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 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, 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:
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 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. VotingEditors 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:
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
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2025 at 08:12:13 (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/Castles_and_fortifications#Uzbekistan
Info Tosh Gate, Khiva, Uzbekistan (Toshdarvoza, Таш-дарваза - южные ворота, Хива). -- Mile (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 22:02:03 (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/Natural phenomena
Info Air bubble underwater, Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting and fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 18:16:44 (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/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info Wild female Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain. The Iberian lynx is one of the four extant species within the medium-sized wild cat genus Lynx. It is endemic to the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe. It is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List. In the 20th century, the Iberian lynx population had declined because of overhunting, poaching, fragmentation of suitable habitats, and the population decline of its main prey species, the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), caused by myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Note: there is already one FP of this photo session (here), but I considered this candidate very different and more wowing. I hope you agree although the quality admittedly could be better (it was taken after sunset). Poco a poco (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A bit soft, what a shot! Yann (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom and Yann. Rare endangered species, and I think the face is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 17:37:55 (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/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 16:18:49 (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/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory – uploaded by User:Richard Nowell and Polinova, nominated by Polinova-- Polinova (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Polinova (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I took the liberty to upload a higher resolution from the original source. Yann (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- The upload process told me not to upload an image larger than 100MB so that's where I cut it off. I din't know we were allowed to upload larger. Polinova (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't know whether others will have trouble viewing the full-size image, but it works for me on Zoom Viewer and it's just amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 14:41:06 (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/Natural#China
Info created by myself, an island in South China Sea. -- YikyuenG (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- YikyuenG (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very nice. I'm a bit distracted by what look like 6 out-of-focus boats in the upper left corner. You could possibly do a small crop on the top, but wait to see what others say, and if you don't, I still might support this nomination because it's a satisfying composition at full-page size and zooming in to see the island more clearly also produces good results. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 07:45:41 (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/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Glareolidae_(Pratincoles_and_Coursers)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Not just a good bird ID photo but a great composition too Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Awesome! Wolverine X-eye 16:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. Pretty bird, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2025 at 04:38:18 (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/Plants/Ranunculales#Family : Berberidaceae
Info Berries from a Mahonia aquifolium shrub. Focus stack of 19 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Per w:Berberis aquifolium: "The spherical berries are up to 1 cm (3⁄8 in) wide". Outstanding work, and it led me to find out something about an interesting plant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent focus stack, vibrant colors, and sharp detail of the berries - visually striking and botanically informative. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2025 at 18:27:25 (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/Natural phenomena#Atmospheric optical phenomena
Info created by International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/A. Smith, uploaded by Hike395, nominated by Yann
Info Gigantic jet taken with automatic camera at the International Gemini Observatory's Gemini North, at 4,200 metres (13,800 ft) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The phenomenon was estimated to reach 50 to 90 kilometres (31 to 56 mi) in height.
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- High "wow" factor: this is a rare atmospheric phenomenon, and the fact that is was captured from a ground camera is extraordinary. High encyclopedic value. — hike395 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per hike. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking capture of a rare, visually stunning gigantic jet, with immense scale and dramatic impact. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support saw a video about it recently, talking about how it was captured on the ISS. Educational and striking. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Hike395. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Phenomenal image --Polinova (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2025 at 17:05:44 (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/Animals/Shells#Family : Camaenidae
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Charming, very pleasant pastel coloring. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support works well with the black bg. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2025 at 06:54:48 (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/Portrait#Women
Info Writer and women's rights activist Mahtab Yaghma at Frankfurt Book Fair 2025. Created by User:MB-one (crop suggestion by PetarM) – uploaded by MB-one – nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- MB-one (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Question MB-one any option to put 2nd option as Alternative, since more Exposure and Vigneting added to focus more on subject ? --Mile (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for proposing the alternative. I acknowledge it for consideration so reviewers can compare both versions. Personally, as nominator, I prefer the original version because the tighter focus on the face and the less busy background work better for a featured portrait. --12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB-one (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Seewolf (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support this version. Less disturbing background. --Yann (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support exactly as per Yann. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Анастасия Львоваru/en 20:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Alternative version suggested by Mile (more exposure and added vignetting to focus the subject). All by MB-one.
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 23:22:07 (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/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info View of Buiba Valley in Ergaki Range. Metamorphic schists and granites of ancient glaciation in mountain tundra. Western Sayan Mountains. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Dramatic light emphasizes shadows and rocks, reminiscent of epic fantasy landscapes. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- E.IMANCOMMONS 16:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Simply stunning! Wolverine X-eye 16:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support beautiful. I wish to see more of the lake. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 21:27:31 (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/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
Info created by Cleveland Museum of Art – uploaded by Madreiling and UnpetitproleX – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support high resolution and quality; typical of its region and era. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful piece, really well photographed by whomever the Cleveland Institute of Art hired. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per UnpetitproleX. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MB-one (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- E.IMANCOMMONS 16:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, very well done to the museum, this is superb resolution, quality, detail, and nice attractive light Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan and Cmao20. The Exif data mention “Gary Kirchenbauer” as creator; probably this is the photographer. It’s a pity that the museum does not credit the photographer in the description; even if the photographer is an employee, it would certainly not hurt the museum to mention their name ;–). The museum includes a credit line, but uses it only for the provenience; IMHO that’s an odd use of a credit line, one would expect (also) the names of the museum and of the photographer. – Aristeas (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 20:48:39 (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#Germany
Info Staircase of Villa Hügel in Essen with sun shining through the window. Villa Hügel was the former home of the industrialist Krupp family from 1873 to 1945.
