Commons:Featured picture candidates

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

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

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

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

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio[edit]

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

Set nominations[edit]

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

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

Simple tutorial for new users[edit]

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

STEP 1

  • STEP 1

    STEP 1


STEP 2

  • STEP 2

    STEP 2


STEP 3

  • STEP 3

    STEP 3


STEP 4

  • STEP 4

    STEP 4


STEP 5

  • STEP 5

    STEP 5


STEP 6

  • STEP 6

    STEP 6


STEP 7

  • STEP 7

    STEP 7


STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)

    STEP 8 (last step)

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting[edit]

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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

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

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Catedral de Santa Cecilia, Albi, Francia, 2023-01-07, DD 98-100 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2023 at 22:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Choir of the Saint Cecil Cathedral, Albi, France

File:Bieszczady mountains in winter 2023.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2023 at 12:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:The break water.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2023 at 11:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Breakwater at Fort Ricasoli, Malta
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Malta
  •  Info created + uploaded by Bonavia92 - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Beautiful capture, but the quality is not meeting QI guidelines, sorry. --A.Savin 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose grainy, lack of detail and sharpness. I can't understand, why full reso quality is so low. -- Ivar (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment That's a great moment captured in a nicely composed image, but something went wrong there - a shot from a 90D taken under these conditions with these settings shouldn't look that noisy. Looks like maybe an unfortunate combination of sharpening and de-noising settings cancelling each other out and making things worse? --El Grafo (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. It's a shame: as El Grafo said, it was a great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, fair enough. I nominated this with mixed feelings, but anyway,  I withdraw my nomination because I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion further. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Asbestnaya Mount, Adygea, Гора Асбестная, виды с вершины, Адыгея, Западный Кавказ.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2023 at 19:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Greater Caucasus Range in clouds and fog.

File:Abtei Seckau Basilika Innenraum 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2023 at 14:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of Seckau Basilica

File:093 Wild Mute swan at Lake Geneva during sunset Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2023 at 07:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sun setting behind a wild mute swan at Lake Geneva

File:Interior of Wat Long Koon with gold statue of the seated Buddha in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2023 at 00:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of Wat Long Koon Luang Prabang Laos
  • There are two bottles on the carpet, one in the middle and one at the left. And more at the right on a table. I don't find them distracting, personally, I think they give an indication on the place. They are free bottles, offered to the guests in this humble and quite isolated place. Anyone can enjoy drinking when visiting. Minor detail, like the blue adhesive tape stuck on the floor, I would not remove either. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your answer. It's a pity that visitors leave the empty plastic bottles lying around while enjoying a pleasant stay.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Intellivision-Console-Set.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 18:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Intellivision, a second generation video game console released in 1979 by Mattel Electronics.

File:The European Extremely Large Telescope.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 18:16:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The European Extremely Large Telescope
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Others
  •  Info created by ESO, uploaded by Jmencisom, nominated by Yann
  •  Support Professional quality graphics, very useful to understand what the ELT will look like. We can't take picture of the telescope itself yet for quite some years. Featuring this will also encourage ESO to release their work under a free license. -- Yann (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose Crop is too tight at the bottom and at the top, in my view. An image needs to breathe in its framing. Wider versions seem available -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I think it needs more white space above and below, but this looks like a great VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Neuschwanstein Castle 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 16:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from Marienbrücke to Neuschwanstein Castle

File:Ipê Amarelo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 14:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 024.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 09:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Locomotive, Mount Washington Cog Railway

File:064 Wild Chamois Parc régional Chasseral Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2023 at 08:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wild chamois in the Parc régional Chasseral
  •  Comment Giles Laurent, the torso and hind legs seem to show traces of sharpening/denoising artefacts. One needs to pixel-peep to find them, but nevertheless I'll share my own experience with AI algorithms in case you find it useful: for .ARW files with fur or foliage, I found DXO and Adobe Denoise AI to do a better job than Topaz (looking at the EXIF, it was the algortihm used here?). DXO tends to be better at lower ISO, and Adobe at higher ISO. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Umgäng.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2023 at 15:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

In the Alpeltal or Umgäng, descending from the Hoher Göll

File:UN Fight for Freedom Leslie Ragan 1943 poster.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2023 at 03:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

