sky? – Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Pikku Mustasaari

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Finland
The chosen alternative is: File:Pikku Mustasaari2.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2025 at 04:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National Assembly building ruins
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
  •  Info Ruins of the National Assembly building after the Liberation of Manila, 1945. Provided by US National Archives. Cropped version by Poppytarts – nominated by Poppytarts -- Poppytarts (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poppytarts (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support a JPEG version. Please add the Gallery above. Yann (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    Gallery added; thanks for the reminder. When I cropped the original TIFF file using CropTool, I was not given the option to upload as a JPEG. Poppytarts (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    This has to be done locally. Here it is: File:National Assembly building ruins.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    Poppytarts, you can add the jpeg as an 'Alternative' to this nomination. If you don't know how that is done, I can do it for you. Just let me know. --Cart (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    No, I don't know how to make an alternative. Please help me on my behalf; thank you. Poppytarts (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be FP but there are visible scratches and marks in the sky - IMO needs a bit more attention Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

  •  Info Jpeg version of the original tif. Restoration by Yann
  •  Comment I will do the restoration, but it may take some time. Yann (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Actually, it was not that difficult. Yann (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you so much for the restoration. Poppytarts (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done, Yann. Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Terragio67 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better, thank you, Yann. – Aristeas (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Thi (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The Original TIFF has a lot more at the bottom. Any reason to crop it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The text was cropped. Yann (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    At top, sure, but at bottom it's just a couple numbers that could be edited easily. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1940-1949
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2025 at 20:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Paraskevi Church, Kwiatoń

Alternative

[edit]

Rotated

  •  Support Rotated version. Yann (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This corrected photo is OK for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Definitely better after the tilt, but it does also need a perspective correction, --Poco a poco (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it is needed here? This is taken from up in the sky. Yann (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the original. To my eyes the perspective in this one is worse and the barns on the left of the frame are cropped. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC))
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Poland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2025 at 07:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Woman sewing hand fans in Bangladesh
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •  Info created by Mahinur11 – uploaded by Mahinur11 – nominated by Kaim Amin -- Kaim Amin (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kaim Amin (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Editing quality could be better, but it's striking, unusual motif that makes you happy to view. I also like that your nominations have good descriptions and categories, that makes it easier for users who are searching for specific photos to find these. --Cart (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I think it is oversaturated (see the woman's face). I would support with less saturation. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    I think you are right. Any chance of fixing this Kaim Amin? --Cart (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I noticed the oversaturation too. I'll try to upload a fixed image. Kaim (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose until it is fixed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • { Support {--Ermell (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Somehow. Crop could be better, to put her head on up-left third, or , to remove sand border on both sides - crop or strecth size. --Mile (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC) p.S. Here, i would try this option too. @Kaim Amin
  •  Weak support Per Cart --Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in its current form. Mile's crop is definitely superior, and the saturation as pointed by Yann has also not been fixed. A renaming is also required for a more descriptive title. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    Too many issues as such, would support if all fixes are implemented. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting but could be improved, per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version (Saturation edited, cropped)

[edit]

