Commons:Featured picture candidates

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

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

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

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

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio[edit]

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

Set nominations[edit]

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

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

Simple tutorial for new users[edit]

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

STEP 1

  • STEP 1

    STEP 1


STEP 2

  • STEP 2

    STEP 2


STEP 3

  • STEP 3

    STEP 3


STEP 4

  • STEP 4

    STEP 4


STEP 5

  • STEP 5

    STEP 5


STEP 6

  • STEP 6

    STEP 6


STEP 7

  • STEP 7

    STEP 7


STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)

    STEP 8 (last step)

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting[edit]

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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

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

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Rio Doce Delta.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2023 at 21:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:090 Wild Black-headed gull in flight at Lake Geneva during sunset Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2023 at 17:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wild Black-headed gull in flight at Lake Geneva during the golden hour of sunset

File:Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2023 at 04:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Boardmasters2023 (97 of 171) (53120163026).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 22:21:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:On Sukhna Lake 11.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 16:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset over Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not even a nice sunset. Just some water and a black background. Yann (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support But it’s not a sunset photo ;–). It’s a very graphic image of the shining reflection of the sun dancing on the softly moving waves. The boat and the forest in the background are intentionally just silhouettes. Technically not perfect, but I can easily see me leafing through National Geographic or similar magazines, finding this photo and saying “wow!”. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support This is a fascinating contre-jour shot with a special appeal thanks to the texture of the water surface. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Too much flat water, sorry. The silhouette of the boat is camouflaged by the background. The big mass of trees behind has nothing special. The sun is cut out. The composition does not work in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Basile. --Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:002 The lion king Snyggve in the Serengeti National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 13:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wild lion Snyggve scanning the horizon in the Serengeti National Park

File:Painted door (Mermaid). Funchal, Madeira.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 09:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painted door (Mermaid). Funchal, Madeira

File:Vrucht van een beuk (Fagus sylvatica) 21-07-2023 (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 16:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Red Fish at Papahānaumokuākea (cropped).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 15:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A school of Hawaiian squirrelfish. They commonly live in the Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll.
 Question -- Isn't this picture already Featured? Ndiver (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is featured on the English Wikipedia; this is Commons. Different site, different criteria. (Images can be featured on different WikiProject with different ways to evaluate them. There are more FP opportunities out there: Examples 1 2 3) Personally I find the photo this image is extracted from much more appealing in compo, and more along the Commons' taste. Perhaps it could be added as an 'Alternative' on this nom? --Cart (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lake Palace, Lake Pichola, Udaipur (edited).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 13:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Palace, Pichola Lake, Udaipur, India

File:Catedral de Westminster, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-23, DD 37-39 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 07:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Westminster Cathedral, London, England

File:07492 GER Saxony Dresden stucco ceiling of 'Englische Treppe' V-P.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 23:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
The light condition are specifically generated to highlight the plasticity of this ceiling (there are quite a number of artifical light sources in this staircase) and the 'colour' scheme is really complementing it. Instead of a stucco ceiling one could happily call it a sculpture. It has been designed to impress visitors to Dresden Castle and it surely worked for me. As much as I would love to be able to create a 3D rendering like that, I just capture what others have created and staged. My workflow: 1) raw development (Raw Therapee) 2) stitching & perspective corretion (Hugin) 3) crop, contrast enhancement and saturation reduction (GIMP) --Virtual-Pano (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ancient Temple, Naranag, Jammu and Kashmir, India.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 21:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main temple, western enclosure, Wangath temple complex, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
  •  Info Main Shiva Temple (Jyestheswara Temple) at the western enclosure of the sprawling, ancient Wangath Temple complex located in a remote valley deep in the Kashmir Himalayas. The temple complex may be over two millennia old; the current structure (pictured) dates to the 8th century CE. Image created and uploaded by Basavaraj K. Korkar - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nominated over a month ago by me, but did not pass for lack of required support votes—perhaps I didn’t correct the dust spot as swiftly as I should have, or didn’t explain its unique historical and geographical context. In any case, nominating a second time. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Please read this recent discussion about re-nominations. It looks like the previous candidature did not gather much enthusiasm. We like diversity at FPC, so please don't renominate too quickly the same images until they get promoted due to tiredness. I did not support the first time, because I find the colors washed out and the light dull. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was nominated a month and a half ago, and a big dust spot was pointed out. Since the image had already been featured on wikipedia, where the dust spot had managed to go unnoticed, I was slightly late to remove it. A misspelling in the filename was also highlighted, which I could fix only after the nom was over. I'm not trying to manipulate the process to get the image promoted, I apologize if that's what it came across as. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dust spot was notified on September 26, and corrected only 2 days later, on September 28. Then, from this date until October 4, end of the voting period, 6 days passed, with just 2 supporters. This low level of participation illustrates the moderate enthusiasm, in my opinion. I don't think the reviewers abstained from voting because of the spelling mistake. That's usually not a prohibitive factor (there have been similar cases in the past). Thus this re-nomination sounds a bit like "only two supports missing the first time, maybe a second round will be more generous" :-) Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bolshoy Tkhach, Adygea, Большой Тхач, куэста, Адыгея.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 20:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Bolshoy Tkhach at sunrise, Adygea, Caucasus Mountains.