Info All by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm glad you noticed this motif. The scene is beautiful and the lovely light provides additional diagonal shapes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Warm light illuminates the staircase, revealing its elegant details and historic, harmonious design. -- Radomianin (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MB-one (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan and Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 18:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 20:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Wow, what a lovely study of light and shadow. I'm really impressed Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 19:35:13 (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_:_Agaricaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- E.IMANCOMMONS 16:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rotana🦋 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Well done. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice detail and compo Poco a poco (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 13:53:58 (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/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage – uploaded by Friendlystar – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment It looks like the file description is calling plasma "gas." I would say that should be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The same description is given by the Hubble Space Institute [1]. Consider also that the filaments are composed of gas, which apparently are being dragged out by rising bubbles of relativistic plasma; see also the article NGC 1275. The description may be correct, or at least good enough. --Harlock81 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I wouldn't think 100-million-degree Fahrenheit hot gas were possible, but maybe if it's under enough pressure, it could be. Anyway, certainly an interesting picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 13:11:56 (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/Religion#Christianity
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Question Do you have an estimate for the year of composition? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, 1925. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I haven't decided whether I feel the same way as Uoaei1 or might support the nomination. I'll live with it longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, 1925. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, this is just not special enough for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 20:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Nice motif but it seems a little underexposed and not as sharp as your usual nominations Cmao20 (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: I've uploaded a brighter and sharper version. How does it look now?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Uoaei1 Poco a poco (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 13:12:06 (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/Animals/Birds/Coraciiformes#Genus_:_Chloroceryle
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautifully sharp image; the dark green plumage harmonizes perfectly with the softly out-of-focus background. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support She needs to brush her head feathers, haha. But seriously, could you add approximate dimensions for the bird? -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Some parts are blown, but nice bird and colors. --Mile (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Great detail but too much overexposed area in relevant places, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support and I don't really care about the blown highlights Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 12:55:16 (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#Painted ceilings
Info Allegory of the Earth, ... receiving the Code of Roman Law from the Emperors Hadrian and Justinian. It depicts the personification of Earth receiving Roman law from the above described emperors, with the gods Nature, Justice, and Wisdom (Minerva) dictating the code. This work is also known as "The Codex of Justinian" and is in the public domain. It was painted in two different versions, one in pen and ink on paper and another large-scale ceiling painting for the Louvre Museum. The last one, made by Charles Meynier (1803), is a vertical-pano photo created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
* -- Terragio67 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support
Request Upon reviewing the category for this painting, I noticed that there are indeed photographs taken directly beneath the ceiling painting. Perhaps at the time this particular photograph was taken, access to that vantage point was unavailable - possibly due to occupancy or other constraints. In any case, it remains a very detailed and beautiful shot, and a gentle perspective correction could help reduce the slightly distracting angles. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly right, there were some glass cases containing jewels and trinkets... Anyway, I thought I could fix the distorted vision from the projection with a curvature correction, hoping to have maintained the proportions in an alternative version. Terragio67 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Alternative version
Info an alternative version with the (somewhat impossible) ambition of correcting the curvatures of the ceiling containing the masterpiece... 2nd version create, uploaded, and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for uploading the straightened version! I've prepared a slightly sharpened alternative, as the straightening process made it a bit soft. The subtle changes in proportions are hardly noticeable, and I personally find this version quite appealing. I've made it available for download via SwissTransfer - if you like it, please feel free to use it for an update. I'd be happy to support this version. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggested lighting contrast, which I'll gladly accept. Finally, I adjusted the proportions of Meynier's painting based on the available information. (I'm in your debt...). Good night. Terragio67 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Many thanks for using and further refining the sharpened version, I truly appreciate it. No need to feel in my debt, that's exactly the wiki spirit - working together towards the same goal :) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- But this isn't ever a possible view, so although it may be valuable, it doesn't feel right to support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point - the frontal view isn't something anyone could actually see standing beneath the ceiling. That said, I think Terragio67's correction does a great job of restoring the painting's proportions and reducing the distortion in the photo, without trying to invent a new perspective. We often see similar adjustments on Commons for ceiling paintings, helping the artwork itself come through more clearly. For me, this really makes Meynier's composition easier to read and enjoy, and I appreciate the care that went into it. -- Radomianin (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think we need curves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right - that's an important point. The curved view does preserve the natural perspective, though I also really appreciate the care and clarity of the straightened version. Perhaps the uncorrected version is the one to support after all? -- Radomianin (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I read your exchange with great interest, wondering whether I made the right choice in creating an architectural projection onto a concave surface. By first attempting to reconstruct the panorama with an orthogonal perspective and then a sinusoidal one (which is actually very similar), could I have achieved a credible representation? Terragio67 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you're absolutely right - in principle, the curvature should be preserved. But since you couldn't take the photo from a point directly beneath the ceiling (the showcases made that impossible), a natural curvature wasn't achievable in-camera. Your rectified version is therefore probably the most faithful way to convey the artwork's proportions, even if it looks geometrically flatter than in reality. Maybe note that in the file description - it helps others understand the choice. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- The preparatory drawing for this ceiling painting, which is held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, shows that Meynier first designed the composition on a flat surface before adapting it to the curved ceiling. In this sense, the straightened version echoes the artist's original layout. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing this document. I'm now happy and confident that the flattened version turned out more than adequately with the available information. Terragio67 (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- As the son of a painter, I strongly disagree that flat sketches indicate anything about the artist's intention for the final work. Many sculptors also did preparatory flat sketches. I hope you wouldn't try to argue that a work of flat art was their "original conception". Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your perspective and for giving insight from your personal experience with your father's artistic process - that's wonderful. Just to clarify, I never intended to imply that the preparatory drawing represents Meynier's original intention for the ceiling painting - that was not my aim. I included the sketch only as a reference to compare with the straightened version. The straightened version was created solely to provide a proportionally balanced view of the composition, complementing rather than replacing the perspective version.
Incidentally, my biological father, whom I grew up apart from, wasn't a painter like yours, but he painted Thuringian house facades with nature and animal motifs.-- Radomianin (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)- The fact that a father was or wasn't a painter isn't important here. What matters is how sketches and the final work correspond, and I appreciate the helpful perspectives shared by others. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't want to start a heated discussion on this topic; I simply tried to determine (possibly) the best strategy for merging a convex or concave surface onto a flat surface when stitching photos (in this case, I tried a software named Hugin). In the end, the screen on which we display the images is flat. Regardless of the outcome, I ran some tests that may prove useful in the future. Thanks for your feedback, best regards. Terragio67 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support It’s a very interesting question which projection would be best for reproducing a ceiling painting on a barrel vault. On the one hand it seems very plausible that we need some concave curves at the top and bottom of the painting, like in this version; this suggests to the viewer (in the best possible way) that they are looking at a painting on a barrel vault. On the other hand IMHO Themis and Minerva look a little bit distorted in that version, just as to be expected because their heads are near to the curve of the top edge, and IMHO they look more natural in the rectified version which we are discussing here. The same applies also (at a smaller degree) to the female allegory of earth in the lower right corner. So the situation is inconclusive. I guess the reason is simply that Meynier has designed his work not for photographers who want to capture it in a single flat frame, but for the living human viewer who can walk up and down under the barrel vault, views the painting on its three-dimensional barrel surface from different angles, and composes it in his mind. Therefore, if I may put it this way, there is simply no “correct”, i.e., completely adequate, representation of such a ceiling painting in a vault; all reproductions are inevitably only approximate. We can only decide which reproduction(s) we consider most useful, and therefore, although I might prefer a version with slightly curved edges, I also find this projection legitimate, beautiful and very useful. In any case it has much better detail and much better colours than the existing FP, which, even if it would not have been taken by our dear special friend Livio (sigh), looks really dated and rather poor when compared to the new candidate – Livio’s version has curves, yes, but it is tilted and somewhat crooked, not even to mention the mediocre, blotchy details. No reproduction is perfect, but this one is such an enormous progress in comparison to Livio’s one that I have to support it. – Aristeas (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- If we could have this quality with that shape, I'd be happier. That's a very eloquent statement, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 20:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very well done --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Not perfect, but it's near-impossible to get this perfectly right, and what we have here is a superb effort that is vastly better than Livio's mess Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Please, add the original picture as an other version in the description of the image (and at the same time also here). Also, it would be interesting if you can specify in the "Retouched picture" template the type of projection that you adopted to get this result. Great job. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Harlock81 ː Done, if you have a minute, take a quick look, please. Terragio67 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Fine, as long as the change about perspective is mentioned. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2025 at 11:53:50 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info I think the depressive weather increases the documentary value added of the picture. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, this is just not special enough for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Uoaei1, I see what you're trying to do, to create a sort of study of decay, but I don't find the centred composition appealing and the light is uninteresting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 19:08:41 (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/Photo techniques/Black and White#Building interiors
Info created by Felipe Valduga – uploaded and nominated by me -- heylenny (talk/edits) 19:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 19:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice use of black and white to highlight shapes and forms Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment It's a bit noisy in places, no? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Where? heylenny (talk/edits) 04:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- The upper right, particularly, but somewhat on the upper left and lower right, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Where? heylenny (talk/edits) 04:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 18:37:59 (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/In their habitats#Arthropods
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Question Are you seeing this as an FP of the ladybird larva or based on the overall composition? There are a lot of photos in Category:Harmonia axyridis (larva), and I've gotten to only photo 38 of 168 so far, but it's got more impressive details of the larva than this photo: File:Harmonia axyridis (50764151831).jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see it as an FP in regards to the composition. For the larvae alone it would be too small imo -- FlocciNivis (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the colours and composition. Not a great ID photo per Ikan but a good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Love it as a photo of the plant with the larva. – Aristeas (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Yeah, the plant with the larva on it is nice, but this doesn't work for me as a complete composition. I guess I'm in a minority of one on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry to say that I concur Poco a poco (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 17:05:17 (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/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Calidris
Info Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima), adult in summer plumage, Reykjavik, Iceland. No FPs of this species. c/u/n by GRDN711 -- GRDN711 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment or this one? Charlesjsharp (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have been to Flatey Island in Western Iceland. You can get there by ferry and it is a wonderful place for birds.
