Commons:Featured picture candidates

Other featured candidates:

Media 

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.

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Scope – In addition to falling within the Commons scope, candidates must be static two-dimensional images. All other types of files should be nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates. Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs). Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Color is important. Oversaturated colors are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types: Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same). A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that). Simple tutorial for new users Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC How to nominate in 8 simple steps STEP 1 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 8 (last step) NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you. Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination". Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}} Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports An image will only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories. Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~. Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates 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 General rules 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. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome 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. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. 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. 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. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). 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.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. 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. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes 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 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 To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity). Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

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

Featured picture candidates

File:ISS-38 Hawaiian Island chain.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2023 at 10:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-38 Hawaiian Island chain.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-38 Hawaiian Island chain.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Oceania
•  Info The Hawaiian islands as seen from the International Space Station. Created by NASA - uploaded by Ras67 - nominated by ★ -- ★ 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- ★ 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Sunset in Píer Oscar Weinschenck, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2023 at 22:20:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in Píer Oscar Weinschenck, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in Píer Oscar Weinschenck, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Brazil
•  Info

English: The photograph captures a moment of tranquility and companionship at Píer Oscar Weinschenck in Rio de Janeiro. Two couples sit on the edge of the pier, their silhouettes outlined by the glowing golden light of the sunset. Around them, the world seems to pause; the harbor waters reflect a sky of soft amber tones, and the moored ships at the back remain still, as if respecting the quiet end of the day. The towering buildings peeking from behind suggest the proximity of the city, yet on this pier, there's an interlude of serenity where time seems to slow down, and each wave whispers tales of days ending with the promise of warm nights. This photo is a reflection of the whirlwind of emotions I experienced that day, the day I met a charming carioca. After a bike ride with her daughter, we stopped in front of this scene, lost in contemplation. It was then that a passerby approached and, with a smile, remarked on how beautiful my daughter was. In that moment, against the backdrop of the setting sun and the calm harbor, I felt a simple, unexpected moment transform into a precious memory that would stay with me forever.

Português: A fotografia captura um momento de tranquilidade e companhia no Píer Oscar Weinschenck, no Rio de Janeiro. Duas casais se sentam à beira do cais, suas silhuetas recortadas pela luminosa luz dourada do pôr do sol. Ao redor deles, parece que o mundo dá uma pausa; as águas do porto refletem um céu de suaves tons de âmbar, e os navios ancorados ao fundo permanecem imóveis, como se respeitassem o pacífico fim do dia. Os edifícios altos ao fundo sugerem a proximidade da cidade, mas neste cais, há um interlúdio de serenidade onde o tempo parece abrandar, e cada onda sussurra histórias de dias terminando com a promessa de noites quentes. Esta foto é o reflexo do turbilhão de emoções que experimentei naquele dia, o dia em que conheci uma carioca encantadora. Após um passeio de bicicleta com a sua filha, paramos diante desta cena, perdidos em contemplação. Foi então que um passante se aproximou e, com um sorriso, comentou quão bela era minha filha. Naquele instante, diante do pôr do sol e do porto tranquilo, senti um momento simples e inesperado transformar-se em uma memória preciosa que ficaria comigo para sempre.

All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support "Paintly" well done, as usual. ★ 22:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose --A.Savin 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why? ★ 23:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nominator knows why. --A.Savin 03:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The rules are that you need to tell the rest of us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The explanation is for example here and I've no desire being like in Groundhog Day again and again. By the way, there is no rule on striking or removing votes by eligible users without their authorization. Thanks --A.Savin 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of AI text, I presume? --SHB2000 (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The rule is that opposing votes must offer a reason. I've seen examples in the past of opposing votes without a reason not being counted. If they can be counted, we're operating strictly on the honors system, and if so, that needs to be discussed on the talk page. I'm afraid you'll have to offer that link again and again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware – I just wanted a confirmation from A.Savin before voting myself. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Nice picture, but inadequate AI description. Yann (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Thorsten Nordenfelt. Svensk ubåtspionjär.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2023 at 06:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Thorsten Nordenfelt. Svensk ubåtspionjär.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thorsten Nordenfelt. Svensk ubåtspionjär.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1890-1899
•  Info created by C. M. Bell, at the point it was run by Bell's wife and sons - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Info Forgot to transcribe this. Whoops! Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Very good restoration work compared to the original. Thank you for your efforts. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Casa de Leighton, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-26, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2023 at 10:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Casa de Leighton, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-26, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casa de Leighton, Londres, Inglaterra, 2022-11-26, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_Kingdom
•  Info Dining room of Leighton House, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, west London, England. The art museum and historic house is located in the Holland Park area and was the London home of painter Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton (1830–1896), who commissioned the architect and designer George Aitchison to build him a combined home and studio. The resulting building, noted for its elaborate Orientalist and aesthetic interiors, has been open to the public since 1929. The museum was awarded the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage / Europa Nostra Award in 2012. The pottery collection from around the world in the dining room is one of the highlights of the museum. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Especially in full screen, the atmosphere of the room pleases me. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition in red. --XRay 💬 11:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of Wat Pa Phon Phao and Nam Khan river seen from Old French Bridge Luang Prabang Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2023 at 03:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Wat Pa Phon Phao and Nam Khan river seen from Old French Bridge Luang Prabang Laos.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Wat Pa Phon Phao and Nam Khan river seen from Old French Bridge Luang Prabang Laos.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Laos
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support So Laotian. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support So golden. ★ 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral The temple is too small for me (it is drowning in the landscape). The tree in front of the temple does not help either. I find the faded yellow of the tower somewhat disturbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition, mood and colors under these grey clouds but I wouldn't call this small viewing angle an panoramic view. --Milseburg (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm not convinced either, neither the sky nor the river in that color look appealing to me. I'd have probably focused rather on the temple Poco a poco (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment I kind of like compo with that temple standing as a golden spark of hope while the world around it is dark, stormy and muddy. A photo like this tells a story rather than serve as just a representation of that particular piece of land. It could do with a bit more contrast though. --Cart (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Flavio Andre Pantanal Vista aerea Pocone MT.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 22:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flavio Andre Pantanal Vista aerea Pocone MT.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flavio Andre Pantanal Vista aerea Pocone MT.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
•  Info Drone view of the Pantanal in Poconé, Mato Grosso, Brazil. The Pantanal is a natural region encompassing the world's largest tropical wetland area, and the world's largest flooded grasslands. Created by Flavio Andre/MTur Destinos - uploaded by High source - nominated by ★ -- ★ 22:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- ★ 22:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much empty sky. I find that the rule of thirds does not work well when the smaller third is completely empty (e.g. cloudless sky or water); the crop should be tighter than that. But regardless of the crop, I am not wowed here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination ★ 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:044 Grey-headed kingfisher at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 22:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:044 Grey-headed kingfisher at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:044 Grey-headed kingfisher at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
•  Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Another amazing Laurent's work! ★ 00:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Too bad the tail is so blurry, but enough of the bird is sharp, it's a beautiful bird, and the composition is very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality but the image would be more attractive if the crop was tighter (top, left and right), in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Τζαμί Κουτουμπιά 0866.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 20:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Τζαμί Κουτουμπιά 0866.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Τζαμί Κουτουμπιά 0866.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Morocco
•  Info An orange stall in from of Koutoubia Mosque, Marrakesh. All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- C messier (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a nice scene but the execution is far from FP material unfortunately. The composition is uneven and the light's attention is on the tower but it's out of focus. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Jay. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Roques de Garcia from Parador.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 19:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Roques de Garcia from Parador.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roques de Garcia from Parador.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Canary Islands
•  Info all by Imehling -- imehling (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- imehling (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Fluweelpootje (Flammulina velutipes), 22-11-2023. (d.j.b).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2023 at 16:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fluweelpootje (Flammulina velutipes), 22-11-2023. (d.j.b).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fluweelpootje (Flammulina velutipes), 22-11-2023. (d.j.b).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Physalacriaceae
•  Info A velvet foot (Flammulina velutipes) in a deep hole in the Armpit of a trunk of an Alder (Alnus). Focus stack of 66 photos.
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support nice earthy color palette. --C messier (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per C messier. Lovely hue of yellow, pleasant textures, nicely composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:086 Wild Grass snake at Lake Geneva Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 23:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:086 Wild Grass snake at Lake Geneva Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:086 Wild Grass snake at Lake Geneva Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Colubridae (Colubrids)
•  Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I like also the use of the surrounding elements. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --C messier (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Well done! great detail Poco a poco (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per Poco, and I also really like that the snake seems to be looking at us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (16).jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (16).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (16).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 00:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Question What is so special here? the picture? there is no information about it. There are probably over 1000 chapels like this one in Rome. Poco a poco (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (11).jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (11).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome (11).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral The bottom crop looks arbitrary to me. I see the main altar without the altar Poco a poco (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This composition works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada 131.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 20:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada 131.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada 131.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
•  Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose not centered - Benh (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