Woman sewing hand fans in Bangladesh

Pinging again, Basile Morin, Ermell, JukoFF, MZaplotnik -- Kaim (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
PetarM, Shagil Kannur, UnpetitproleX, W.carter, Yann -- Kaim (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you, this is better. I've striked my vote above and moved it down here. For some reason I didn't get any 'ping' (I just came to have a look anyway) so let's hope it worked for the rest of the voters. Sometimes group pings to more than 5 users doesn't work here on Commons. If the others don't show up, you might have to make some new 'pings' in smaller groups. --Cart (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for letting me know. I pinged everyone again, not sure if it worked. Kaim (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Well Kaim Amin, the pings definitely didn't work this time. You can't use the same time stamp and just add people to it. A ping only works if you mention the person and sign it with a new time stamp in the same edit. This is a safeguard in the system to not having people pinged as soon as someone else edit a section. I have this page on my watchlist and that's why I saw this. --Cart (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, okay :) how about now? such a hassle actually. Kaim (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Nope, I didn't get any ping. Hope some of the others got through. And yes it is a hassle but I didn't design the system, I'm only trying to help you make this a successful nomination. --Cart (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    @W.carter, Nah it's okay. Thank you for helping. Kaim (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good improvement, many thanks for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dont see much improvement. 1st put her face on up-left third, and borders of sand on right side. Crop should be more approproate. --Mile (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral to this version, leaning support, the saturation still looks a bit unnatural to me; Yann's version here (this image) looks less odd imo. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Also, the ping did not work for me either. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice angle of view, interesting craft work. (Note I did not received the ping above) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the improvements. The person (and all three-dimensionality) gets almost lost in the colourful ornaments of the handmade fans, giving the photo a striking psychedelic touch. – Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better.(Note I did not received the ping above as well) --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work
The chosen alternative is: File:Woman sewing handfans.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2025 at 07:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The statues of the three Wise Men on a historic boat.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
  •  Info The “'Paranza'“ boat displays the wooden statues of the Three Wise Men, part of the floating Nativity scene which boasts the recognition: “Heritage of Italy for tradition”, awarded by the italian Ministry of Tourism for “Its ability to keep alive the folklore and traditions of the territory...“. All by Terragio67. -- Terragio67 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It's a pity the reflection is cut, with the whole mast there and less sky it would have been a spectacular photo. But I won't stand in the way if other people think this is adequate. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    Oops, Yeah you're right, thanks, but this photo is still cute, so I preferred to add a valid alternative that could overcome your objections, even if partial. Thanks for your constructive criticism, as always. Terragio67 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now this new crop is much better and I can support it. --Cart (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Per Cart. Nice colors and fine light, but the cropped reflection spoils the composition. --Milseburg (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment It might be beneficial to crop 1100–1200 pixels from the bottom (and the same amount of empty sky). This would minimize the already incomplete reflection. --Milseburg (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Editing this photo is not possible, because the reflections of the subject collide with another boat next to me. I thought it would be better to upload a new alternative image from a different angle. Terragio67 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm really Sorry, I misunderstood your suggestion because I read it hastily. I liked the result proposed updating the image, thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful motif and colours for me, in spite of cut reflection Cmao20 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good light but cut out reflection. Note I prefer this angle of view than the alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this solution now. The angle is better than the alternative below and the other one looks a bit too long at the lower part. --Milseburg (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better this one Poco a poco (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support From a visual point of view, I found the square version more appealing right from the start. In my opinion, the reflection on the water surface is of secondary importance. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support this version --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per UnpetitproleX. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support for the new version --imehling (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Alternative new version

[edit]