File:Kathleen Sebelius and Demi Lovato May 2013 (cropped).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 20:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
  •  Info S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius presented chart-dominating singer, songwriter, and actress Demi Lovato, Honorary Chairperson of National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day 2013, with an award for her advocacy work on behalf of young adults with mental health and substance use challenges during the Awareness Day 2013 press briefing held at the Theater of the Performing Arts at the University of the District of Columbia Community College on May 7, 2013. Created by SAMHSA - initially uploaded by Stemoc - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ★ 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks like a normal press photo to me. Unfortunately, it's not quite sharp and the microphone in the background is distracting. I can't see any wow either. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ermell, but definitely a very good VI if nominated at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good idea! ★ 21:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support good to me. Change from the usual church interiors, macros, and landscapes. It also looks more like author was light on the sharpening than misfocus. - Benh (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose +1 for what Ermell said --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support as per Benh (again ;o) ). Yann (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice and good enough. --Selbymay (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ermell -- Karelj (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination No chance. ★ 22:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saint Christopher Street in Valletta (32711).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 16:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint Christopher Street in Valletta
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Malta
  •  Info Christopher Street at Ursula Street in Valletta, Malta. I spent some time in Valletta recently and took a lot of pictures trying to capture the unique experience of walking around the capital -- the stone architecture, straight and narrow streets, hilly terrain, and ubiquitous religious iconography (that's St. Roch there on the left, a saint associated with the plague and accompanied by the dog that supposedly healed him). I noticed we have very few photos of Malta, and this one is among the more successful to me personally, so giving it a try here. Will it resonate with anyone else? I'm not sure. all by — Rhododendrites talk |  16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support — Rhododendrites talk |  16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose if the intent was to emphasize the people coming at the viewer, then I think the framing is too wide. If the intent was to show a panoramic view of the street, then the framing is too tight at the bottom (like you scroll down and it ends to early). It could be interesting to crop much of the sides and get a portrait alternative but then the quality might fall a bit short (it is already quite noisy). I also think it would have been better with the people going away instead. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I very much liked the experience of walking around Valletta, so to clarify my intent, it's very much an attempt to capture my experience of walking around there, highlighting the things I liked in particular (the distinct 4/5-story stone buildings with their varied balconies and architectural details, the religious imagery on every block, the long and narrow steets, always looking slightly upward at the buildings. So I'm less interested in the subjectivity of the people in the frame since all they're really doing is illustrating that this is the sort of place where people exist and often walk down the middle of the street, and I wouldn't want to crop it because the balconies and statues are the point. I feel like it was successful at capturing my experience, but how well that's communicated to another viewer I don't know. There were a couple others that I think were successful, too, but both have quality reasons why I wouldn't nominate them here (some technical shortcomings here and here, as well as an unbalanced comp that probably wouldn't work for most). I don't expect to change your vote but figured I'd response on the subject of intent. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak support The bottom crop is too tight, but otherwise a beautiful image. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice narrow street with special architecture and various featured elements to contemplate, like the green window, the statue in the foreground, the wooden facades, and the walker taken at the right moment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The composition is ok in my view --imehling (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Works for me as a compressed view of that picturesque street. The statue of Jesus Christ at the top left which seems to point to the street, the green balcony at the top right and the single person at the bottom centre form a triangle of attention which consolidates the composition. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Many thanks for Basile's and Aristeas' accurate analysis, which convinces me. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Not perfect for sure but very appealing. Sometimes, picture's flaws are part of its charm. --Selbymay (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ★ 23:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I agree with Benh that a vertical orientation would be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lesser yellowlegs wading (96251).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 16:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lesser yellowlegs