Charles has an excellent image but they are different. First is a seasonal difference in plumage. His purple sandpiper is in the greyer winter plumage; mine is in more vibrant brown summer plumage. Also, this image shows a better full body view, including the feet, which are lost in sea grasses in the other image. Also appealing, is the way this bird seemed curious about the camera and engages with the viewer. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)- I think his image is better because it has better separation of the bird from the background, though that's arguable because of your apt point about the feet. But what does not satisfy me about your photo, which is otherwise excellent, is that the gray bokeh under the bird behind the feet blends too much into the bird to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support FP to me, but Charles's picture should be featured as well. Cmao20 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Though I agree that Charles's image should be nominated at some point as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I like both images very much, IMHO they complement each other. And we have a third nice image of this species, this time by Needsmoreritalin; in the latter one some of the plumage is OOF, but the head is very sharp and it’s very impressive overall. – Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agreed - User:Needsmoreritalin has a fine image. However, mine is too and the one I nominated is an adult of the species with good summer colors, full body view and viewer engagement. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Absolutely, GRDN711 – I like your photo very much and did not want to belittle it; as I said above, I think these photos complement each other. – Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I like that image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support echoing the comments above, particularly Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Previously I did not realize that the two pictures are by different authors, per Cmao20 both should be featured. --Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas --Terragio67 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 14:41:26 (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/Sports#Cycling
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The roads can become narrow corridors with the spectators on the mountain stages of Tour de France. Here Magnus Cort ("the Best Moustache in the Peloton") climbing Col de la Couillole in the French Alps - a vivid illustration of sport, scenery and spectacle converging at the Tour. —kallerna (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good to me. I feel the excitement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support You chose the location very well – the excited fans create a perfect context, but do not obscure the athletes. – Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I fully agree - the composition and timing are excellent. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support more of this please. --MB-one (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 14:05:21 (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/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#France
Info No similar FPs. One of the most distinctive features of this famous church. created by Poco a poco – uploaded by Poco a poco – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A nice one, thank you! I allowed myself to make some improvements (perspective, CA, curves, sharpening). Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 18:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk)01:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great photo! I don't think I've visited this church so far! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent perspective, well balanced HDR, impressive detail. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 14:05:25 (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/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info No FPs of this place. Pleasant composition of an interesting castle. created by Tournasol7 – uploaded by Tournasol7 – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom and a good composition with the bridge and other buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice compo. Wolverine X-eye 04:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Appealing, convincing composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. But there is a FP already. File:Panoramic view of Estaing 02.jpg -- -donald- (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't see that one as it is in a different gallery. Still, it's quite small and the castle is not very prominent in it. Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. The other one is a good view of the whole village, this is an excellent view of the castle. – Aristeas (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Magnifique composition, couleurs délicates mais bien définies. --Terragio67 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 18:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 11:05:53 (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/Cemeteries#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking and nice light Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 18:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 03:40:17 (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_:_Parulidae_(New_World_Warblers)
Info Palm warbler (Setophata palmarum) hanging out in a meadow. I find that I like the soft light in the meadowy shadows. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 03:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 03:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing composition! Wolverine X-eye 04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and subtle. – Aristeas (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Really nice pastel colours Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20 --Terragio67 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 03:35:00 (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/Arthropods#Family_:_Tettigoniidae_(Katydids_or_Bush_Crickets)
Info Fork-tailed bush katydid (Scudderia furcata) close-up, with a quick 4-frame stack. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 03:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 03:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Just wow - truly outstanding quality and powerful composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing detail! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, though I find the NR rather high. JayCubby (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Olfa Yakoubi -ألفة يعقوبي (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rotana🦋 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 21:26:42 (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_:_Acrocephalidae_(Leaf,_or_Marsh_Warblers)