UN Fight for Freedom, Leslie Ragan, 1943 poster

File:Renfe 730 Erustes - Montearagón.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2023 at 16:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passenger train in Spain

File:Steam locomotive gear (JŽ 06-018; Slovenia).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2023 at 12:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Steam locomotive gear (JŽ 06-018; Slovenia)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
  •  Info Borsig steam locomotive gear (JŽ 06-018; Slovenia). Made in december 2014 "Christmas ride". 5 MPx camera with goldy CCD sensor. It just in 1 page on SLovenian Wiki, but obviously (book) writers are checking Commons Category. Krismas came earlier. --Mile (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Mile (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Smallish picture, but detailed enough, and I like the old-timey feel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The picture may be attractive but it doesn't fit FP standards, low size & resolution, strong editing. --Selbymay (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek. Getting a digital photo to look like old film is much harder than it looks, and great to see a photo from a quirky old CCD camera here. Cool video too! -Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The typical smells of such rolling monuments are almost palpable to someone who has grown up with these steel "organisms" in the daily neighborhood. The technical quality is secondary in favor of the wow factor. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak support - The motif works for me. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question The wheel at left seems to have a different perspective than others. Is this an optical illusion, or something else? Yann (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Yann yes, look like axis of 1st gear isn't parallel to second (biger) one. But you can see at movie, 21 s, it is original like shown. No edits or stitching, single shot. --Mile (talk)
  • Not parallel? What are you talking about? They are on the same rail. Yann (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think Petar is confirming it's an optical illusion. They are in fact parallel, as shown in the video (21 seconds in) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is it. --Mile (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support OK, I misunderstood what you said. Yann (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ISS-38 Hawaiian Island chain.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

Sunset in Píer Oscar Weinschenck, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
English: The photograph captures a moment of tranquility and companionship at Píer Oscar Weinschenck in Rio de Janeiro. Two couples sit on the edge of the pier, their silhouettes outlined by the glowing golden light of the sunset. Around them, the world seems to pause; the harbor waters reflect a sky of soft amber tones, and the moored ships at the back remain still, as if respecting the quiet end of the day. The towering buildings peeking from behind suggest the proximity of the city, yet on this pier, there's an interlude of serenity where time seems to slow down, and each wave whispers tales of days ending with the promise of warm nights. This photo is a reflection of the whirlwind of emotions I experienced that day, the day I met a charming carioca. After a bike ride with her daughter, we stopped in front of this scene, lost in contemplation. It was then that a passerby approached and, with a smile, remarked on how beautiful my daughter was. In that moment, against the backdrop of the setting sun and the calm harbor, I felt a simple, unexpected moment transform into a precious memory that would stay with me forever.
Português: A fotografia captura um momento de tranquilidade e companhia no Píer Oscar Weinschenck, no Rio de Janeiro. Duas casais se sentam à beira do cais, suas silhuetas recortadas pela luminosa luz dourada do pôr do sol. Ao redor deles, parece que o mundo dá uma pausa; as águas do porto refletem um céu de suaves tons de âmbar, e os navios ancorados ao fundo permanecem imóveis, como se respeitassem o pacífico fim do dia. Os edifícios altos ao fundo sugerem a proximidade da cidade. Esta foto é o reflexo do turbilhão de emoções que experimentei naquele dia, o dia em que conheci uma carioca encantadora. Após um passeio de bicicleta com a sua filha, paramos diante desta cena, perdidos em contemplação. Foi então que um passante se aproximou e, com um sorriso, comentou quão bela era minha filha. Naquele instante, diante do pôr do sol e do porto tranquilo, senti um momento simples e inesperado transformar-se em uma memória preciosa que ficaria comigo para sempre.