File:Rottenburg a.N. - Wurmlingen - Kapellenberg - Ansicht von OSO im April mit Gegenlicht.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 14:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Kapellenberg with the Wurmlingen Chapel near Wurmlingen, Rottenburg am Neckar (district of Tübingen) with orchards and vineyards

 Support Wow ! Per Basile. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Parque Estadual do Jalapão João Paulo Marques Dandretta (16) edited.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 14:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dunes at Jalapão State Park, Tocantins, Brazil

File:Järva-Peetri kirikuaed 1 - OlariPilnik.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 13:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Järva-Peetri, Estonia
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Estonia
  •  Info created & uploaded by Olari Pilnik - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The horizon seems tilted. ★ 15:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support yeah it's tilted (not curved ;) ). I really like it though - Benh (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. The white balance is off, either because the camera was blinded by the sun, or something is overdone in post-processing. Greenish tint everywhere. Good drone work (and also a good drone operator selfie :P), but this could have been an even better picture.  podstawko  ●talk  15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment A splendid view. I’m not sure about the white balance – it’s a bit greenish, yes, but not much, any changes would need to be done very carefully. However @OlariP: could you consider to rotate the image a bit in order to fix the tilt – see the church and the horizon? That would be great. --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ✓ Done Olari uploaded a new version, where the tilt is corrected. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support for the improved version. Many thanks for the edit, Olari. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support FP now. ★ 20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Autumnal Retreat in Old Quebec- A Canvas of Fading Reds and Vibrant Oranges.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 12:47:58
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Better colors and removing tree (Original nomination)
  •  Delist and replace -- Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The tree is part of the composition. ★ 12:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delist and replace Indeed better. Yann (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep If we promote photos were major digital landscaping is done, even if it's declared with the {{Retouched}}, I think we're on a slippery slope. I know that Wilfredor is no stranger to improving his photos, 1 and 2. Slightly altered colors on a FPC is frowned upon. To me this removal of large "irritating parts" of the photo is just as bad. Nominations where an unfortunate sign, parked can or blurry human mess up the composition, (all mobile objects) are frequently not featured because the author wants to stay true to the scene. Removing whole trees, on FPCs or FPs, is not ok for me. The trees here embed the house in the forest, and it looks great. --Cart (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have always been sincere but we cannot control what others do, if we prevent large alterations in the photos, someone will still make them whether we want it or not and it will be impossible to identify that there was an alteration on the original --Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is probably true, and I think it has already happened many times and we haven't discovered it, but just because it exists doesn't mean we have to encourage it. It's getting harder and harden to see what is genuine photos or computer-enhanced photos. I see the photo without the trees in the same light as I saw the photo with an added moon. Remove something big or add something big, and it's no longer a true representation of the subject. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep In a small size, the new version is for sure more appealing. In full size, however, several distortions appear as a result of the removal of the tree. A picture with those defects would had never been accepted as a featured image. Why should we substitute the original one? --Harlock81 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delist and replace -- Karelj (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The new photo should fail at FPC if nominated. It's very poorly stitched above the house, with a very unsharp area. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Personally I don't have any qualms with structural modifications to images, as long as they are i) clearly declared (which I think is the case for this image); and ii) well done (which is not the case). Wilfredor, I assume you have used Adobe's AI generative fill for this? Currently it doesn't work well with high resolution files. Instead, try to generate individual 2,000 x 2,000 pixel areas. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep We produce pictures for an encyclopedia so we shouldn't deviate too much from reality. I think deleting moveable things like litter is ok because it still shows the object as it could be, but enhancements with AI are not acceptable any more. By the way there should be some general guidelines for this because sooner or later we aren't able to see any more what is real and what is artificial on the pictures here. --imehling (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's only one of Commons' goals. If we want FPs to be a representative selection of "content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose" we need less rules, not more. Any additional caveat we introduce stifles new nominators (particularly those that don't speak English) and further limits nominations to overrepresented genres (e.g., landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture)- --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Julesvernex2 that Commons is for all sorts of images, and I think we are going to see many more digitally manipulated images now that it's so easy to make. But I also think there needs to be a very clear way of seeing what images are in their original state and which ones are not. The 'Retouched' template is not enough. Often it is used by conscientious authors in cases where very minor things have been altered. It is also far down below the info field where many users who go looking for photos for articles don't look. Large fixes like this should be declared in the title (File:My picture - photoshopped.jpg]]) and the description, not just tacked on "below the fold". Correct categories about the alteration should also be added to the file. With so much AI and enhancing we see, correct information is gold. For me, altered photos are welcome at FPC, but they should not end up among other more true representations of places, since they are misleading. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point, and I'll add the appropriate category to my own manipulated images, alongside their existing {{Retouched}} template (changing all their files names would test the patience of file movers, though). However, as you hint, perhaps the broader issue is how to identify non-declared AI images. In the short-term, tools such as AI or Not have been shown to be effective. In the longer-term, I would like to see Wikimedia integrate initiatives such as CPI. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree both with Julesvernex2 and Cart.
(1) Julesvernex2 has even found a clear, but still unobtrusive way to indicate the level of post-processing with the “PPLx” hints in the filename (see User:Julesvernex2, scroll down and expand the “By PPL (Post Processing Level)” tab). Maybe we could recommend that approach for general use. I just think we should differentiate PPL3 into PPL3 to PPL5 – reserving PPL3 for the removal of mid-size temporary elements (cars, people etc.), PPL4 for the removal of bigger permanent elements and the addition or editing of mid-size parts of the image (still in agreement with factual reality), PPL5 for extensive montages. The photo discussed here would be PPL4.
(2) Agree also that in the long run the identification of (mostly) AI-generated images will be our biggest challenge. I hope that initiatives like CPI will provide the necessary level of differentiation (how much of a photo was changed/generate by AI?), because unlike some sport news agencies we cannot prescribe our users just to upload out-of-camera JPEG files (this would limit image quality extremely, using raw image files is essential for many advanced photographers). We need to support many levels of image developing, editing and post-processing, just indicating the amount of manipulation.
(3) In that respect, the existing Category:Digitally manipulated photographs and its subcategories are far too general, we must create more specific subcategories in order to differentiate and indicate the level of digital manipulation. In the end each photo from any digital camera is “digitally manipulated” (many users don’t realize it but the cameras do much with the data from the sensor, every out-of-camera JPEG file is already the result of an extensive development process, and in the end the photos from modern cellphones are completely “photoshopped” images). So we must draw a distinction here and create appropriate subcategories which indicate more exactly what has been done. --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point on adding PPL4 and PPL5 levels (and perhaps PPL6, for fully-AI generated images?). Happy to discuss this further if others are interested in adopting this sort of scale. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I don't mind removing the tree, since it is not an essential or important part of the composition, and since the modification is declared; but per Ikan and Jules, there are other issues present. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Removing the tree is not an acceptable edit in my view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep My general view on modifications is that they should only be used to correct mistakes or temporary situations in order to produce a final product that could have been captured in real life. For example, if there are some small distracting branches in the corner, you could have moved a little bit out of the way, so removing them is fine. Removing one particularly disturbing person/car is also fine (but generally not removing all the traffic if it would falsely imply that a popular tourist destination is deserted). Here, the branches are very prominent and right in the middle, so you could not have taken a photo without them without significantly changing the composition, so the edited version is not an accurate portrayal of reality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Similar to what King of Hearts mentioned, I think the originality as a reflection of reality should not be fundamentally changed with AI. It would be different if the tree had been cut down, as can be seen in a series of my own pictures: in 2021 the first oak on the left was still visible, in 2022 not, because the municipality had cut it down. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The tree was only removed digitally and this was done rather poorly. --Milseburg (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Picãozinho, João Pessoa (PB).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 11:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ruins of the St Peter church in Viana (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 07:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portal of the Saint Peter church in Viana, Navarre, Spain

