Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere 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:
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." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf 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:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories 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 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:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. 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: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
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:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver 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:
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:
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:
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 policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to vote on this page.
The voting is open until 17 March 2026 23:59:59 (UTC).
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2026 at 10:17:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work
Info created by Ahmad Ali Karim – uploaded by EmpAhmadK – nominated by EmpAhmadK -- EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2026 at 10:10:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work
Info created by Ahmad Ali Karim – uploaded by EmpAhmadK – nominated by EmpAhmadK -- EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2026 at 09:40:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Russulaceae
Info Red-brown milk cap mushroom (Lactarius rufus). Stack of 16 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong capture with crisp gill detail and smooth background separation against vivid moss. Fallen conifer needles and delicate spider silk add subtle natural accents. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2026 at 08:50:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Suidae_(Pigs)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2026 at 07:50:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#North Macedonia
Info created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2026 at 23:23:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/1900s#1940-1949
Info created by Dow Chemical – uploaded & retouched by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Styrofoam (extruded polystyrene) foam was developed just years earlier by Dow. Though we today think of it as a waste product, but it was initially treated as the wonder material that it (still) is. (Expanded polystyrene is the bubbly stuff, extruded is the foam board) -- JayCubby (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Valuable photo, but I think the point of digitally restoring historical photos is to make them look most like they did when they were new, not to mess with eliminating light in intentionally lighted areas and such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek,
reverted. Any better? JayCubby (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek,
Support --Yann (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2026 at 14:56:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info Prayer in Saint Marko church, Belgrade, Serbia. My shot. --Mile (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 19:53:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Frescos_and_murals
Info Mosaic in the nymphaeum of the house of Neptune and Amphitrite, ancient city of Herculaneum, Italy. The mosaic, that gives the name to the house, dates from aprox 70 AD and, after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, it was not discovered until 1932. Its authorship is unknown but due to its great level of conservation it's considered one of the highlights of Herculaneum. Note: there is already a nice FP of this exceptional item but I offer here more detail, wider view (that's why I don't think a replace is suitable here) and less saturation. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support That is quite excellent, and the wider view is much appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent detail and texture; the wider view adds valuable context. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Randomianin. //shb (t • c) 11:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support In great shape and a nice mosaic to begin with. Good framing. JayCubby (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support EmpAhmadK (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 18:54:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Domestic dogs
Info A labrador retriever of the Austrian Red Cross search and rescue dog unit. Photo by me. --Aciarium (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I can't quite pinpoint it...but there's something wrong with the background. /?shb (t • c) 12:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poor quality and very similar to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:DSC09611 Search and Rescue Dog, Austrian Red Cross Perchtoldsdorf, 2024-10.jpg promoted last week -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 15:46:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Greece
Info The photo shows the Venetian lighthouse within the impressive wild sea in the old harbor of Chania on the island of Crete, Greece. Created and uploaded by Ввласенко – nominated by Syntaxys -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The image captures the rugged beauty of the Cretan coastline in stormy weather. In the center, the historic lighthouse rises majestically, while in the foreground, powerful, white-capped waves crash against the fortifications. The contrast between the ancient masonry and the dynamic force of the sea lends the image a dramatic yet timeless atmosphere. A fascinating and very well captured sight that illustrates the enduring nature of history amidst untamed nature. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good composition, sharp, impressive atmosphere. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Yann; dynamic waves and foaming spray create a striking composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice compo, good detail Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Dramatic and really good. Was the sky really that dark, though, or was the contrast between the bright waves and green sea and the dark blue/gray sky deliberately enhanced? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- It’s likely that both are true. It looks like bad weather is brewing in the background, and the exposure is definitely prioritized for the foreground — the highlights are perfectly rendered. The moment the photo was taken was probably a stroke of luck, but the photographer apparently knew exactly what to do — including during post-processing. In the enlarged view, the background appears less gloomy. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per anderen.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)- A
s per others. JayCubby (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 13:26:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Rhinocerotidae_(Rhinoceros)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great! How far away were you? Amazing that you had a chance to see that scene and get a sharp photo of it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'd say I was approximately 20-30 meters away and yes I felt very lucky to witness this :) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Amazing photo!--Don (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice framing too. JayCubby (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Cool Poco a poco (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Intimate scene: beautiful composition, harmonious light and natural colors, high documentary and aesthetic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- E bailey (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The kind of rare thing you can only see in really exceptional situations -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 13:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good composition and storytelling. EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 13:24:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Bucerotidae_(Hornbills)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Deserves the star for being so sharp (look at the eye!), but I wish there were a somewhat more generous crop on the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Compo reminds me of Charles's work. JayCubby (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 19:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good light, special bird and excellent level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 09:57:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bolivia
Info Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia. Сreated by Abel Maestro Garcia, uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The view is great and the subject magic, but apart from the tilt the processing is not really at FP level Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The subject and perspective are very appealing, and the composition works well. Slight oversaturation and heavy denoising/sharpening reduce fine details, so the technical quality does not fully meet FP standards. I'm sorry. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I see the denoising in the middle distance, but still, this photo is so beautiful. If only it were possible to reduce the denoising. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I agree that the scene itself is visually striking, but the technical processing appears to be the main limiting factor here. In the mid-distance and towards the horizon the texture appears heavily smoothed, suggesting rather aggressive noise reduction. This smoothing seems to be followed by strong sharpening, producing brittle edge contrast and fragmented micro-structure already visible just before the distant shoreline. As a result, genuine fine detail appears to have been removed and replaced by artificial sharpness,giving the distance a somewhat "gritty" or brittle appearance rather than natural texture.