At a macro level, you need to have a steel pulse to be able to center something like that, I know that in editing I could do it, I am open to any cut but that would mean a change in the proportion which would break the cutting standard generated by the camera. IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Huge resolution, nice detail. I don't mind the framing but I would be fine with a cropping to center it as well. --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Very good, no need to be centered. --Selbymay (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Good, centering would be nice, but not necessary. --XRay 💬 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Per my prior analysis. ★ 23:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Is this a studio photo? Poco a poco (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Its in the nature, with a considerable amount of wind, take many photos before getting this shot. You can see a less closeup of the same flower here --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Very impressive to me! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 14:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Intentional camera movement (ICM)
•  Info To keep XRay company, I'll try one of my own favorite ICMs. It has been well received on other photo sites, but that probably means nothing here. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cart (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. Have you considered cropping out the leftmost tree? I've tried it and to my eyes the resulting composition seemed more balanced (less left-heavy, with an equal distance from the left and right borders to the trees, and with the foreground tree almost in the middle) -Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have made other versions, outside Commons, with tighter crops, and they hold up very nicely too. But not fully with one tree dead center, since I like to keep the irregular forest feeling. With this framing you have a grading across the photo from heavier forest to the left, to clearing up into a field to the right. Your request is something to consider if other voters feel the same. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Just low quality images of some wooden pieces: There is no any reasonon for FP nomination here. -- Karelj (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I am dismayed about the itense hatred which manifests itself in such disparaging comments. What has wounded your soul, dear mate? Spraying hatred will not heal your pain. I would like to invite you to try hiking, meditation, prayer, yoga, whatever you like instead. But it should be constructive, because injuring others just keeps your wound open and bleeding. --Aristeas (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

+2 I second this. Karelj, all you're doing is deliberately putting others down by spuriously claiming they have no reason to nominate a file for FP. Please read what you write and ask yourself: if someone said that to a photo you put your hard yards into, how would you feel? --SHB2000 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

-2 $\ {\frac {x}{y}}\arcsin \left({\frac {2}{3}}\right)\approx$ We have a template {{FPX}} "where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP". Just imagine this template with the reason "Low quality". The judgment is subjective and contestable by anyone, however, it's a valid opinion, and here it's a simple comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 I almost expected the disparaging comment. Regrettably, it happens again and again. It would be good to remain respectful, polite and factual. --XRay 💬 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment As an artist I'm used to harsh critique, it comes with the territory, not everyone can like what you do. It's ok for me personally, but crude behavior in general is not good for this FPC section or Commons. It's not easy to remain civilized and polite in all situations online and I myself is not an exception to that. But to do so repetedly when users obviously are bothered by it, is not ok. A better tone would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

-1 ● "Reasonon" is not in my dictionary but is it a reason to lynch a user who makes the effort to formulate a subjective criticism in a foreign language that he apparently masters approximately?

"In my view, it is a low quality image. Just trees. I don't see any reason for FP nomination." ► Is this opinion so harsh that it is unacceptable for the fragile little heart of this group? 💔😭

● Please remember we use official image guidelines at FPC to evaluate the candidates. These guidelines are supposed to be the rules to follow. How do you judge a "quality photo" when the official recommandation is Focus: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." and Motion Blur: "Too long exposure: image has become blurred because of hand shaking or subject moving too fast.". Note that this photo is not Panning, hence the obvious difficulty in judging whether the photo meets the quality criteria or not. The photo is called "Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg" (not "abstract"), so don't be surprised if some reviewers expect to find trees somewhere in the image. And how do you do at FPC when you have absolutely no clue, no indications, no guidelines to evaluate the "quality" of such unconventional pictures? COM:FPC states "General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality." Hmm, based on which aspects please?