File:Water reflection of clouds and Luang Prabang cityscape from Wat Long Koon evening Laos.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 01:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water reflection of clouds and Luang Prabang cityscape from Wat Long Koon evening Laos

File:Evora - Cathedral - Dome, Roof.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2023 at 17:36:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roof of Évora Cathedral

File:Frankfurt vom Goetheturm.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2023 at 15:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Frankfurt am Main

File:Upholstering the seats of your own car, Margarita Island, Venezuela.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2023 at 14:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
  •  Info After a period of reflection, I have decided to resubmit a photograph for consideration. This time, I portray a person in the process of sewing the upholstery of their car in Venezuela. In an era marked by scarcity and poverty, people are compelled to repair their own vehicles. The image I share with you was taken ten years ago and reflects an aspect of the lives of Venezuelans; back then, there was still hope for a better future. I have taken into account and corrected the feedback provided on a previous nomination. I hope you can appreciate this photograph from a human perspective, looking beyond the technical details, considering that it is a shot from a decade ago.. All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very authentic and charming photograph. Yes, we could make up many possible moans and complaints (face in shadow etc.), but that’s just normal for documentary photographs of daily live – it cannot be perfect in a technical sense. The light from the window gives it a really nice atmosphere. I like that the focus is on his hands and it’s also OK that his left hand shows a little motion blur – after all this is a craftsman at work, he is working with his hands. Maybe one could make the photo a little bit brighter, but it’a also realistic as it is. --Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very good to me. Well composed, and shows a man's resourcefulness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I really like the colours. And as Aristeas said, very authentic and charming. I also admire how there is the normal clutter of a room where work is done and yet nothing really distracts from the main motive. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Interesting picture even if I'm not convinced it could become FP. However, the description is way too short on the image page. Maybe, you could explain more about it like you did here. --Selbymay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done --Wilfredor (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Venezuelan Wilfredo's shots are always impeccable; vide Category:Featured pictures of Venezuela by User:Wilfredor! ★ 22:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I want to reward you with my support for various reasons: You were skilled in straightening a less than perfect image using a smart crop, you were even more skilled in recovering the overexposure present in the window of the image taken 10 years ago, but what I like most, it's the sensitivity in portrait shots where you manage to put others at ease. --Terragio67 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Terragio67 for your recognition of my work, and yes making people feel comfortable is not an easy task, it is necessary to approach people and stay with them for a long time until they get used to your presence. In this case, I have known this person for many years, so it was easy to start a conversation about something everyday. I remember that day as if it were yesterday, he started talking to me about how good an upholsterer his father was and how he had left him that sewing machine as a gift, yes, he was talking about my grandfather who had already passed away. He is my father, I have not been able to see him again for 10 years thanks to the dictatorship in Venezuela. Another FPs related:
I have taken other photos that are related to my personal life that would surely be FP, but I cannot upload them because they represent a very crude reality, very difficult to assimilate, I have had to delete those photos. I write this without the intention of creating drama or political discourse. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Wilfredor, the photos are lovely but you can't display other photos on your nomination. The FPCBot will read them a 'Alternatives' and they will mess up the nomination. I have converted them into links because of that. Please do not be offended by this, it is just to make things work here and your photo hopefully gets a speedy promotion. --Cart (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing, I get it. Thanks for making this change --Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte - Interno - Cesena (Italy).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 18:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Internal view of the Santa Maria del Monte Abbey, ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
  •  Info The Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte is an ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy. The monastery has a rich history, and it is home to a statue of the Madonna, which was brought there in 1318. Inside the abbey there are frescoes and works of art of historical value from the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The low angle is interesting, but the important elements around the altar are not clear. --Tagooty (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ✓ Done Thanks for your comments. I uploaded a new version using the DPP4 Canon software (moving the option Faith to Fine). Now, the image should be a little bit darker but detailed and slighty sharper than in the previous one. Let me provide you with some additional information, my camera was 24 meters from the stairs and 36 meters from the altar and the marble that can be seen around the altar is fake: it is painting done by skilled italian Renaissance artists. (Please, clear your cache to see the new img). --Terragio67 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much better! Can you improve the over-exposed Virgin Mary in the centre? --Tagooty (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, but I have to blend an identical image underexposed in the center. To do this I just uploaded a new HDR version. Terragio67 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The exposure of the Virgin Mary and surroundings are better but lacking in detail. I appreciate the work you've done to improve the image, I'm sorry that it does not appeal to me sufficiently to support either alternative. Tagooty (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. I don't find this image engaging, and I don't understand why you decided to shoot it this way. The frog's perspective is unjustified, the interesting altar disappears dominated by walls, and if anything catches attention here it is the shiny floor.  podstawko  ●talk  11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Podstawko, to see the details of the base of the Altar, it is necessary to go to the upper part of the Abbey, above the 18 steps. Instead, to take this shot I moved just outside the central main entrance, where there are other steps going down. The lowest angle I used allows you to see much of the Renaissance work above the altar very well. This was my intent. Terragio67 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative HDR Image[edit]