Comment I agree with opposition, image has been reprocessed Юрий Д.К. 18:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- While it is technically possible to soften these artefacts by re-introducing noise or grain, this only simulates structure rather than restoring lost detail. For demonstration, I made a small test edit using this method, slightly reduced saturation, and added subtle grain across the image to compensate for the overly smoothed sky and foreground. This reduced the gritty artefacts towards the horizon and gave a slightly more natural appearance, but the original micro-detail is not recovered. Example edit for demonstration: preview; Full download available here (changes visible at 100% view).
- A clean reprocessing would likely require the original raw file, as lost micro-detail cannot be recovered from the current jpeg. The uncropped alternative shows the same processing issues, indicating they originate from the source image post-processing. The scene and perspective are beautiful, but the current processing keeps the image below typical FP technical standards. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Additional note: After reviewing the original Flickr file, it is now clear that the uploader applied denoising, which was indeed appropriate given the extreme "gritty" artefacts present across the entire image. The remaining coarse areas in the mid-distance were likely preserved to avoid removing whatever detail could still define the scene. From a technical standpoint, this approach is understandable. However, because such extensive denoising was necessary to address the widespread artefacts, the resulting image becomes noticeably softened and loses much of its photographic texture, moving closer to a graphic or illustrative appearance. Thanks to the uploader for these adjustments, but the technical limitations of the source material remain significant. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- For reference: I have included a 100% crop (1150 × 850 px) from the original Flickr file illustrating the pronounced "gritty" artefacts; this coarse texture is present across the entire original image: preview. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Radomianin: Thanks, I've reprocessed both versions from Flickr file. Юрий Д.К. 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed the original Flickr version, which I had not examined before. This version appears heavily processed across the entire frame, showing widespread artefacts: the image is extensively "gritty" and strongly oversharpened. It is really unfortunate that we have such poor source material to work with. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Юрий Д.К.: I would kindly suggest adding a {{Retouched picture}} to both files that were transferred from Flickr, to indicate that you have applied some post-processing. This would make it immediately clear to anyone viewing the file pages that edits have been made, supporting transparency and understanding. Thank you very much in advance! Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Radomianin: I agree,
Done Юрий Д.К. 20:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Radomianin: I agree,
- @Radomianin: Thanks, I've reprocessed both versions from Flickr file. Юрий Д.К. 18:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I've decided to add an alt to discussion. Please comment and vote. Юрий Д.К. 14:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Uncropped original. Unique view with obvious wow factor from quite rare country. Yes, not techically ideal, but wow overweights here.