  •  Info I decided to upload a new version according to the criticism above. It was photographed from a different angle where the boat reflections did not collide with other boats... Created, 2nd version uploaded, and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for showing this, but I think the angle and light is better in the first one. In this the reflection is too prominent. --Cart (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this one because the reflection is not cut off. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The other one is much better but this one is still okay for FP Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the other version with the new crop. Perhaps some voters should be 'pinged' about this change. --Cart (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree Poco a poco (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose in favor of the square version above. Sorry. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Berthold Werner @MZaplotnik @Yann @Llez @Famberhorst @imehling @Agnes Monkelbaan By the way thanks for your support, I wanted to let you know that I made a change to the first image on Milseburg's advice. It seems incredible how a seemingly insignificant change (crop) has changed the first proposal for the better. If you can, please, verify the difference by confirming or (if you prefer) changing your vote. --Terragio67 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Prefer original -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 15:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2025 at 14:31:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Chapel of Saint Mary of the Snows, Kacwin
I would go with 'Places/Other' since everything except the mountains is agricultural fields with fences between them, and that is man-made land although covered with snow. --Cart (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I think Natural is a better category. The mountains are a big part of the picture, and the land, even if cultivated by humans is still Nature. Yann (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
It's the mindset that anything growing, cultivated or other, is 'Nature' that's got us in much of the mess the planet is in today. But that's a discussion for another time and place. --Cart (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Cart, please change it if you think that'd be for the best! You do a great job of organising the galleries and I won't insist on the gallery I initially chose if this one would fit better. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • {{s}} --Harlock81 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Disregarding the philosophical discussion, the composition is great and the landscape beautiful. Unfortunately there is a lot(!) of CA noise and chroma noise in it, and that's why I don't give it my full support. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yes I see what you mean but I wouldn't say a lot, it's there and visible mainly in the mountains in the background but I don't think it distracts from the composition and I don't find it noticeable except at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, it's in the chapel, trees and bushes too. I've made you a cleaned up version here. If you want it, you can do what you will with it. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Your version is pretty obviously better (well done). But I'm not sure of the ethics of replacing a picture when the author is unlikely to see the replacement or be able to assent to it (seems only to be active at WLM time). Cmao20 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    You can always make it an 'Alternative', but you have to do without me for a while. I twisted my knee on my walk through the forest this afternoon and it hurts like hell, so I'm grumpier than usual now and I obviously do not belong in polite society. Sorry! --Cart (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Many thanks for the well-done editing, Cart – and I am so sorry for the accident, get well soon! Well, IMHO we should not upload the improved version over the current one, and maybe even the author itself should better not do that: This photo won the 1st price of WLM 2024 in Poland, and because exactly that version won the price, major changes are a no-go according to COM:OW. (Unlike the current wording of that page, I think that noise removal is a major change because it is a global manipulation and significantly changes the appearance of an image; at least I would not overwrite any of my own local WLM or WLE winning images with additional noise reduction). But there is a simple solution which has been used for many other FP candidates: Please, Cmao20, upload the edited version as a new file, linking it to the original one with {{Derived from}}. Then you, Cmao20, can either offer it as an alternative version or (much simpler) just exchange the candidate here with the edited version – whatever you prefer. I would appreciate it very much if you could do the one or the other, because this is such a wonderful winter scene and now, thanks to Cart’s editing, much improved. – Aristeas (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oh no Cart, that sounds really painful - I'm so sorry to hear it. I've only just read the section about your accident. Please take all the time you need to rest and recover. We'll miss your presence, but your well-being comes first. Wishing you a gentle and speedy healing! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Painkillers rule! At least for some light voting and editing. No serious or complicated discussions though. ;-) --Cart (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Painkillers have also become my friends since the surgery, but please be careful that they don't do any harm in the end. I wish you a good recovery, especially that it doesn't get worse. All the best :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)


Alternative version

[edit]

The Chapel of Saint Mary of the Snows, Kacwin

  • Alternative version with colour noise removed, thanks to Cart (and hope you feel better soon).  Support and pinging Cart, Harlock81, Jakubhal, Aristeas, and Юрий Д.К, it would be appreciated if you could review the new version! Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, yes. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for Cart's improved alternative provided by Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support this version. I was going to oppose the original due to the obvious (but fixable) issues. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 23:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A wonderful scenery, now even better thanks to Cart’s editing – thank you for uploading and nominating, Cmao20! – Aristeas (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Even more for this version ---- Jakubhal 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support —Bruce1eetalk 06:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ZarlokX (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks Cart, and take care of your health. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice mood and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above with problems now fixed. --Cart (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Paracel63 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Poland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 04:00:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ripe sunflower with heart-shaped pattern
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
  •  Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Plozessor (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the pattern natural or has it been made deliberately? Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    I found it like this along the way but I guess that some other human made it. Plozessor (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose So close... If only the sepals at the top hadn't been cut by the framing. Quel dommage. --Cart (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    I was considering to add them with AI but then abstained ... Plozessor (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    That does you credit. And I'm sure you will think of this the next time you photograph a flower. --Cart (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    I would have no problem supporting an AI version if it looks convincing. Perhaps you could upload it as an alternative? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    @The Cosmonaut Thanks, see below now. --Plozessor (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version

[edit]

Ripe sunflower with heart-shaped pattern, AI retouched
  •  Info Added 350 pixels at the top with AI. --Plozessor (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support: looks good to me! I see this no differently than manually cloning some sky, which is accepted without question here. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO it makes not difference whether we complete an image manually with cloning etc. or by using the trendy AI stuff if the result (i) looks good and realistic, (ii) only minor parts of the subject have been edited/added, and (iii) the retouching is clearly declared. All three conditions are met here. – Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2025 at 18:28:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka

Alternative version (denoised)

[edit]

Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka

  •  Support -- Kaim (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is more about the extraordinary pattern the lights make than viewing the people next to them. I'm astonished that so many people can create this in such an orderly fashion. I shudder at the chaos that would be if something like this was attempted in my country! --Cart (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very impressive capture! Many thanks to Cart for the improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the improvements, Cart, it makes a big difference! --Kritzolina (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I place my  seal of approval on the denoised version. JayCubby (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Have seen many intriguing photos of Rakher Upobash, but the quality is often a problem (no wonder given the difficult circumstances). Thanks to Cart’s denoising this one is now on the level it deserves. – Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cart's alt is good enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Compelling image because of the strong contrast between the darkness and the candle light, the broken straight lines at right angles with the square structure of the temple. And this is before looking at the image at full size and seeing the rows of people. Of course, in my warped mind, I imagine the devastation that could be wrought in such a gathering by just a single domestic feline. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    Lol! The "single domestic feline" had me cracking up! X-D --Cart (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2025 at 13:28:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
  •  Info Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town (for image notes, please see the file description page). Created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive high-resolution panorama of the picturesque old town of Sion with its two castle hills. Sharpness is high, you can study even fine details of the castle etc., and there is only a very low amount of heat distortion (which is often hard to avoid above cities). – Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wow! It's a great view, but for me it's a little too dark and perhaps some more contrast could be added. I see that the author is only active with uploads, so perhaps you Aristeas could make some corrections and present an 'Alt' (not an overwrite!). I saw that you made good recommendations on a previous nom (I hope it's not too much trouble to ask you). --Cart (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • * Support Per Cart. Great photo but a little dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Alternative version I like it better.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this version in favor of the brighter. (A decisive vote for one of the versions makes it easier to evaluate the outcome of the nom). --Cart (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version

[edit]

Panorama of Sion, Switzerland from the north-west, showing Tourbillon Castle (left), the Valère Basilica (right) and parts of the old town.

  •  Support @W.carter, Cmao20, Famberhorst, and Poco a poco: Cart and Famberhorst are right that the original is a little too dark and could use a bit more contrast. This is an attempt to improve it. After the brightening the background, esp. the sky, looked pale and yellowish, so I have added some more contrast and blue saturation to restore it. By the way I stumbled over some small stitching errors (sigh) near the bottom margin and have tried to mitigate them. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry to put you through so much trouble, but Many Thanks, this looks great now. --Cart (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this version. -Terragio67 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Also fine to me Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Honestly I have no preference Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Both versions look great, but this one is even better! --Osmo Lundell hey 01:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jakubhal 03:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Successful improvements for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Famberhorst. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support very beautiful and detailed.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Majestic view --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The view is incredible, and the lights are better handled in this version! --PierreSelim (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support But previous version is ok for me too. --Rbrechko (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2025 at 12:59:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dhavani village, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#India
  •  Info Looking eastward at Dhavani village in the warm evening light. Located in the Nilgiri mountains of South India. Note: There are no FPs of settlements in India south of the Himalayas. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tagooty (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The cluster of village buildings pops out of the exapnse of fields of varying shades of green. The evening colours in the sky elevate the image. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support and I hope no one complains about the noise - this is a 41 megapixel image under low light conditions and we should be grateful to the nominator for uploading in full size rather than complaining about a bit of noise and adding noise reduction to ruin all the nice details. Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality does not convince me. If the light conditions are not good enough for a hand-held shot, just take a tripod. The photo also has remarkable border unsharpness - extermely visible at the left side. Regarding noise: Even if it's a 41 MP photo, that doesn't stop anyone from applying a proper noise reduction technique to a RAW image - for example the AI-based NR in Lightroom. All in all: For me not enough effort is done here to make the photo an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Tuxyso: I have applied NR to the sky and the distant hills on the left. Also, cropped a small strip on the left to remove the unsharp tree etc. Hope this is better. --Tagooty (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your effort, Tagooty. The noise on the sky is now much better managed. But for the noise level on the detail areas is (the trees, the buildings) is still too high. If you have the possibility I suggest to give the very good AI-based NR-technique of LR a try. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, while it is a good documentary photo and a worthy VI, it doesn't give me that wow-feeling I expect from an FP. The best thing this photo has going for it is the display of the Belt of Venus and now with the cut, some of that is gone. The general light is flat and makes the buildings look glary. As is often with a subject divided into two parts, leaving a void in the middle, I think it would have been better to make the framing around the left part of the village and the pink glow in the background. Take in too much and you often lose the image. (crop suggestion for an 'Alt'? It's big enough for this.) --Cart (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Alternative