Internal view of the Santa Maria del Monte Abbey, ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy.
  •  Info The Santa Maria del Monte Abbey was founded around the year 1001 and completed in 1026. In 1177, he welcomed Emperor Frederick Barbarossa as a guest, who gave him his full protection. The monastery has a rich history and is home to a statue of the Madonna, which was brought there in 1318. During the Renaissance in Italy, it began to take on the appearance it has today; in fact, inside the abbey there are frescoes and works of art of historical value from the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond. The lower angle chosen to take the shot, allows you to see part of it. A curiosity: the colored marbles visible around the altar are fake, they are paintings created by skilled Renaissance artists. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral Exposure is fine, detail and composition are borderline to me. --Tagooty (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Tranquil and interesting church interior. The composition/crop is unusual, of course, but it’s true that the low point of view allows us to see more of the Renaissance frescoes (?) above the altar, so this composition has its merits. --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right to use the question mark between the parentheses. Between 1536 and 1548, the abbey took on the appearance it has today, among the frescoes there are still some works by Francesco Masini. In 1768 a devastating earthquake partially destroyed the dome. In 1774 Giuseppe Milani was commissioned to restore the frescoes. He was authorized to maintain and recover what was possible and was authorized to carry out new works. The latter (you are right) do not belong to the Renaissance. I added some images note... Terragio67 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ★ 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Come on guys. The bar is super high for our church interior. No way we are saying this is as good as what we have. Where to start? No wow. Don't think the angle is wide enough for a church interior. Very unsharp. Very unfortunate and distracting horizontal bars, which are going through the supposedly interesting paintings. Camera on the floor making the benches more prominent than they should... - Benh (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Benh: I'm not sure what "wow" means in the context of a church interior, since a photographer's creative choices are highly limited. For me a church interior is FP if the subject is reasonably interesting, the composition does justice to the subject, and the technical quality and execution are excellent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In short, I would have hung most of Diliff interiors in my living room, not only because they were technically perfect, but also because they were framed with taste and provided sense of scale, epic and marvel. All of which are missing here. - Benh (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Benh. --Yann (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Strange POV and lacks detail, Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bloemknop van een Rudbeckia fulgida. 24-08-2023 (actm.) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 05:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Comment Per Charlesjsharp. With 108 photos, it may be possible to fix some blurred areas ? I added a few notes on the picture. --Selbymay (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Casa de Leighton, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-26, DD 04-06 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2023 at 22:00:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leighton House, London, England
  • BigDom: I'm not sure what you mean, I believe that the chandelier rope is straight, but hte chandelier is a bit off-centered. Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose off centered - Benh (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Still more than impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. Yes. The chandelier clearly shows the photo is skewed, and it is difficult to get past that. It would have been amazing otherwise.  podstawko  ●talk  13:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Alu (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- The chandelier being off center doesn't bug me as much. Too mesmerised by all the other details and textures. I stop and pause every time I see this photo. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful shot. --Selbymay (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Jay.Jarosz. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lessay Abbaye Bas-côté sud 2022 08 22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2023 at 18:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Romanesque south aisle of Lessay Abbey, Manche, France