Support Very beautiful panorama despite some techical issues. Юрий Д.К. 14:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the sky is still very off for an FP. //shb (t • c) 12:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 09:57:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info Domes of St. Basil's Cathedral, view from Middle Trade Rows. My photo Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality, but no wow for me. Trees are nothing special in itself and only seem to obscure important details. Harsh midday light. --A.Savin 10:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Trees are nothing special in itself" - Lol. Probably coconut trees or baobabs should be here. Юрий Д.К. 10:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, sometimes there are motifs that are difficult to capture with a real wow effect. And yes, St Basile's cathedral with thousands of uploads on Commons is one of them. Many photographers see it as a welcome challenge and try their best, while others simply have to comment just every oppose vote on their noms. --A.Savin 12:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why St. Basil's Cathedral "difficult to capture with a real wow effect" (sic!) ? Can you please give the name(s) of photographer(s) who "see it as a welcome challenge and try their best" (sic!) ? And can you please give the name(s) of photographer(s) who "simply have to comment just every oppose vote on their noms" (sic!) ? Юрий Д.К. 14:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, sometimes there are motifs that are difficult to capture with a real wow effect. And yes, St Basile's cathedral with thousands of uploads on Commons is one of them. Many photographers see it as a welcome challenge and try their best, while others simply have to comment just every oppose vote on their noms. --A.Savin 12:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Trees are nothing special in itself" - Lol. Probably coconut trees or baobabs should be here. Юрий Д.К. 10:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree, nothing wild here, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Alex. //shb (t • c) 12:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2026 at 01:17:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ericaceae
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Info Weathered tree stump covered with moss and lichen, surrounded by blooming Spring heath (Erica carnea) in the Grugapark in Essen, Germany
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful out-of-focus areas and nice colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not even the central subject is focused. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise at 105mm f1.4 on full frame not everything is sharp :) in the case here it isn‘t a bug it‘s a feature. My intention was to create a creative shot with huge unsharp colorful areas, not a documentary one. —Tuxyso (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- You never stop learning. I like that. Petro Stelte (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please concede me the benefit of the doubt in relation to basic photographic and aesthetic matters... The problem is that not even what I believe is the central subject of the photo is in focus. Yes, it would be very nice to see the tree stump razor sharp while everything around is blurred. But that is not the case, hence my oppose vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise at 105mm f1.4 on full frame not everything is sharp :) in the case here it isn‘t a bug it‘s a feature. My intention was to create a creative shot with huge unsharp colorful areas, not a documentary one. —Tuxyso (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice composition but doesn't bear looking at at full size except for the sharp area. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Joining Frank and Ikan - I appreciate the composition and the delicate interplay of sharp and soft focus, which gives the scene depth and a painterly quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 19:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. It seems that the DOF gives it a sense of scale as well in full size – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The thing I would love to see here are the purple flowers, which are unfortunately out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Not the biggest fan, but I still think it deserves FP. But then not much is in focus and there's no clear central idea to the image. EmpAhmadK (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2026 at 21:38:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info I hope that the minimalism in symmetrically presenting these identical-looking, yet subtly different, windows on a simple wall with rich textures is appealing. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 22:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I don't see the appeal. AVDLCZ (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2026 at 20:29:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Others
Info Mundari boy collecting burnt cow dung after dawn in a temporary cattle camp in Terekeka, South Sudan. The ash is used by the Mundari as a mosquito repellent and also for cosmetic purposes. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I'll finish the series of South Sudan with an experiment in W&B. Poco a poco (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great photo! (Minor point: Isn't he collecting the burnt dung, rather than recollecting [which usually means remembering] it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support B&W is a good choice here. The colors weren't of much interest (though I would still support the version of color). JayCubby (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support B&W and dust haze makes this special. --Tagooty (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Undoubtlessly a stunning series although the motifs are very similiar. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I see no aesthetics here ("boy collecting burnt cow dung"). Юрий Д.К. 12:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2026 at 10:27:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
Info created and uploaded by Joydeep Chakraborty – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unsharp, not special enough to deserve the star.Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support for the architecture. ★ 18:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The dome appears to be leaning to the left. Does it actually do that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Joydeep: to take a look. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Interesting architecture. But I see color banding/posterization in the sky. I've noticed that the first version has no such issue. I know that posterization may appear due to repeated multiple editing of an original JPG (it is lossy format) Юрий Д.К. 20:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I believe that the metal structures spoil the view stealing the spirit of an ancient temple view Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose not with the metal structures. //shb (t • c) 12:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2026 at 08:29:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Morocco