Info A melodious warbler (Hippolais polyglotta) on a branch, c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I expect no-one to agree with me, but I find the large area of green bokeh in the lower right distracting because it's clearly different from other areas of the background, so I would support cropping out the rightmost fourth of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I get your point but I actually feel the opposite about it. This species is a pain to capture because it lives in bushes, as can be seen by the only photos we have of it on Commons and for me it anchors it in the habitat its generally found. But if this bothers a majority of people, I'd be fine with creating a cropped version. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice little birdie. Wolverine X-eye 04:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment WB problem, too much yellow. --Mile (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Curious what you base the white balance correction on. The picture is taken past 8pm so slightly warmer tone are expected too. From all the photos of the picture I see on eBird, I fail to see a WB issue. Do you have any examples of reference pictures ? -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment (Edit conflict, written at the same time as Alexis’ comment) Looks like warm evening light to me, and that matches date and time (23 May 2025, 20:09:33, near Paris). So we must decide: do we want to show (1) the bird and its surroundings just like they actually looked at that moment; or do we want to show (2) the “real” colours like in a textbook illustration, eliminating the circumstances as far as possible? That’s a matter of taste. You (Mile) require (2); I would prefer (1); IMHO we should allow the photographer to decide. – Aristeas (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I like actual colours and not eliminating the circumstances, what we see with our eyes. -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Tisha, I don't think that natural golden hour colors should be canceled, on the opposite I like the warm tone they give to the scene -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 21:23:45 (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_:_Podicipedidae_(Grebes)
Info A great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) holding an European perch (Perca fluviatilis), c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The bird's eye is usually dark red. Was it lightened intentionally? Nice.--Ermell (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is an immature individual, thus the lighter eye. This picture on the enwiki page shows a similar first year individual, even if its harder to tell given the resolution. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great capture by you and the bird. The fact that the struggling fish is sharp is kind of amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Solid capture. Wolverine X-eye 04:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive, very well done! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Olfa Yakoubi -ألفة يعقوبي (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A good catch! (In any manner) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent and I love the way that the water droplets create a beautiful curve around the fish -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per PantheraLeo. Wow! -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rotana🦋 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 20:55:19 (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#Male singers
Info This image shows Max Giesinger, a well-known German singer-songwriter, particularly famous in Germany for his song Wenn sie tanzt (When She Dances), which he dedicated to his single mother and which touches many listeners with its heartfelt message. The present version is a derivative work based on the original image uploaded in 2021 by Sven Mandel. With the photographer's permission, I redeveloped the Raw file to enhance the image's quality. Created by Sven Mandel, re-developed derivative uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I find this portrait particularly expressive: the eyes are in focus, and the genuine expression conveys a sense of presence and authenticity. In comparison with the original upload, the careful redevelopment of the Raw file has enhanced clarity, depth, and tonal harmony, giving the image a more balanced and vivid appearance. The soft trace of colored stage light on the right side of the face adds a subtle sense of atmosphere, reflecting the live moment without disturbing the overall aesthetic harmony. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support great re-development work done by Radomianin --Svema (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support An impressive portrait – appealing facial expression and gesture, excellent framing without any distracting elements, perfect focus (not easy with ƒ/2.8 at 400mm FF). Also a very successful re-development. – Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice portrait! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Seewolf (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 17:56:00 (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/Natural_phenomena#Crepuscular_rays
Info A moody morning in Drenthe near Aalden. Visible are crepuscular rays and a partial fog iridescence, made visible by the shallow solar incidence angle and fine water droplets in the fog.
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-composed contre-jour fog photo, crepuscular rays and fog iridescence make it beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Such a magical mood! -- Radomianin (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Really pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing lighting! Wolverine X-eye 04:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 04:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support very nice. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Umarxon III (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 18:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Argenberg (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 16:45:11 (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#Tunisia
Info created by Wildtunis – uploaded by Wildtunis – nominated by TOUMOU -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the picture is not sharp enough to be featured. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I do like it. Sharp enough. I like compo and "oldy" colors. --Mile (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The sky is a little noisy, and is it too dark? Otherwise good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The perspective distortion, unnatural colour, sharpness borderline, noise and artefacting in the sky. Not even a QI, tbh. Sorry. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice composition but per UnpetitproleX, just not there in terms of image quality - looks not that sharp and then oversharpened to compensate for lack of detail, which has brought out artefacting. I don't mind the perspective distortion in this case though. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 18:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 16:33:55 (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/Science#Science
Info created by the W.M Welch Scientific Company – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support At 60MP and 100MB, I suggest going over the file in ZoomViewer. Quite dense in information. -- JayCubby (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great find. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool poster, good reproduction. – Aristeas (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. Why does it get noisier and less sharp in the lower right corner? Not enough for me not to support, but I still wonder. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I think that's because this was a composite image, and the photos for the bottom corner got blurred, so were heavily sharpened to compensate, bringing out the chroma noise. The whole image is a bit oversharpened, but it's the best copy I could find. JayCubby (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting chart. Wolverine X-eye 04:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support educational --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting and aesthetically pleasing Cmao20 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kelly zhrm (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 15:09:59 (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/People#1960-1969
Info created by Bernard Gotfryd, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info A. J. Muste was a Dutch-born American clergyman and political activist. He is best remembered for his work in the labor movement, pacifist movement, antiwar movement, and civil rights movement. FP on English Wikipedia.