File:Панорама «Японський» манеж.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 17:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Japanese" manege

File:Porto Covo January 2022-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 16:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Setting sun and crepuscular rays in Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
  •  Info After a long break, I come back with a risky nomination (the kind I prefer!). Yes, most sunsets are equally beautiful but some are more equal than others; I believe this is one of them. I went through all FPs of sunsets/sunrises and realized that the subject is no longer popular. Of the 34 entries, the last is from 2019 and only 4 were promoted after 2015! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, there have been plenty of sunsets and sunrises promoted since then, but these days they are mostly in the galleries of the place they were taken at. While you were gone, a lot has happened with the way Galleries and FP Categories are organized. Go to Category:Sunsets and click on the little icon tool for viewing FPs (or QIs, VIs, Media). That way you can see most of them. Or visit Featured pictures of sunsets or Featured pictures of sunrises. Recently promoted examples of shooting straight into the sun: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Excellent, all of them! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Memmelsdorf Schloss Seehof Lindenallee-20231101-RM-115618.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 11:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Avenue of lime trees in the park of Seehof Castle

File:Red Mill Clinton October 2021 003.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 07:59:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red Mill, Clinton, NJ

File:Ambigram Nothing written.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 00:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ambigram Nothing written
  • Agree it's written 🖋 something, but in reality nothing is "written" :-) Basile Morin (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Now he [Michele Besso] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us that believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." –Albert Einstein. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support tbh I'm not familiar with the "Non-photographic media" category, but I love the symmetry of the way these two words are written. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The gallery was chosen by W.carter and I agree it is appropriate. I think "Non-photographic media" includes paintings, printings, computer-generated works and all visuals that are not specifically photographic. Thanks! -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea but I can't help but see "Nottiny written" every time I look at this, sorry Basile. BigDom (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I believe this is a montage i.e. the left word was cut, copied, flipped and pasted over the blank piece of paper on the right? If so, it seems worthwhile to identify it as such (e.g., 'Photomontages' category and 'Retouched picture' template) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I assumed it was computer-generated to look like pencil, but maybe you're right. If so, then agree. BigDom (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice ambigram! Maybe a tad underexposed? - Benh (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Giving depth to the background (and volume to the texture) was intentional, but my goal was above all to preserve contrast with text color. Is the blue distinguishable or do we see nothing? :-D -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • if the paper is white, it is definitely underexposed. It looks grey on the photo. It's a common mistake to underexpose photo with a dominant white context (because some metering modes will average across all the frame).
    Benh (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your remark, with which I totally agree. However, the paper was not white. I would say it was this color, but the intensity of the tint (to the eye) clearly depends on the light, of course -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Invalid vote (less than 50 edits) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not stated that the edits should be only Commons. I have less than 50 on Commons, but more if you consider the whole Wikimedia project (Wikipedia, Wikispecies) See here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/meta.wikimedia.org/Ndiver. And notice that I've submitted recently a picture that was approved as FP. Ndiver (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Ndiver, but Basile is right. It says clearly on COM:FPC that "contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits ", and your Commons account has only 28 edits. You can make nominations, but not vote yet. I suggest you start making yourself useful here on Commons so you can join in the FPC voting. ;-)
Also, the computer editied part of this photo is not a problem. All sorts of excellent images are welcome at FPC, it is only a matter of sorting them right. We who work behind the scenes have been busy this weekend to finish up the new galleries for images like this (we were a bit behind on this), and I can now add that Gallery to this nom. Unfortunately, people tend to think that if there isn't a Gallery for it, then an image can't be featured, but it is the other way around: We create Galleries for the images that are featured, whatever the subject or technique used. --Cart (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus 'pinging' ArionStar and Julesvernex2 who were worried about the gallery, please read my post above. We are soon done with more new galleries, these things take time to fix, but two are now up and running: Photo techniques/Composites and Montages and Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques. --Cart (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Cart et al. for putting these together! I have a soft spot for the "Minimalism" sub-section, great stuff in there --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely humour gets a pass from the usual rules :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peking Lastenfahrrad-20110104-RM-102214.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2023 at 08:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Defective cargo bike parked in a subway in Beijing