Info Oued N'fis river valley upstream from the Yacoub el Mansour reservoir, low water after several years drought. Shot into the evening sun. Ouirgane, Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The image looks washed out due to the difficult lighting. There is also too much overexposure in the sky. Poco a poco (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per poco2. //shb (t • c) 12:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2026 at 01:25:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Nudes
Info created by Victor Meirelles – uploaded by Tetraktys – nominated by ★ -- ★ 01:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- ★ 01:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Meirelles good as always. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Ordinary reproduction. Categories to be fixed. Yann (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "ordinary"? ★ 20:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Yann. //shb (t • c) 12:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2026 at 11:32:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
Info created by – uploaded by – nominated by Don -- (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Don (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality but needs categories.--Ermell (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I have added some basic categories. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good, and nice to have room around. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Southeast Asian architecture! This is what we need! ★ 16:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as above. JayCubby (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good. However, it looks COM:OVERCAT now. I'll delete Category:Buddhism, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good photo. I've removed redundant cats Юрий Д.К. 00:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice light and interesting temple -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per others above. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good capture! The sharpness and details are amazing and it's a very nice temple with a high educational value. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition. --Tagooty (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the overdone perspective correction is disturbing to me. It would look much more natural with slight convergent verticals. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Alvesgaspar, @Famberhorst, @Heylenny, just out of curiosity, since I also take a lot of architectural photos myself and pay close attention to correct perspective in post-processing:
Honestly, I’m surprised that a tilted perspective is now being requested in an architectural image, since it’s generally criticized in nominations and leads to rejections — even in the current ones. I also recall the author’s previous nomination of this subject, where the tilted perspective was criticized not only by me. And the much too tight crop too. Because of these critics he now has revisited the motif and produced a very fine image of it for Commons. But seriously, now the old version is good enough after all?
Since there are already several alternatives of this motif featuring a tilted perspective and a tighter crop, which one would you prefer for a nomination, or as an alternative addition to this nomination here? Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SyntaxysI would never reject this beautiful photo, but I think that from this angle it would look more natural if the outer verticals were angled inwards just a tiny bit.In the previous photo, the verticals were corrected way too much in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- It’s fine, I’m just asking out of general interest. When I stand in front of a building in real life and look up at it, I see lines that are 100% vertical — nothing tilts backward or converges. To me, that’s the most natural view of a building.
- I learned photography over 30 years ago from an architectural photographer. Back then, we used 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch bellows cameras from Linhof for our work, which allowed us to easily make corrections even for shots on celluloid; nothing could be corrected digitally at that time. And such perfect corrections were expressly requested by the clients — it was a must. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
EDIT: I was looking through some old photos and found a good example of how architectural photos were taken correctly as far back as 140 years ago. It serves as an excellent comparison to this photo here. In both images, the viewpoint is from ground level! In the old photo, the photographer at least shifted the lens to avoid converging lines. If that wasn’t enough, the Scheimpflug principle was used:
The rear standard (the film plane) was tilted backward until it was exactly vertical again (parallel to the building wall). Since tilting the film plane caused a loss of sharpness, the front standard (the lens) also had to be adjusted accordingly to bring the plane of focus back onto the building. The building is now depicted without converging lines, even though the camera is actually “looking up.” Today, this very photographic principle is achieved through digital correction. The result is the same. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Photography is much more than a dry depiction of reality based on rigid technical rules, it is an interpretation of reality. And this fashionable obsession of making all verticals parallel, which has invaded QIC, is particularly irritating to an old photographer like me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, I can understand your point of view, and in a way you’re right — after all, when it comes to art, anything goes. But this photo has more of a documentary character, so it should be technically accurate. In my opinion, that’s precisely what contributes to the “wow” factor, along with the beauty of the temple. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well, apparently not because the result looks artificial, at least to me. -- ~~ Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, I can understand your point of view, and in a way you’re right — after all, when it comes to art, anything goes. But this photo has more of a documentary character, so it should be technically accurate. In my opinion, that’s precisely what contributes to the “wow” factor, along with the beauty of the temple. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @SyntaxysI would never reject this beautiful photo, but I think that from this angle it would look more natural if the outer verticals were angled inwards just a tiny bit.In the previous photo, the verticals were corrected way too much in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Stunning photo. Perhaps you could correct the photo vertically slightly.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with Famberhorst about the PC. Also, I'd crop a little at the top. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Colors are beautiful. Even the wide sky at the top works very well from a compositional point of view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support amazing! //shb (t • c) 12:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 23:36:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Tapiridae (Tapirs)
Info created and uploaded by LuizAlves1990, nominated by me -- Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Foto incrível deste animal de hábitos noturnos (que parece estar um pouco machucado