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Crisp portrait. Thanks to the restorationist's skills, I could find none of the scratches commonly found on Gotfryd film. JayCubby (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Umarxon III (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC).
Support Interesting person, authentic portrait, good restoration. – Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Haunting expression of what we can well imagine was a long-suffering life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 13:31:48 (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/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Species_:_Panthera_onca_(Jaguars)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Just wow! --Yann (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! Wolverine X-eye 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed. – Aristeas (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great capture and beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 04:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Umarxon III (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Outstanding! Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support almost too good to be true. --MB-one (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 08:14:06 (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/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes
Info Above the Séveraisse valley in the Parc national des Ecrins and on the hiking trail (altitude ~2250 m.) linking the Vallonpierre and Chabournéou refuges (La Chapelle-en-Valgaudemar, Hautes-Alpes, France).
The peaks and glaciers visible from left to right are Les Rouies (3589 m), the Rouies glacier, the three peaks of Vaccivier (3297, 3210 and 3242 m), the South peak of Says forming a continuous horizontal ridge (3422 m), Mont Goberney (3352 m) and forming the foreground the Piton de la Viaclose (3009 m) and the western flank of the Pic des Aupilous (3505 m). At the bottom of the photo in the valley we can see the Gioberney chalet-hotel (altitude 1636 m.) created by Pline – uploaded by Pline – nominated by Pline -- Pline (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Pline (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment It would be more useful if you could name the peaks. Yann (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Info Very easy with this useful tool. I used it often --Llez (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'll support when the peaks are labeled like User:Milseburg does it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a start. JayCubby (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Notes added in the file description but not visible in this page ???? Pline (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- ... in the File page ... Pline (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great, thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- ... in the File page ... Pline (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Notes added in the file description but not visible in this page ???? Pline (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful scenery and the trail (and hikers) make for a nice mood and composition, but please do annotate the peaks if possible (such as here). --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Love the inclusion of the hikers Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Nice but IMHO there is to much foreground Poco a poco (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- My intention was to take the photo when the hikers were closer, but by the time I got the camera out and perfected the framing... Pline (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per UnpetitproleX. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 08:01:11 (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#Uzbekistan
Info Barakhan Madrasah, Taskhent, Uzbekistan. -- Mile (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though if this is stitched (in camera or otherwise) I think it should be noted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- One other thing; when was this building completed? Uzbekistan does not have FOP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Info @Chris Woodrich we have this few days ago. FOP ? Its begining of 16. century. (1531/32 — 16-asr 2-yarmi) with later restorations. --Mile (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- That one was a bit more markedly "old" in its presentation, and thus I didn't ask. FOP = freedom of panorama, which is not available in Uzbekistan. If the mosque was completed in the 16th century, then that isn't an issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though if this is stitched (in camera or otherwise) I think it should be noted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nicely done Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose While this is a perfectly nice picture I'll lodge a protest oppose because of the absolutely unnecessary "resolution". This image does not contain anywhere near 70mpx worth of information, resizing to half dimensions (1/4 pixel count), enlarging and sharpening results in practically no informational loss. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- @KennyOMG sorry if Islamic art, full of carving, arabesques etc doesnt bring you more info in Hi-res. Otherwise you can write to camera producers to skip Hi-Res, since no use. --Mile (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with KennyOMG, but I believe that it may be around 50 MPx of real res at most. I'd probably limit the RAW to that resolution and compare to come with the best choice. Poco a poco (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Argenberg (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 17:13:50 (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/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I fear this may get panned for the vignetting, but I don't mind it. It frames the image nicely. I like the rainy and slightly sombre mood. Cmao20 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree with you about the mood. I also find that the composition works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Is a good shot but sorry, I'm not convinced about its extraordinariness Poco a poco (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 20:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment These ruins are interesting, but I would like less grass and more trees. Yann (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 06:43:15 (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 : Certhiidae (Treecreepers)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice shot. Wolverine X-eye 10:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree, not a big bird (12-13 cm) but I would still expect more detail Poco a poco (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Lacking feather detail. --Polinova (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Treecreepers are a difficult bird family to photograph, because they spend so much of their time at the dark, shaded bottoms of trees in forests. This is pretty good in my opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. If I would see this printed on a full page in some nature magazine, I would say “wow” and not miss any feather details. Also nice mood. – Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 05:00:15 (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/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created by Cvmontuy – uploaded by Cvmontuy – nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good archival specimen photo --Polinova (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Polinova. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Especially impressive when viewed at full size Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Why propose a dead animal in a position typical of a live one? Charlesjsharp (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I had never really thought about this before. What I usually do is place the dead specimen on a white piece of cardboard — I like the contrast. Then I extend the legs, because otherwise the specimen lies on its side, and I don’t like that position. That’s my motivation. I’m now switching from my Nikon AF macro lens to the AF-S version, which allows me to use the focus bracketing function on my Nikon D780. I’m also planning to photograph more live specimens now, since I live just a few kilometers from the Sierra de Guadalupe, a forest teeming with insect life.--Cvmontuy (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 05:32:20 (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#Bulgaria