● Karelj sees just "wooden pieces". Well, everyone is entitled to share one's point of view. Is there anything else than trunks and branches (wooden pieces) on this photograph? White snow, perhaps, but compare with this work. I don't see anything wrong with someone finding the content rather empty, bare or boring. Is the crime of opinion sanctioned on Commons? Once again, our guidelines states Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" Is the wow an imperative diktat, in this case? Matter of personal taste. Not everyone has to like Jackson Pollock either: Many observers consider it is "just spilled paint on canvas", sharing this opinion does not mean being hateful.

● "No reason for FP nomination" certainly means "nothing special" (sometimes other people agree). Karelj is among the rare regular contributors working on the POTD templates, and as you know, all pictures of the day are selected from the FP pool. Perhaps this blurry photograph was considered unsuitable for the home page, well, this vision can be justified according to our quality criteria / reception criteria. Once again, it's a question of taste, not of behavior.

● Certainly, the review above could be more softened, and written in a better English (not my mother tongue either, by the way). However, it seems mainly focused on the content of the image. What's wrong? Where are the personal attacks that everyone is complaining about? No insults, no vulgarity. Just a negative comment hastily written. Is it a serious fault?

●  Question @Aristeas, you are one of the most polite and rational people around here, and I am very surprised to discover your allegations of "hatred". You say "Spraying hatred" and "Injuring others" but are you yourself calm /rested /zen /serene enough to hear a point of view different from yours? Hate speech is something else, comrade. In our democracies, anyone is perfectly entitled to dislike an image, a song, a film, and to say it openly, you know. That's not insulting the authors to criticise (negatively) their works, on the contrary, negative feedback often helps to improve.

● I think Kallerna is among the most talented photographers of Commons, and he's probably right to regret that "the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy". It's difficult enough to find the courage to cast a non-consensual opinion in the middle of an unanimous pack, so please don't unnecessarily hinder these divergent points of view, because Commons is not intended to become a Care Bears world 🌈 nor the universality of beauty and good. These {{Oppose}} votes represent minor red spots in a green forest, you should make the effort to welcome these differences rather than digging on wrong ground to discredit them. Marginality / originality is precious.

● I read with astonishment that many people above feel "dismayed about the intense hatred", but honestly, such a lynching for such an insignificant gap gives me the impression that intolerance rather comes from the other side, if I dare express my feeling. I had to check if the comment had been modified to believe this discussion. Unfortunately no, this relentlessness is only caused by this clumsy little text? Wow! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment As most readers apparently understood immediately, my comment does not refer to the mere fact that Karelj voted against this picture – objective contra voices with meaningful, constructive reasons related to the specific picture always enrich the discussion. Rather, my comment refers to the patronising wording of Karelj’s comment, which (apart from the dismissive phrase “some wooden pieces”) has no recognisable reference to the picture, and to the fact that it fits seamlessly into a long series of similar disparaging comments by Karelj. This series of scornful remarks, some with clearly insulting expressions like “a picture for the waste bin” etc., gives me the impression that Karelj is very injured, harbours a deep resentment and has difficulty dealing with his aggression. That dismays me. So I’ve tried to point Karelj towards better ways of dealing with aggression and emotional wounds. If I have hurt him – or you? – with this, I am of course deeply sorry. That doesn’t change the fact that I consider disparaging comments to be inappropriate and unhelpful. I prefer to discuss pictures objectively with constructive and respectful reviews, and I have the impression that many other participants hold the same view. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not only "some wooden pieces", the comment also mentions the (alleged) "low quality", that directly refers to the technical aspect of the picture. By the way, let's see the glass half full rather than half empty: if the previous comments were "waste bin" (I don't remember but perhaps), then this one appears much more moderate in comparison. Honestly, and once again, I do not read this comment as an attack, in my opinion it expresses a firm rejection of the image, with surely a lot of clumsiness in the writing, and without a doubt an absence of delicacy, but nothing catastrophic, no insult, no marked hatred. This is an important point given the allegations and the consequences -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You make some pretty valid and fair points, Basile, and kudos on you for making it more balanced. However, as a native English speaker, the phrase "I don't see any reason for FP nomination" (or "no reason for FP nomination" as Karel mentions in some other FPC noms) goes a lot more than what it sounds at face value. To me, it comes out across as "why did you nominate this?!" or "what was the purpose of you nominating this utterly useless pic?", because the tone of it is passive aggressive and flat-out rude (which is something you would never say in real life without consequences – same applies here). That's what Aristeas and I find problematic – not because of Karel's different opinions. We just don't think Karel should be allowed to simply get a slap on the wrist for their choice of words. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The question "why did you nominate this?" (as you say for comparison) sounds very neutral, soft and valid, in my view, based on the FP requirements in relation to the "quality" criteria. In real life, many things can be said with an adequate tone. We need evidence, no guesses. COM:AGF: "When using a second language, people can sometimes express themselves in ways that convey a different tone or message than the one intended. To avoid false assumptions about the intentions of other editors, keep in mind that language barriers can cause misunderstandings. Editors who use a language other than their own usually do so out of courtesy to others." Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, this is one of the few cases where I don't exactly agree with the principle of COM:AGF – words can be subject to interpretation differently, based on context, and English is one of those languages where there is no one certain way of speaking and understanding it. I could write a message in very bad faith but twist it to make it deliberately ambiguous, and you'd have no way of proving that I had ill-intent. Same applies here, which is why the principle of COM:AGF is hard to apply here. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Dans nos sociétés civilisées, il existe un principe important qui s'appelle la "Présomption d'innocence". Tu imagines sinon ? On pourrait aussi supposer que ton but ici est de régler un vieux différend avec cette personne, et que toute ta stratégie consiste à exploiter un mauvais prétexte pour harceler cet ennemi ? Comment te disculper si COM:AGF est remis en cause? Soyons prudent et modéré avec les extrapolations de micro-bribes de textes aussi insignifiantes que celle-ci. Par ailleurs, même si tu es en désaccord avec une règle de Commons, celle-ci faisant partie des directives officielles, je crois qu'il est impératif de la respecter, pour un bon fonctionnement collectif. Chacun est maître de ses émotions, de son imaginaire et de ses spéculations, mais je suis quand même assez sidéré d'entendre tes suspicions par rapport à ce commentaire anodin, sur le fait qu'il puisse selon toi (si j'ai bien compris ton anglais) être déguisé de manière à tromper les lecteurs, c'est-à-dire ceux qui y verraient simplement un message neutre et indolore n'auraient en fait pas saisi la véritable intention de nuire, habilement dissimulée ? Oh la la.... Non seulement, rien n'est flagrant, mais en plus le niveau d'anglais et de négligence est lui-même facile à vérifier. Excuse-moi mais à ce stade, les craintes me paraissent plus que fantaisistes, plutôt délétères. Je ne vois pas non plus pourquoi COM:AGF serait davantage sujet à précaution dans ce cas plutôt plutôt que dans un autre. Je pense au contraire que cette règle à été rédigée précisément pour dissoudre ce genre de difficulté, en particulier. Enfin bon, peut-être qu'un jour on découvrira toute l'extraordinaire machination qui a été mise en oeuvre à notre insu, et qu'on tombera de haut face au niveau d'élaboration du piège machiavélique? En attendant, relax, Max ! (Carpe diem, mon ami ☮). Plus de méprise que de mal, à mon avis.