)! ★ 01:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The lighting is terrible. I understand that this is a night shot with a strong flash, but I donÇt see for that since this is not a nocturnal animal Poco a poco (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is a primarily nocturnal animal. ★ 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It is, but we just recently featured a great photo taken just before sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is a primarily nocturnal animal. ★ 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose White spots in the eyes and artificial flash light spoil this portrait, unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Giles's tapir is much better lightwise. JayCubby (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose poor lighting. //shb (t • c) 12:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 23:32:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Brazil
Info created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton, nominated by me -- Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Apart from the red halos / CA and the lack of sharpness I find this POV not really appealing for a church (altar) Poco a poco (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It's a really beautiful church. There's a lot of history here. I had considered nominating it (it's in my favorites), but I'm not sure about the crop. Anyway, it's a very good photo for something taken in 2016. --heylenny (talk/edits) 00:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by very good for 2016. I'm sure you'll agree that people were taking great photos of church interiors in and before 2016. For example, this is a work by Diliff from 2014. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nice shot! heylenny (talk/edits) 13:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. And one of many by him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nice shot! heylenny (talk/edits) 13:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by very good for 2016. I'm sure you'll agree that people were taking great photos of church interiors in and before 2016. For example, this is a work by Diliff from 2014. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poor image quality. And lowering the camera to near the floor was not a good idea. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per others, QI seal is not really deserved either. --A.Savin 10:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above. //shb (t • c) 12:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 22:47:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United Arab Emirates
Info created by Robert Haandrikman – uploaded by Mario1952 – nominated by ★ -- ★ 22:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Huge panorama with a high resolution and a spectacular view. -- ★ 22:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks, good find. Works for me. Somewhat harsh light in places and unforgiving rocks, but it's in a desert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm trying to diversify the candidates by nominating/suggesting images from other regions of the world, such as the Middle East and China. ★ 00:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I know, and it's fundamentally a good idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm trying to diversify the candidates by nominating/suggesting images from other regions of the world, such as the Middle East and China. ★ 00:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice find.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking panoramic composition. The rugged mountain textures, calm water surface and clear reflections create strong depth and visual balance, while the wide format effectively conveys the scale and isolation of this desert reservoir. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A very good quality photo of a nice place. But the composition seems boring and the foregrounds on the left and right are disturbing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment given how many pixels we have here, how about a crop on left and right to remove the near side of the shores? —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek and Radomianin. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose With Alvesgaspar plus more than a half of the main motif in in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree --Poco a poco (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek. //shb (t • c) 12:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 12:36:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info created & uploaded by Юрий Д.К. – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Pleasant but not an amazing composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Thank you Tomer T, for nomination! Юрий Д.К. 15:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Good patterns but the cropped-out bush breaks the view. ★ 16:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I would try biger zoom and compo of air and wall. Grass, tree, white line spoil it.--Mile (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Composition doesn't work for me. And limited wow factor -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the compo is just not it. //shb (t • c) 12:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 10:34:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info uploaded and nominated by myself -- Umarxon III (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 16:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Umarxon III (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A good quality, but trivial portrait. Nothing featurable here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I concur with Alvesgaspar. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. //shb (t • c) 12:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 09:37:25 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Turdidae (Thrushes)
Info created & uploaded by Pdanese – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry. I just saw this. Thank you so much. It's very kind of you. I'm going to abstain (as author). Thank you, again. Pdanese (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is one existing FP of this species, which I think is a bit better than this, with more detail in the feathers: File:Veery in CP (43277).jpg. There are also some excellent QIs. My favorites are File:20250701 veery pleasant valley wildlife sanctuary PD206480.jpg or the similar File:20250701 veery pleasant valley wildlife sanctuary PD206488.jpg, which show the bird singing and have excellent details on the tail feathers. All that said, this is a good photo and would be fine as an FP. I'll live with it longer and consider whether to vote for it but certainly won't oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support May be better images are existing here but this one is FP for me. Юрий Д.К. 15:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose The composition is pleasing. Per Ikan, there are better images of this species. An FP of this common bird perched in good light needs better detail and sharpness. --Tagooty (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 08:09:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Hydrangeaceae
Info Dried petal of a Hydrangea paniculata on the bush in February. Focus stack of 29 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support One mistake, and "one perhaps", could be solved (anoted). Anycase "s", at least background is not one-colored. --Mile (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC) p.S. Maybe a little crop all around to make object biger.