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The last sunrays of the day illuminating the majestic peaks of Vihren and Kutelo in the Pirin Mountains of Bulgaria —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but there are a few striations toward the upper left corner in the sky. What are those? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot see any special striations. Maybe you can provide a note on the img? —kallerna (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I added a note. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think those are natural, but they can be edited out also if you think they are a problem. —kallerna (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support If you think they're natural, that's good enough for me. I just wanted to know what they were. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think those are natural, but they can be edited out also if you think they are a problem. —kallerna (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot see any special striations. Maybe you can provide a note on the img? —kallerna (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm not seeing anything either. Good image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 03:18:11 (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/Agriculture#India
Info created and uploaded by Rainer Halama – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Fine shot. Wolverine X-eye 16:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Could you have used somewhat too much noise reduction? I see borders on some of the hills and trees in the distance, and the terraces in the middleground and hills a bit further back also seem a bit distorted. I'd love for you to try moving the slider back a little on the noise reduction, if you indeed used it, so we can see whether it makes this landscape look more normal. I don't know if anyone else will see things the way I do, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't edit it, and I actually think it wasn't edited, but @Rainer Halama: can give us a definitive answer. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 02:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not really: The automatic correction. Exposure -0.20; Contrast +7, Highlights -66; Shadows +44; Whites +27; Blacks -28;Vibrance +14: Sharpening 99 (I always sharpen to around 100%); Masking 59 (I mask until - pressing ALT and sliding - only the contours are highlighted); Luminance 10;Profile ccorrection for the TAMRON 17-70mm lens Rainer Halama (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support IMO a bit oversharpened but nice composition and mood Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC){{weak oppose}} per discussion in the subthread I started above.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)- Have you looked at the image before making this vote? The sharpness has been reduced. Rainer Halama (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I did, but I'll try clearing my cache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the image before making this vote? The sharpness has been reduced. Rainer Halama (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better to my eyes. Thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for the update! This version looks much better to me. The borders on the hills, mentioned by Ikan, have disappeared, and the overall impression is now natural and realistic. – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I enjoy the view but the big are in shadow is disturbing, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- The shadow makes it more interesting, in my view. Adds an atmospheric feel to it. :) UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 20:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 15:38:42 (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/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Others
Info created by Tangopaso – uploaded by Tangopaso – nominated by Tangopaso -- Tangopaso (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tangopaso (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment A creative take on photographing a normal building, but since this is more of a trick photo than a proper representation of an actual event, the gallery should also reflect this. Funny and fanciful image names are ok for Flickr or Instagram, but the policy is that Commons images should be properly named and categorized. There are plenty of building really unstable in some way, so it should be clear to the viewer what's going on here. We don't need to spread more misinformation in the world, there is plenty of that already. --Cart (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I dont understand your comment. Its obvious that it is an actual building, you have even the location of the building in Paris. It is not an unstable building. It is only a joke.
- If you want in Commons only photos of actual objects, you must forbid all the art, paintings, drawings, sculptures. Does Wikipédia understand humor?--Tangopaso (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Of course we can have jokes, humor and such things here, but the description, file names and galleries should be correct since that is how people find images here. If you call this a 'sinking building', it will come up in searches people make for actual sinking buildings. If you indicate in the title and description that it's a funny joke photo, then people who are looking for funny photos will find it. With the right words, your photo will find the right audience. --Cart (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Question The resolution (6 MPx) is low, don't you have more pixels to offer? Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
No sorry, I dont have --Tangopaso (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)- I uploaded an image with better definitionː 3.38 Mb instead of 2.18 Mb. I hope it will be OK. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 20:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cart and Poco, it's a nice idea but I don't think it's very high quality or well documented. Cmao20 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose That shot with a proper camera and lens would be a slam dunk IMO, because the idea is great. But unfortunately the quality is quite bad even for a phone camera in 2025. --MB-one (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 14:47:46 (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#United States
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not even QI to me, lack of detail, noisy lack of perspective correction and random compo. Definitely no FP Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think perspective correction was demanded from drone photos. I do agree that we've seen much sharper and less noisy drone pics, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a 100 megapixel file. It's not comparable to a 100 megapixel medium-format image, but impressive for a drone shot, one can even read the building names! Comparisons with other drone images should be done at the same resolution / print size, not at 100% --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're right, so I'll
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're right, so I'll