In our civilized societies, there is an important principle called the “presumption of innocence”. Can you imagine otherwise? We could also assume that your goal here is to settle an old dispute with this person, and that your whole strategy consists of exploiting a bad pretext to harass this enemy? How can you exonerate yourself if COM:AGF is called into question? Let us be careful and moderate with extrapolations of micro-snippets of text as insignificant as this. Furthermore, even if you disagree with a Commons rule, it being part of the official guidelines, I believe that it is imperative to respect it, for good collective functioning. Everyone is master of their emotions, their imagination and their speculations, but I am still quite stunned to hear your suspicions in relation to this innocuous comment, in relation to the fact that it could according to you (if I have correctly understood your English) be disguised in such a way as to deceive the readers, that is to say those who would simply see a neutral and painless message would not in fact have grasped the real intention to harm, skillfully concealed? Oh my.... Not only is nothing obvious, but the level of English and negligence itself is easy to check. Excuse me but at this stage, the fears seem more than fanciful to me, rather deleterious. I also don't see why COM:AGF would be more subject to precaution in this case rather than in another. On the contrary, I think that this rule was written precisely to dissolve this type of difficulty specifically. Anyway, maybe one day we will discover the whole extraordinary plot that was implemented without our knowledge, and we will fall head over heels in the face of the level of elaboration of the Machiavellian trap? In the meantime, chillax ! (Carpe diem, my friend ☮) More mistake than harm, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Did I recently write a support, saying something about the art of photography? This is a totally differnt genre of the art of photography, but I absolutely love this. There is a feeling of the woods in this picture that a more traditional image with perfect sharpness could not capture. Thanks for nominating! --Kritzolina (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Strong support I like it very much, an impressive artistic transformation that reminds me of the so-called ghost forest Gespensterwald in my adoptive home. Thank you very much for the nomination! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ❄️ ★ 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful composition, good example of ICM photography. --XRay 💬 18:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurry and noisy image of random forest, Commons should not be a amateur art gallery. —kallerna (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong about the 'amateur' part applying to me. I am in fact a professional artist, taught by Einar Jolin who in turn was taught by Henri Matisse. But hey, we all make mistakes. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, where's your Wikipedia article where we can add this photo? —kallerna (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is your understanding of the scope of Commons? Also - as XRay pointed out, this is a wonderful example of a photography technique and can be added to all articles where this technique is mentioned. Kritzolina (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