[edit]

Dhavani village, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India

  • The softness on the left edge is probably due to haze or other local atmospheric conditions. I've taken many photos with this lens that are sharp throughout. --Tagooty (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The noise reduction has worked well, and the new crop drastically improves the image for me – now it has huge expanse, has much more atmosphere and beauty and lets me share your experience. – Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Even better! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tagooty (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#India
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 11:56:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baspa Valley under snow, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India

Alternative

[edit]

Alt

  •  Comment After Poco's comment above, I created this panoramic of the view. Nominating as an alt. Pinging all voters: @Cmao20, W.carter, Юрий Д.К., Kelly zhrm, Harlock81, Poco a poco, Agnes Monkelbaan, Ermell, Tournasol7, Famberhorst, and George Chernilevsky: to inform about the alt. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 14:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support with a preference for this version, but either are FP. Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support both versions. – Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't mind either versions, but this one is slightly better. Unfortunately, just writing that will not make a difference when the Bot counts the votes, so I may revise one of my votes when this nom is near closing. That's the thing that's always tricky with these 'Alt' noms. I've also copied over the rest of the categories from the first photo. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support both versions –- George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks much better, unfortunately the right frame is not really sharp, I also believe that the top crop is too tight --Poco a poco (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support this version as well. Forgot to add my own vote. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support both versions.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#India
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2025 at 07:44:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Forest in Nackareservatet, Stockholm.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •  Info A beautiful summer night in Nacka Nature Reserve. The Nacka Reserve consists mostly of ancient woodland and lakes and is an important and unique natural area very close to central Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice colours and composition Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nackareservatet is a really lovely place and the photo is a good example of mixed conifer forests, but I think this photo might be a bit too much into the magenta on the color balance scale. Good categories, but the info should be in the description too. It is helpful if readers don't need to backtrack through the categories to find out the location of the nature reserve. Now added. --Cart (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info New version uploaded with some WB adjustments.--ArildV (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
      Thank you, that's better. (Btw, I just noticed a very thin white border to the left when I opened this against a black background.) It's a nice enough forest, but I think it lacks some focal point in the image. It might have been better with more of the path included or a light gradient on the trees. --Cart (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
      ArildV, how about File:Nackareservatet June 2025 08.jpg as an 'Alt' to this? --Cart (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not a special forest, in my opinion, and the depth of field is limited. Major elements are blurry. The mood is so-so -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Alternative version

[edit]