- It's a 100 megapixel file. It's not comparable to a 100 megapixel medium-format image, but impressive for a drone shot, one can even read the building names! Comparisons with other drone images should be done at the same resolution / print size, not at 100% --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think perspective correction was demanded from drone photos. I do agree that we've seen much sharper and less noisy drone pics, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The embedded color profile is Adobe RGB, which often gives wrong results with web browsers. File:Logan Square, Spring Garden.jpg is a JPEG version with sRGB color profile. You can add it as alternative. Yann (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that still an issue with modern browsers? I thought that the Chrome/Firefox/Safari releases from the last few years had no issues displaying Adobe RGB images, as long as there was an embedded profile. I often use Adobe RGB in images with dark greens to reduce posterisation when converting to an 8-bit JPEG. Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I was told on Commons. It was a few years back. Yann (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- AFAIK all modern browsers now support ICC profiles; a few years ago I tried a few AdobeRGB and DisplayP3 images in Firefox, Edge and Chrome, and all were displayed correctly under macOS, Linux and Windows (of course I tried Edge only on Windows). Even on my Android smartphone AdobeRGB and DisplayP3 images are displayed correctly. There is still a critical point: Sometimes people or programs forget to embed the ICC profile. This is OK as long as the colour space is sRGB, which is used as a default, but can indeed cause serious problems with any other colour space. Luckily this image contains an embedded ICC profile, so everything should be fine. – Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I was told on Commons. It was a few years back. Yann (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that still an issue with modern browsers? I thought that the Chrome/Firefox/Safari releases from the last few years had no issues displaying Adobe RGB images, as long as there was an embedded profile. I often use Adobe RGB in images with dark greens to reduce posterisation when converting to an 8-bit JPEG. Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support This one is better to me. The distorted perspective looks more like a deliberate choice, rather than a drawback in the other nomination Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 21:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 14:43:16 (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#United States
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this one is good. Please remind me of the advantages of JPEGs over PNGs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- PNGs
- take up much more space
- MW's thumbnail generator blurs PNG thumbnails (and nobody's fixed that bug for decadeS if my memory serves me)
- JayCubby (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Good to know. If these don’t pass I’ll be sure to retry as JPEGs. Szeremeta (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair we must also add that PNG files offer lossless compression, while JPEG is a lossy compression. This explains why PNG files are much bigger, but also means that they are much better for archiving important images, original scans, etc. The fact that Mediawiki blurs PNG thumbnails is not the fault of the PNG format, so we cannot blame that file format for the bug. For all normal photos JPEG should always be good enough, of course. – Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Good to know. If these don’t pass I’ll be sure to retry as JPEGs. Szeremeta (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- PNGs
- Yes, this one is good. Please remind me of the advantages of JPEGs over PNGs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The embedded color profile is Adobe RGB, which often gives wrong results with web browsers. File:Asbury Park Oceanfront Aerial (October 15, 2025).jpg is a JPEG version with sRGB color profile. You can add it as alternative. Yann (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice shot and huge resolution but I think it'd need a perspective correction, the leaning buildings are just too disturbing Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)- We're really going to demand perspective correction from drone pics? I'll
Support this photo based on quality, without prejudice to the question of whether it ought to be a JPEG. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, to defend my opinion against this criticism, I didn't demand it on this author's other nomination (which I supported and continue to think is very good). But the issue here for me is that because the photo is taken a fair distance away from the buildings, there is some distortion but not enough for it to produce a striking and impressive effect as in the other picture, just enough for it to look slightly strange. For example, the leaning orange building on the right looks particularly odd and disturbing. In this photograph, a perspective correction would be relatively easy and would in my opinion only improve the composition with no drawbacks. In fact, I actually tried it. See here. Szeremeta, you're welcome to do what you like with this version. Ignore this if you prefer though! Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Cmao20. Would support Cmao20’s version. – Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 10:37:37 (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/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info created by imehling -- imehling (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I hope this castle is outstanding enough. -- imehling (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Szeremeta (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, for me the image doesn't work well enough for FP. The building ist too bright (maybe fixable) and it doesn't stand out enough from the background. --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur, sorry, not the best POV Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it's really your fault, but the composition doesn't really work for me, and I think it's partly because there's such a big white area in the castle's façade. That can't be helped, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Mon 20 Oct → Sat 25 Oct Tue 21 Oct → Sun 26 Oct Wed 22 Oct → Mon 27 Oct Thu 23 Oct → Tue 28 Oct Fri 24 Oct → Wed 29 Oct Sat 25 Oct → Thu 30 Oct
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Thu 16 Oct → Sat 25 Oct Fri 17 Oct → Sun 26 Oct Sat 18 Oct → Mon 27 Oct Sun 19 Oct → Tue 28 Oct Mon 20 Oct → Wed 29 Oct Tue 21 Oct → Thu 30 Oct Wed 22 Oct → Fri 31 Oct Thu 23 Oct → Sat 01 Nov Fri 24 Oct → Sun 02 Nov Sat 25 Oct → Mon 03 Nov
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.
- 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)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - 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 === - Save your edit.
- 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 or part of a set nomination, use the 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. For set nominations, use:
== Set Promoted to FP ==
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}}, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of 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}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- 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):
{{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) - 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 === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2025.
- 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=1 to featured=2 (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).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- 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 must not be removed from the chronological list.
- 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
- 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=--~~~~}} - 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 === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