E.g. to Intentional camera movement, and this photo would indeed be an excellent example for that article. Or to Wikibooks textbooks about photography, etc. But as Kritzolina has already pointed out, Commons has a far wider scope than illustrating Wikipedia articles. E.g. this photo would make a wonderful album cover or dust jacket illustration. Yes, Commons provides media for such uses, too. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to devalue art by amateurs? It's often amateurs who are involved in art. I myself am active here locally with many other artists - and they are all amateurs. I see no reason to see this in a derogatory way. I think the photos like this one are very valuable for our FP collection. They are the pictures that show that you can think outside the box. It's also pointless to always refer to Wikipedia here. Commons is not just for Wikipedia alone. BTW: Cart is a professional artist with excellent work. I really appreciate her pictures. --XRay 💬 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Kallerna, like other users have pointed out, Commons is not just an image databank for Wikipedia articles. The images here also serve all the other Wikipedia's sister projects, see list here: Template:Wikipedia's sister projects. As an Admin you should know they exist. The images on Commons are also used by schools, museums, organisations, websites, newspapers, etc. outside the WikiProject, thanks to the generous licenses they are published under. For example, a similar dreamy photo I made is now used on the cover of a printed book, and the writer found it on Commons. I sometimes do searches online to see where my images are used on and outside Wiki, and it's really fun to see all the contexts they show up in. We frequently import images of art into Commons, is it really so outlandish to see that Commons also exports art out of the site? --Cart (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've been around long enough to know these guidelines. I think I also have the right for my opinion, and as I've said, nowadays the bar for all qualifications for the images is too low. This photo is IMO not among the best images of Commons, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your clarification. You should have written this as an explanation for your vote, instead of lashing out. That way all these unpleasantries and comments would have been avoided. Your own opinion is valued and respected. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is a voting, not a therapy session. General outlook: It is not a surprise that the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy. Just support all nominations and others will support your nomination? —kallerna (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not all “opposing votes create controversy”. The two votes which created controversy here missed any substantial reason and did not even provide any concrete allusions to the image; instead they just stringed together some interchangeable disparaging words. This is why they attracted critical comments. If you would have set forth why the intentional camera movement was not successful in this case, or not appropriate for the subject, or done in an insufficent manner etc., this would have been constructive criticism and we all had learned something useful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm having a decent conversation with Cart, why do you want to join and say my comment is shit? I also think supporting votes should have a reason if opposing do - there are lots of people here who don't know anything about the history of FP and support just about anything. This is now off-topic, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  No one said your comment was shit; anyone can join a conversation – this is Wikimedia, not a private chatroom. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) I agree that the bar for FP has been constantly lowered in the past few years, especially for artistic composition, as skilled photographers have given up. Emphasis has tilted over to the technical side, which, with today's cameras and size of photos is an almost academic discussion. I don't know about the second part of your comment though... Due to problem with my eyes I haven't voted on anything for almost a year. Instead I have dedicated my time to maintenance work on the site, and generally been a p.i.t.a. for many users. I fully expected this nom to be all about people venting their aggressions towards me in oppose votes. The strong support here has been something of a chock for me. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was a general comment, not towards your actions (that's why "General outlook"). —kallerna (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent example for intentional camera movement. By the movement the image gets a mysterious, slightly ghostly effect which intensifies the atmosphere of the snowy wood. --Aristeas (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support different and actually eye catching. Looks like a painting, makes the forest more vertical and more intimidating plus emphasises the winterish vibe. But the coolest thing with that kind of photo is that everyone will read it differently. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Även om jag också gillar den första versionen. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support And I don't get Karelj's vote one bit. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support phantastic! Currently I'm barely active on commons. Noms like this one lure me back. Accompanying discussions serve as a warning, though. ;-) ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not sure interacting with the comments above is the best course of action, irrespectively of the underlying intentions. Feedback can be hurtful, even when it's not put crassly, but it's often a better learning tool than praise. Also, some languages sound more aggressive than intended when translated to English, so some leeway is necessary. And if the intention was pure shock value, well, as the old Internet adage goes, "don't feed the trolls". If things get out of hand and rules of conduct are broken, there's dispute resolution tools available. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to jump in here, I beleive your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but here you are stating two things here that are widely popular opinions that have been disproven scientifically. Criticism, especially crassly worded, harsh criticism, is not a good learning tool. It can actually hinder learning and often does. Praise is a much better learning tool. Also the rule of "don't feed the trolls" has been proven unhelpful and not stopping trolling in a number of research projects. Kritzolina (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not al all, thanks for jumping in. Can you point me to the scientific evidence you are referring to? My understanding is that modern psychological findings support the opposite. I found Jonathan Haidt's book, albeit focused on US college campuses, a good summary of the current state-of-the-art on this topic: [1] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for linking this. In this kind of context praise vs criticism is only one of many facets of raising children. What we are talking about here on this site is the effect of criticism on adults who often are already experts in their field. I will be looking for some more specific articles, but currently travelling, so this might take a few days, as I will be very busy over the weekend. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Of course, whenever you have a chance. If you're not able to find adequate support (claiming that a theory has been disproven is a tall order, as it requires scientific consensus), I think it would be helpful for the discussion to retract the statement, or to change it to something more precise (e.g., "some studies suggest") --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• In the meantime, please bear in mind that being polite and being hurtful are not mutually exclusive. Personally I will take feedback in any shape or form it is offered, but others may find statements such as "I believe your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but" patronising. Cart, hopefully this tangent didn't take too much away from your amazing nomination. As one of the many amateurs on Commons, I'm glad to have the opportunity to interact with pros! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Julesvernex2, don't worry, it's not the first time a work of mine has sparked controversy. ;-) At least this time, the "storm" is just on a section of FPC and not a whole town. (yes, it has happened :-D). --Cart (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Julesvernex2, I am really sorry that I came across as patronising. This was not my intention and I want to ask your forgiveness for not taking more time to think about the impact this wording could have on you. And I totally agree, nothing can guarantee our words don't hurt others unintentionally. We still should try to choose words and phrases that have a smaller likelihood than others, but giving our different backgrounds and life experiences we all fail at times. Sorry again!