Done. Small correction.Thank you for your comment and support. I've made a small correction. The background is a natural backdrop of the shrub border, fallen leaves, and such. I won't be changing the size during the voting period.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Clear, balanced composition with harmonious arrangement, aesthetically concise and convincing. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice light, bokeh in the background, and high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good technical achievement but nothing featurable here imo. Once again, this is like using a canon to kill a fly. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Apart from the fact that we don’t have any other images of a dried flower of this species in our collection, it is very well executed both technically and compositionally. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support with others. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2026 at 07:46:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info uploaded and nominated by myself -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Different but good portrait. ★ 16:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Umarxon III (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support //shb (t • c) 12:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2026 at 21:02:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/1900s#1940-1949
Info created by Ansel Adams – uploaded & restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Note I am partial to the tones of the negative. Adams's positive print is a better representation of his style, but obscures much of the emotion through shadow.
Context During WWII, the United States forcibly incarcerated over 100,000 Japanese immigrants and American citizens of Japanese descent, while taking little action against German and Italian nationals.
Support I may have missed a few flecks, as happens with large images. After several hours lost to out-of-memory crashes, I reached a point I am happy with. JayCubby (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment It is a pity that the boy in the lower right spoils a perfect composition. May be it could be removed? Yann (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Cloned, @Yann. Any better? JayCubby (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Really great, but the baton on the right is partially cropped out. ★ 16:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. Unfortunately, there is no more room in the crop, @★ JayCubby (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2026 at 06:30:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Hamburg
Info created and uploaded by GZagatta – nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 06:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, though I'd personally crop a bit more of the sky for a more balanced framing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Tilted. Not QI. --E bailey (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per E bailey. Also there is at least a dust spot in the sky. --Aciarium (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)- @GZagatta: Please try to fix the issues. -- XRay 💬 15:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done! Many thanks for the remarks GZagatta (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- @GZagatta:
Not done I have added notes in the image where the most prominent dust spots are. Please try to clone them out. Also, there is still
Perspective distortion. --Aciarium (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I can't see any dust spots, so I don't penalize the photo for them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @GZagatta:
- Done! Many thanks for the remarks GZagatta (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, thank you GZagatta for the fixes and producing a great photograph. JayCubby (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I needed to look at this at night in a dark room; then I was convinced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong composition with a beautiful reflection and a very atmospheric night rendering of the Hamburg Planetarium. I carefully checked the sky at increased contrast; the mentioned dust spots are extremely faint and practically invisible in normal viewing conditions. Regarding perspective: comparing with other photographs of the building suggests the geometry largely reflects the architecture itself rather than a significant distortion. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good for me Юрий Д.К. 20:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Neither overall quality nor photo in total do convince me. Water reglections always look good but a photo in complete darkness is imho not favorable here. Also some lights have e remarble green cast. A blue hour shot or a photo shortly after sunset with clear sky had been much better, see for example: File:Planetarium(Hamburg)-2025-09-msu---5106.jpg or Planetarium Hamburg zur blauen Stunde.jpg --Tuxyso (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per tuxyso. //shb (t • c) 12:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive. Agree that for buildings etc. blue-hour shots are often preferable to night scenes, but in cases like this one with feature a special lighting the night scene has somewhat dramatic aesthetics with cinematic qualities. – Aristeas (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2026 at 08:43:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info all by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poor lighting in the foreground. CutlassCiera 15:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Still good. ★ 04:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support OK. --heylenny (talk/edits) 00:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2026 at 06:53:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Georgia
Info created by David1010 – uploaded by David1010 – nominated by David1010 -- David1010 06:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- David1010 06:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Interesting church and it deserves a FP, but the cross shouldn't block part of the building imho. Also, I think that perspective correction is needed here (the building is leaning back). Юрий Д.К. 17:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment WB is also pretty off. Also isnt so sharp, like focus was on cross. --Mile (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Perspective and WB corrected. ★ 16:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Юрий Д.К., it deserves a star. ★ 16:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 00:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Is the white balance on the church's exterior wall a bit greenish yellow? Even if not, the positioning of the cross such that it slightly hides the church is not ideal. I would have wanted to walk a little to the left to avoid that. Positioning it fully to the right of the church with a slight space between them in the picture frame would be ideal, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Good PC, but imho the cross makes this image only QI in the best case (assuming that the white balance is correct) Юрий Д.К. 20:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Ikan. //shb (t • c) 12:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2026 at 13:49:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Austria