Clearly a case of De minimis imo. The poster is a very small part of the images and mostly hidden behind text.--ArildV (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not de minimis and will without doubt be deleted when nominated for deletion. The poster is definitely a part of the composition and not small. Pity. You could save the picture by blurring the photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment IMHO the photograph is certainly de minimis. Almost nothing is visible. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see it very distinctly even as a thumbnail. Maybe we need to request deletion and see how the closing admin rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a copyright expert but has really De minimis to do with whether the protected object is clearly visible or not? If we look at our own examples; Pyramid clearly visible, Tower clearly visible and clearly visible? But I am happy to nominate the image again when the copyright status is investigated. I don't think the image has a fair chance now. Regards--ArildV (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is addressed in Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. I see this photo as being beyond category 5, but the "keep" argument is that it's category 5. Could we have an advisory opinion of an admin like User:Yann, or do we need to test this by requesting deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO this is pretty clearly de minimis. The compositional reason for including the display is for the text above, which is below COM:TOO China as "simple factual information" (COM:NOP China). The poster is just intrusive advertising (COM:DM #2). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with KoH above. We could blur the lower part of the poster, and the picture would retain its meaning. That's a clear test for de minimis. Yann (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for your opinions, and sorry for the digression. I've been spending a lot of time at COM:Deletion requests, so these questions are very present in my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Moral support and I hope that the photo does not get deleted. It would be morally disappointing if we would have to delete this charming photo because of that small, ugly, badly designed poster. --Aristeas (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Moral support +1 for Aristeas comment --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ★ 23:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smn Cameron-SecofWar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2023 at 16:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Simon Cameron, United States Secretary of War, between 1860 and 1870
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:092 Wild Mute swan in flight at Lake Geneva during golden hour of sunset Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2023 at 15:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wild Mute swan in flight at Lake Geneva during golden hour of sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 25 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Manarola NW Cemetery Corniglia Monterosso Cinque Terre Sep23 A7C 06872.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2023 at 13:17:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cinque Terre coast NW of Manarola, Italy
  • @Ermell: Thanks -- I've corrected a slight tilt in the horizon. Please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful and typical view. – Hint: At the bottom left is now a white triangle (probably from rotating); cropping the image sligthly at the left should remove it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No problem, it’s easy to overlook such small points. Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ★ 02:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose Very nice colors and clouds, but the composition doesn't work for me. You have a strong off-vertical line in the lower right third, but it doesn't lead anywhere; it doesn't connect with the hills in the background because the sea cuts it off, and it doesn't connect with the sea because it's not facing the same way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm with KoH here, the bottom crop looks unbalanced, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Italy


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Wed 15 Nov → Mon 20 Nov
Thu 16 Nov → Tue 21 Nov
Fri 17 Nov → Wed 22 Nov
Sat 18 Nov → Thu 23 Nov
Sun 19 Nov → Fri 24 Nov
Mon 20 Nov → Sat 25 Nov

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

Sat 11 Nov → Mon 20 Nov
Sun 12 Nov → Tue 21 Nov
Mon 13 Nov → Wed 22 Nov
Tue 14 Nov → Thu 23 Nov
Wed 15 Nov → Fri 24 Nov
Thu 16 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
Fri 17 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
Sat 18 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Sun 19 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Mon 20 Nov → Wed 29 Nov

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

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

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2023.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2023), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=804402179"