  If you want to discuss further on the praise vs criticism issue, I would suggest moving to the talkpage here, as this is not just about this nomination and the reactions of some users to it, this has a bigger scope. As an intro I suggest looking into this article, which clearly opens with the affirmation that "praise has long been recognized as an important form of social reinforcement" while "Criticism ... has been identified as a poor way to encourage better performance". It then goes on to differentiate more, which we also should do perhaps. Kritzolina (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• No need for that, Kritzolina! As I mentioned above, no offence taken. Happy to continue the discussion on scientific evidence elsewhere, but I propose we stick to findings that are more recent than the one you provided, and that enjoy wide academical consensus. Much has changed in this field since the 80s, with much more to come as the replication crisis continues to make its way through empirical psychology. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just a question. I would assume that criticism should be concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful in order to serve as a good learning tool. Now the feedback we discuss here was neither concrete (it did not describe any concrete shortcomings of the specific photo) nor constructive (no hint was provided to what should be different or how one could achieve a better result) nor respectful (on the contrary, it appeared just disparaging). Is this kind of dismissive comments really helpful? Of course great people can learn from everything, but wouldn’t it in most cases much more successful to provide concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful criticism? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the best feedback is concrete, constructive and respectful. However, I don't think this is something that should be enforced, as everybody has the right to express an opinion how they deem fit (excluding ad hominem attacks and other nonsense, which are disallowed by the existing code of conduct). As I defended in another context, the more rules, restrictions and hurdles we put in place, the less diverse the nominations and votes will be. And we should perhaps give extra leeway for opposing votes, which are an endangered species around here :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation! That’s a plausible point of view. --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support A work of art.--Ermell (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support An impressive work of art ––Berthold Werner (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Its a photography? i dont know but something different is here --Wilfredor (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful verticality. Very nice mood. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Outstanding because the technique is very different from the other candidates. What would be outstanding here if there were many images taken by this technique. Btw. For me to artificial and strange. --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Milseburg, thank you for your review. We have just created a new gallery for photos like this and other camera techniques. Before that, this was a very "scary" and new technique that left voters suspicious. Commons in general and FPC especially is a bit behind the curve when it comes to all the digital photo styles and techniques that are used today. We are starting to remedy that, see also XRay's nomination. Every new thing starts somewhere. Cart (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   Comment ICM and related techniques are neither marginal, as Cart had already pointed out, nor new. Magnum photographer Ernst Haas, e.g, began using blurred impressions in the 1950s. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Something refreshing Poco a poco (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --BigDom (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Like an impressionist painting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Felipe y Santiago, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25, DD 72-74 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 22:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Felipe y Santiago, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25, DD 72-74 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Felipe y Santiago, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25, DD 72-74 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Italy
•  Info Ceiling of the church of St Philipp and James (in Italian "Santi Filippo e Giacomo"), Naples, Italy. The Renaissance style church was commissioned in 1593 by local merchants, but the temple we see today is the product of a 1758 reconstruction by Gennaro Papa. The frescoes in the choir, nave and walls were completed by Jacopo Cestaro. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 22:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support The CA on the upper grille could perhaps be removed but otherwise impressive as always.--Ermell (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support as Ermell --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose First painting obstructed. Wood a bit washed out. - Benh (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Flysch formation at Sakoneta Beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 14:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flysch formation at Sakoneta Beach.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flysch formation at Sakoneta Beach.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Basque Country
•  Info Flysch formation on Sakoneta beach between Deba and Zumaia, Basque Country -- Milseburg (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Great. Very light dust spot in the middle near the top margin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• And another one more at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support ★ 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Very educative view of the Flysch formation and at the same time a nice composition. --Aristeas (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  weak Support Beautiful composition but I would prefer the two dust spots removed -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Done Thanks for the hints and support. --Milseburg (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice subject but boring lighting and I'd have looked for more perspective going further down and getting rid of the left part Poco a poco (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bali Myna 0A2A9443.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 09:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bali Myna 0A2A9443.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bali Myna 0A2A9443.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sturnidae_(Starlings)
•  Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral Too much noise reduction --Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 17:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2016 002.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 08:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2016 002.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2016 002.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States#New York City
•  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful! Now I want to go to NYC - Benh (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Nice light, sky and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support The Pink Hour. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 12:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral The distant buildings seem unclear, this is due to the aperture, it would have been better to combine 3 or more images using Focus Stacking --Wilfredor (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  what are you talking about? On distant subjects, DOF doesn't affect sharpness like at close distance. I personally find that all is very clear and sharp despite it being a very long exposure shot and don't think stacking gimmicks would much improve things. Could you pin point the specific area that is of concern to you? - Benh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wilfredor certainly does not refer to DoF, but to diffraction; at ƒ/11 we already have a small, but visible reduction of the lens resolution by diffraction. And actually the scyscrapers are very sharp, but not as sharp as they could be (theoretically). So Wilfredor has a good point here. However it is quite likely that the sharpness of the cityscape is also degraded by some haze; in this case the diffraction has no perceptible influence. And I also think that the cityscape is still more than sharp enough in this image. So while in general it is a very good idea to remember the diffraction (on the newest high-resolution cameras its influence is even more noticeable), it does not diminish the value of this wonderful photo. Focus stacking can also introduce many additional problems, so IMHO in this case it was the smarter choice to stay with the good old single-shot ƒ/11 approach. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  In my experience, there is no perceptible difference between f/8 and f/11 on a 24 MP camera. It could have been sharper if I had used a prime lens and/or made a stitched panorama, but the lighting conditions were changing quickly and I didn't have time for that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know mate. Judging by this stopping down to f/11 doesn't degrade that much in the center and even improve resolution in the borders. Anyways, @Wilfredor did you even look at the picture as a whole? Maybe you'll appreciate the excellent timing, how the water is rendered smooth with the long exposure, the colours of the sky, the reflexion on the glass... But yeah pixels are probably the things to look at first.- Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think the image is quite calm and calm, but when it comes to inanimate objects, I would always like to see them more clearly, I am sure that 3 photographs joined together would have facilitated this. I have had this problem before and I always choose to take several photos with the technique I mentioned. We have photos of cities in the commons and King himself has already taken richer, sharper photos. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I mean in terms of diffraction. So @Benh: I agree with you and that's why I now default to f/11 unless I'm sure f/8 is adequate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry my answer was to Aristeas's. I think I started my comment before you posted yours, which I agree with. - Benh (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Ermell (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Great light and atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Really nice view. --Selbymay (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I'm wowed! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I love the light and main subject, but the crop is IMO unfortunate with branches and the shadowed lighthouse. —kallerna (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Gallery tweaked. Thanks all the hard work by you and other US photographers, the US now has a cityscapes gallery page of its own: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States. Keep up the good work! --Cart (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Great compo and light Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Arothron nigropunctatus - Wilhelma 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 15:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Arothron nigropunctatus - Wilhelma 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arothron nigropunctatus - Wilhelma 02.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Tetraodontidae (Pufferfish)