Forest in Nackareservatet, Stockholm.
  •  Info Different crop with more of the foreground and trail to create a clearer and (hopefully) better composition. --ArildV (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --ArildV (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support preference for this version. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support better! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 10:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you for this Alt. --Cart (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the atmosphere is decisive.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question The greens seem oversaturated, but may be that's only me? I also like better the light above. Yann (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Agree that the greens (esp. in the bottom part) are very saturated; the red and blue channels are mostly zero there (clipping), only the green channel provides information. Reducing the saturation only for the green tones would improve this, and/or using a RGB colour space with better support for saturated greens (Adobe RGB, DCI-P3). However I cannot assess how a Scandinavian summer night should look like in a photo, it’s quite possible that it leads to dark saturated colours, and as Famberhorst has put it the atmosphere is decisive here. - Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to break the flow, but not a special forest, in my opinion, and the depth of field is limited. Major elements are blurry. The mood is so-so -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've to agree... Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Sweden
The chosen alternative is: File:Nackareservatet June 2025 08.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 12:10:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red-headed barbet (Eubucco bourcierii aequatorialis) male
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Capitonidae (New World Barbets)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2024 at 09:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue wildebeest with wattled starlings in the Serengeti National Park
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Einhorn, grasend, auf der Fraueninsel, Berlin, 2025.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2024 at 16:25:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sacred Lotus in a pond
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Nelumbonaceae
  •  Info Sacred Lotus in a pond in Shanghai, China created by User:Daftation - uploaded by User:Daftation - nominated by User:Daftation -- Daftation (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Daftation (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Idem above. For featured picture candidate to succeed, the categories must be better provided. We need a category for the flower species, the location, and removing the too broad ones. Yann (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Fixed this one also. Thanks again! Daftation (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The flower on the left ruins the composition for me, sorry. Wolverine XI 23:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ★ 17:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Wolverine Poco a poco (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this works as an artistic rather than encylcopedic flower photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ( Neutral), the blue halos around some of the petals are very disturbing to me.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Nelumbonaceae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2025 at 23:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grey heron eating fish near a pond of Busan Citizens Park in South Korea
  • Among the current FPs, there are zoo pictures and low resolution images. This one is large, shows the bird in its natural habitat, and with a fish in the beak. My company could have frightened it, but I managed to keep a respectful distance allowing this grey heron to preserve its natural hunting behavior. The fish was devoured in one go, right down to the tail, and the same episode was repeated several times after that. Lucky it! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to see blurred background on photo with birds, but this one looks ok for me. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BigDom (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Ardeidae (Herons)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2025 at 18:31:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Algerian women wearing traditional Berber clothing
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2025 at 12:21:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Men of the Desert
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Photo_techniques/Black_and_White#People

File:Manoir de Ban - Corsier-sur-Vevey 02.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2025 at 09:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Manoir de Ban, home of Charlie Chaplin 1953–1977, view from south; Corsier-sur-Vevey
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
  •  Info This house, the "Manoir de Ban", was the home of Charlie Chaplin and his wife Oona O'Neill from 1953 on. Charlie Chaplin died here on December 25th, 1977. His widow continued to live in the house and died in the "Manoir de Ban" on September 27th, 1991. After her death, her children inherited the manor and they later entrusted it to the Charlie Chaplin Museum Foundation; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Llez (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Interesting place, but lighting could be better. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I agree with Rbrechko. It is QI for sure but I personally am not sure it's outstanding enough for FP. I'd like to see more interesting light. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info I corrected the lightning --Llez (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose I agree. The lighting is not special, the building nice, quality, as usual, good but overall not extraordinary to me, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing extraordinary. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment With the exception that Charlie Chaplin lived here for 24 years!! --Llez (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Val Lietres - Drei Könige Gherdeina.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 16:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Val Lietres in Langental Wolkenstein Gröden
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately some frames are blurred. Ermell (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry wrong image.Ermell (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not wow-ed, just ordinary view in mountains --Grtek (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I wasn't sure about this at first but it has grown on me. I really like the interplay of light and shadows. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Cmao20. Also a nice symmetry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special, great shadow on the right side of image. -- Karelj (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Very weak oppose The shadow, plus it could be a little sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Commonists 09:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Italy

Updated results:

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Marbach am Neckar - Alexanderkirche - Langhaus - Gewölbe 1.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2020 at 06:44:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marbach am Neckar, Germany: view of the Gothic vault over the nave of the Saint Alexander Church
  •  Support per nom -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Typical good quality for Aristeas, and lots to look at in this ceiling. Cmao20 (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very nice, indeed, but the bottom should be crop the same way as in the top to achieve more symmetry and to avoid having those heads cropped. Will support if fixed. Poco a poco (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a good hint! I will try that … --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have uploaded a new version, cropped at the bottom according to Poco’s suggestion. I hope all supporters are OK with this change? ( Question And I hope this is OK in the FPC procedure? Or must I do something, e.g. ping all supporters?) --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks much better now, thank you. I  Support now. Regarding the impact of the change I think that it can be categorized as a minor change for which you don't need to ping everybody. --Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Poco and Ikan! --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2025 at 08:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Right valve
    Right valve
  • Left valve
    Left valve
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Pectinidae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2025 at 09:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Male dorsal
    Male dorsal
  • Male ventral
    Male ventral
  • Female dorsal
    Female dorsal
  • Female ventral
    Female ventral
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aristeas/FPCBot/Test_log&oldid=1081824574"