Info Nightly view of blast furnace no. 1 of the Donawitz steelworks, Leoben, Austria. Image by me. -- Aciarium (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good. This reminds me of File:Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922, MoMA.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow. Great black-and-white work! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good motiv but unfortunately not sharp enough. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Sufficiently sharp for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful night shot. --Selbymay (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per others. Artistic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 17:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ermell, a shame, otherwise great Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness, compo. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Mile: Do you think composition could be improved by a suitable crop? --Aciarium (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Aciarium for compo: edge-left tower is spoiling to concetrate on right-interesting part. So i tried crop and is better to see. But despite that, i think its unsharp - not a camera problem but think "user mistake". 5 second exposure, could be shake and 600mm on f/7.1 is (almost) more portrait than landscape mode. --Mile (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Mile: I think the two towers are helpful in conveying the perspective and in framing the actual furnace - but composition is certainly a debatable topic. Sharpness could definitely be better, on this one I agree with you: The culprit was a cheap tripod, in combination with the high focal length that you mentioned. Due to the furnaces being located in a somewhat narrow valley, it is not too easy to find a good perspective with little obstruction. The few good spots are quite far away, requiring the use of such focal lengths. --Aciarium (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Aciarium I would re-do if possible, at least to be more sharp. --Mile (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Mile: I will certainly do so, although I might not have the chance to capture exactly these conditions (snowy forest in the background) again. Hence I will keep this nomination up. --Aciarium (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Mile: I think the two towers are helpful in conveying the perspective and in framing the actual furnace - but composition is certainly a debatable topic. Sharpness could definitely be better, on this one I agree with you: The culprit was a cheap tripod, in combination with the high focal length that you mentioned. Due to the furnaces being located in a somewhat narrow valley, it is not too easy to find a good perspective with little obstruction. The few good spots are quite far away, requiring the use of such focal lengths. --Aciarium (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Difficult decision, but in the end I think the artistic value prevails over the sharpness issue. In rare cases an image can be a FP without qualifying as QI – Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2026 at 22:38:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Coraciiformes#Family_:_Meropidae_(Bee-eaters)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow – nominated by Señor Aluminio -- Alu (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alu (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Branch has a funny texture due to AI processing being applied to an OOF object. JayCubby (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Excellent picture that I will happily support once what Jay pointed out is fixed -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for your comments. The photograph is not mine and I’m not very experienced with image editing, just an amateur. If you think it is worthwhile and not too difficult, please feel free to improve the image. Thank you.Alu (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I prefer the version below but this one is also acceptable to me, great capture! Poco a poco (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info In this version, the branch texture has been slightly smoothed.
Comment @JayCubby: @Giles Laurent: Maybe it's better now? --Alu (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Thank you for the new version it's much better (but would have been even better if it was done through the original raw image) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2026 at 20:49:25 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Used 135 film cartridges, workshop in Belgrade, Serbia. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support That's a lot of film! JayCubby (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's a lot of film, but the composition feels random to me and is not working for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Different composition. ★ 17:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 17:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! Why didn't I think of taking a picture like this? --heylenny (talk/edits) 23:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support //shb (t • c) 12:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Wed 11 Mar → Mon 16 Mar Thu 12 Mar → Tue 17 Mar Fri 13 Mar → Wed 18 Mar Sat 14 Mar → Thu 19 Mar Sun 15 Mar → Fri 20 Mar Mon 16 Mar → Sat 21 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sat 07 Mar → Mon 16 Mar Sun 08 Mar → Tue 17 Mar Mon 09 Mar → Wed 18 Mar Tue 10 Mar → Thu 19 Mar Wed 11 Mar → Fri 20 Mar Thu 12 Mar → Sat 21 Mar Fri 13 Mar → Sun 22 Mar Sat 14 Mar → Mon 23 Mar Sun 15 Mar → Tue 24 Mar Mon 16 Mar → Wed 25 Mar
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- 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.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (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 or part of a set nomination, use the
com-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}} - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On 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):{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
featured=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with{{Assessments|featured=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); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive 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 must not be removed from the chronological archives.
- 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 section above. 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.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