•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Gleamin' Bream? ★ 21:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh light. Composition should be more or less centered, now it feels bit uneasy. —kallerna (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose No quality enough for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment See Aristeas's and SHB2000's comments on Karelj's vote in Cart's nomination above --Llez (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Funny, beautiful and educative at the same time. --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Volkach Maria im Weingarten Luftbild-20221027-RM-171234.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 10:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Volkach Maria im Weingarten Luftbild-20221027-RM-171234.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volkach Maria im Weingarten Luftbild-20221027-RM-171234.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
•  Info Pilgrimage church Maria im Weingarten (Volkach), aerial view. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ermell (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Ermell, there's a sliver of white on the top right corner, a leftover from perspective correction, I believe --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the hint Julesvernex2. I did not notice that.--Ermell (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very beautiful light, but the crop should be much tighter. —kallerna (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I like the crop as-is. It's not just about the building, but also the context in which it is located and the unique lines, shapes, and colors that come with the landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Nice light and composition. Agree with KoH -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support The structures of the fields around the church emphasize the church very well. --XRay 💬 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose there certainly is a FP in this scene, but it's not quite there yet, imo. To me it feels like you couldn't decide whether to crop close to focus on the building or wide to include some context and then just chose something half-way in-between. "Kein Fisch und kein Fleisch" sozusagen. Maybe try a wider aspect ratio? --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support In my eyes the photo shows exactly the right amount of context. --Aristeas (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Eutropis (skink) looking at viewer in the sun in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 01:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eutropis (skink) looking at viewer in the sun in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eutropis (skink) looking at viewer in the sun in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Scincidae (Skinks)
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 08:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautifil photo, thank you for including a bit if the nature surrounding the animal. You could consider it for the new Animals/In their habitats gallery, but that's up to you. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles, they're almost all in their habitat. And I prefer no split -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• These new galleries are a bad idea Cart. Why were they created? I would recommend deletion (is there are process for this?). We should assume all animal images are of animals in their natural habitat and use sub categories for those that are not e.g. zoos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Charlesjsharp , the reasons for creating these new galleries were given at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#New Gallery pages, please continue this discussion there. With the number of FPs we have now, it is impossible to have FPs in multiple galleries the way we had ten years ago. The structures that were set up when we had some hundreds of FPs don't work with the 17,415 FPs we have today. Instead the FP categories have been enormously improved, like for example Category:Featured pictures of animals. --Cart (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very good quality, but I find the background too distracting. —kallerna (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kallerna. -- Karelj (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting background --Wilfredor (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, the background is not the best, human-made elements are also a minus and I'd rather see a sharp head with the body behind it but not a blurry body in the foreground Poco a poco (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral Blurred tail. ★ 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buteo jamaicensis New York September 2019 002.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Buteo
•  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 02:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I like the bird's expression. They are absolutely unfazed by people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Awkward POV. —kallerna (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with kallerna, Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Boardmasters2023 (97 of 171) (53120163026).jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:Boardmasters2023 (97 of 171) (53120163026).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boardmasters2023 (97 of 171) (53120163026).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
•  Info Raye at the Boardmasters Festival 2023. Created by Raph_PH - uploaded by Tm - nominated by ★ -- ★ 22:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Her facial expression is so impressive that I didn't hesitate to nominate it. -- ★ 22:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe not the best possible bottom crop, but impressive and very sharp (almost too sharp for a portrait-like photo ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support How can I escape seeing this photo? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  👨‍⚕️ Doctor, doctor; anything, please! ★ 15:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Doctor, doctor, have mercy on me, take this pain away. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--XRay 💬 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment The name of this singer is not in the file name, and difficult to find in the description, lost among ten other names -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks for the improvement. La la laaaa ♫ :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  🎶 Oh, regard la la la la… 🎵 ★ 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose. I'm still new to this forum, but isn't the idea of a featured photo to be in some way special? I don't see anything exceptional in either how the subject was photographed or in the scene captured. In addition there are basic faults (awkward crop, tilt, string of saliva in the mouth).  podstawko  ●talk  06:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Of course it's tilted but it's not a building picture. About the string of saliva, I suppose it's a joke. The fact that you can see it is more an argument for the quality of detail of the photo... --Selbymay (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Selbymay, thanks for responding. No, the comment about the string of saliva is not a joke, and the fact that we can see it is definitely not an argument for the quality of the photo, merely a testament to the sharpness :). Additionally, careful and aesthetic cropping and tilting does not apply to buildings only, I'm not not sure where you read that rule. Do you think that the photographer made a deliberate decision here to tilt the photo to the left, and to just show like 2 cm of her blue dress at the bottom? If yes, I'd love to understand their reasoning behind these decisions.  podstawko  ●talk  09:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think we can give our opinion of a picture of a landscape, a church or a human being with the absolut sames criteria, here on FP. Furthermore, this image is a close up of a singer on stage so I don't understand why the tilt or the string of saliva could be considered as "faults". The photographer seems not to be a commonist as the picture was transferred from flickr so we don't know why he cropped that much (3 936 × 2 418 pixels only for a 24MP camera) but I guess he had his reasons. Not being an absolute fan of this image, I prefer not to vote but I must admit it's a pretty good one. Selbymay (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, de gustibus non est disputandum. To me there's not much to this picture other than sharpness, and sharpness alone is too little to qualify for featured. Even the "impressive facial expression" which someone mentioned is not really impressive. Would anyone even pay attention to a different person, not a celebrity, photographed in the exact same pose? And to your point: the same criteria are not applied to landscapes and humans, but the same scrutiny and high quality bar for FP qualification are. If there was no reason for the original photographer to tilt and awkwardly crop, then we're looking at an image where a lot has been left to chance. This is not to say that accidental photos can't be fabulous (vide Winogrand's photography for example...), but this one is not. Even within the genre of concert photography, this is not an outstanding example, which you should probably know better than I do.  podstawko  ●talk  07:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Would anyone even pay attention to a different person, not a celebrity, photographed in the exact same pose?" I would. I didn't know who she was, just a singer performing. However, her being famous adds to the encyclopedic value of the photo, which can be one relevant consideration for FPC, even for Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you know RAYE before this nomination? ★ 02:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope, as I said. I suppose I've heard some of her songs, but it's probably not the type of music I usually seek out. I'm a classical and jazz musician with pretty broad taste, but it doesn't extend to most current-day top-40 hits, though there are some exceptions (for example, I'm a fan of Adele and Lizzo and also like Alicia Keys). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Just listen to this… I do love her Amy's vibes! ★ 10:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Super-overdone production, IMO (no need for the orchestra and chorus), but she's a skilled hip-hop artist. Not really my kind of stuff, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support per nom but also per Basile, who's right that the file description needs to be changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   Done ★ 14:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- Jakubhal 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Podstawko, not the most striking photo. —kallerna (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Also agree with Podstawko. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --imehling (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

File:On Sukhna Lake 11.jpg

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

Featured picture candidates/File:On Sukhna Lake 11.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:On Sukhna Lake 11.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not even a nice sunset. Just some water and a black background. Yann (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Oppose Sorry, per Basile. --Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Basile Morin -- Jakubhal 15:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2023 at 09:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Painted door (Mermaid). Funchal, Madeira.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Painted door (Mermaid). Funchal, Madeira.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
•  Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This is the coolest artwork I've seen on a door! Thank you for capturing this! --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support It’s great that several of our photographers document the ArT of opEN doors project. --Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--imehling (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support The postman should enjoy slipping the mail into this cleverly recycled mailbox 📨 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  This comment totally ruined my enjoyment of the image. I would highly appreciate if you kept these kind of thoughts to yourself in the future. Kritzolina (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dislike ♻ recycling? Or just upset because I opposed your nomination one minute earlier?

I'll certainly not stop sharing my useful comments on this open platform. This mailbox is amazing, and surprisingly nobody has noticed it above, before me. Is it such a gorgeous optical illusion that everybody missed this important detail? :And what else could have been invented by the imaginative artist, instead of this clever swing, to take advantage of this special feature and constraint in the door? We call this Ougrapo (sort of "graphic design under constraints"), or in French Ouvroir de peinture potentielle.

Honi soit qui mal y pense :-)

If it's not a letterbox, please explain. Perhaps my mind should not go to the mail carrier? Or is it the painting which should be censored? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I belief I am not the only one associating something sexual when they read about a "postman" (not mail carrier!) "enjoy[ing] slipping the mail" in. If you truly want your comments to be useful, try to avoid this kind of association. Your comment of "Honi soit qui mal y pense" shows that you perfectly understand what is bothering me. Trying to derail the conversation with your opening questions and trying to make it about a different behaviour of yours, which was fully acceptable and normal, is way off the point.

Nothing is wrong with the painting itself. It is your comment that is not appropriate. Kritzolina (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"Postman" is the standard word for mail carrier, right? postwoman is rare. Should we change the dictionary words in this situation?

This mail box is a great example of trompe-l'œil. Do we agree on that?

Similarly the walkers may enjoy climbing up these escalators and the drivers (males or females) parking their cars on this parking. There's nothing wrong in my comment. I'm commenting on what I have under the eyes. I'm not the artist, but neither stupid nor hypocritical to pretend not to understand what is obvious -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Please Basile, just stop it. You made a sexually inappropriate comment that has no place on a photo forum. Now you are just trying to muddy the waters with word-fencing instead of simply removing the comment and apologize. --Cart (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I think postwomen may enjoy slipping the mail into this cleverly recycled mailbox 📨 too, and that's why a pictogram of a letter has been delicately chosen to punctuate my comment, not a key nor an eggplant :-) Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that making veiled sexual comments is something of a French national sport, but could you please thy to restrain that need here on FPC. The gender of the person who delivers the mail is irrelevant. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the right word from the dictionary, like fisherman or fireman. You can think what you want about French people and make generalities. Category "trompe-l'oeil" added -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lectures people about everything in general and how to behave here, then proceeds with a free insult on Frenches. Revealing what this is actually all about. Colour me surprised. - Benh (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that. That was a bad move on my part, but I too can get carried away when I'm frustrated. At least I can strike it and admit I did something wrong and learn from it. --Cart (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are an intelligent man, yes - so I have to believe you are playing stupid here. You know perfectly well why this comment upsets me, and why I would like you to alter or remove it. There is obviously no need to sexualize an image of a woman sitting on swing, even if it evokes sexual emotions and thoughts in your mind. You choose to try to ridicule me instead of acting with empathy and understanding. I will leave it at that. Kritzolina (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It's totally possible that a sexual intention was deliberate by the painter, I have no idea, and my only goal was to highlight the letterbox / swing. I love creativity on constraint. This is just creativity on constraint. Another artist would have imagined a circus, personally I would have imagined a dresser drawer, but well, it is an ass on a swing, well, that's life. Commons is not censored. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The images and the descriptions of them are not censored on Commons, that's true, but semi-lewd comments while discussing the images are not acceptable. --Cart (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of talking about sex when I just commented about a letter and the person who is supposed to interact genuinely with this door? That's weird. I agree the painting is ambiguous, but that's not my artwork. I'm just reviewing on what the picture is evoking, and the reactions this painting may generate to others. If the postman dislikes, it's possible also, and I respect different feelings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I said I would leave it in my last comment ... but ... really ?? Kritzolina (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Não entendo / Pas compris / No understand / 不明白

"Really" what? Here's a tunnel and here's a chest of drawers. Anything forbidden again? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Trompe l'oeil are rather rare on these painted doors, but here's another cleverly recycled mailbox where the postman should enjoy slipping the mail into 📨 :-) Seen from this angle, the work should appease all readers :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. And my 2 cents: making FPC a welcoming and not hostile place for women should be considered an important goal, so if women are offended by a comment, it doesn't mean the person making the comment is bad or ill-intentioned, but the fact that a woman felt strongly enough to speak up about it means we should listen to her and try to take it into account in terms of future behavior, rather than doubling (tripling, etc.?) down. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for those 2 cents, Ikan. I have a bit higher thoughts about most men though. It's not just about being a non-hostile environment for women, I think most well-behaved men could also like to have an FPC without smutty comments. This is supposed to be one of the best photo sections on the WikiProject, not the Thursday Club. --Cart (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Point well taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose not really impressed by the photo nor the art itself. - Benh (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment The template about FOP in Portugal (included on this photo) says that under Portuguese law the name of the artist must be given alongside derivative works like this one wherever possible. "Wherever possible" does not mean "only if it's easy", there is an onus on the publisher to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain ownership of the original work. This one is signed at the bottom, so it should be possible to find out the full name of the artist and properly attribute them. BigDom (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Well noted. I believe the author is Wolfgang Lass, a German painter that moved to Madeira: [2] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Authorship added. Clearly the same signature. Thanks to both of you. Artist confirmation here and another sensual mermaid painted on a door by the same author -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment My huge thanks to BigDom, Julesvernex2 and Basile Morin. I couldn't identify the artist myself.-- Ввласенко (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. BigDom (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Wed 22 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Thu 23 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Fri 24 Nov → Wed 29 Nov
Sat 25 Nov → Thu 30 Nov
Sun 26 Nov → Fri 01 Dec
Mon 27 Nov → Sat 02 Dec

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

Sat 18 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Sun 19 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Mon 20 Nov → Wed 29 Nov
Tue 21 Nov → Thu 30 Nov
Wed 22 Nov → Fri 01 Dec
Thu 23 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Fri 24 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Sat 25 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Sun 26 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Mon 27 Nov → Wed 06 Dec

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

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

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

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.