All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The explanation is for example here and I've no desire being like in Groundhog Day again and again. By the way, there is no rule on striking or removing votes by eligible users without their authorization. Thanks --A.Savin 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use of AI text, I presume? --SHB2000 (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rule is that opposing votes must offer a reason. I've seen examples in the past of opposing votes without a reason not being counted. If they can be counted, we're operating strictly on the honors system, and if so, that needs to be discussed on the talk page. I'm afraid you'll have to offer that link again and again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware – I just wanted a confirmation from A.Savin before voting myself. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just feel -- with all this repeated ChatGPT shit, the poor categories (nothing more than "Rio de Janeiro" etc...) -- that Wilfredor is deeming me stupid all the time, likewise he's deeming stupid all other Commoners who, unlike himself, care just a bit about quality instead of quantity. I'm really sick of that. --A.Savin 12:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @A.Savin: , I am very sorry that my actions have created this impression of wanting to make fun of the community and that you feel frustrated by this. My intention has always been to contribute positively to the community and not belittle the effort and dedication of others. I think there is also disagreement regarding the interpretation of the rules and the quality of the contributions. I would like to better understand your views and work together to improve my descriptions and nomination. Can we discuss this constructively and find solutions that benefit us all? I have been concerned and saddened to read your comments and see that my actions have been interpreted in a way that is very far from my true intentions. I strive to provide value and quality to the community, I often translate using this tool because I feel that it is closer to what I want to express, I want you to know that I value your opinion and that of all the other commons users. I think each of us brings a different perspective that helps us improve the quality of this section, and it has never been my desire to discredit that. If I have failed to communicate my respect and appreciation for diversity of opinion and commitment to quality, I sincerely apologize. (Google translator was used to transalte it) --Wilfredor (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, Alex. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ArionStar: , se que voce gosta muito de minhas nominacoes especialmente aquelas que tem relacao com Brasil, mas precisamos deixar que outros usuarios expresem seu punto de vista, emboara que A.Savin nao comentou nada, tua maneira de bloquear o voto dele nao ajuda a solucionar o problema, precisamos sempre ter boa fe e esperar que o outro esta realmente fazendo comentarior sinceiros. A gente se conhece faz tantos anos que isto aqui e praticamente uma familia. Entao, peco, por favor, parar de asediar ou atacar a A.Savin, ele somente esta mostrando uma opiniao. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Nice picture, but inadequate AI description. Yann (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the description from the nomination (the image does not have that description), nothing in that description is false or a lie. But I deleted English translation done with chatgpt --Wilfredor (*talk) 12:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks.  Support then. Please note that Google Translate doesn't a much better job in my opinion. Yann (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least it seems not to invent things or phrases that are not in the original text. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wilfredor, e a versão em português foi completamente escrita por ti ou também passou pelo ChatGPT? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eu mesmo sem traduicao nenhuma, pasei o corretor. Pode ser que tenha sido um pouco poético, mas eu não vejo a fotografia apenas como o ato de tirar fotos, mas também como uma forma de narrar o momento com sentimentos. Sou brasileiro por naturalização e tive que passar por um teste de língua além de morar vários anos no Brasil. Embora não seja minha língua principal, consigo falar e escrever praticamente em um nível nativo --Wilfredor (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Espectacular progresso desde o portunhol que escreveste aqui... [2]. Enfim, desisto de tentar perceber o que pretendes com tudo isto. Uma pena, porque as tuas fotos - esta incluída - são muito boas. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sei escrever portunol, sei escrever português, francês, inglês, etc., sei falar de diversas maneiras também. Você pode me ligar e falar comigo para verificar meu nível de idioma se tiver dúvidas. BTW, não sei por que vc deveria me perguntar algo se já tem uma resposta preconcebida. Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose -- I agree with Savin. To me, this looks like an ordinary tourist photo. What's with the AI-generated description? I thought this was a picture forum? - Je-str (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support agree with ArionStar. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting slice-of-life photo, but I don't like the left crop for cropping out part of the water but including the somewhat distracting garbage disposal, and I'm not fully convinced by the rest of the composition. I think this is a good QI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a crane (on the left side of the photo), not a garbage disposal --Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I saw it as a chute for construction debris to go into a dumpster. But anyway, I found it distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded this phone version just to show you that this is a permanent object, what you see below is the base of the crane and not a dumpster. But it's okay, I understand that it's distracting. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral That's a very nice exercise in composition (use of negative space and diagonals), but something is missing. Maybe I'm missing a stronger subject here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Thorsten Nordenfelt. Svensk ubåtspionjär.jpg[edit]

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

Thorsten Nordenfelt

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

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

Leighton House, London, England
  • Benh: It's sad to read the motivation of your vote (or at least part of it), but fine now I see why you are biased when it comes to my noms. You criticize that I propose too many images. What is wrong with that for the project? I cannot tell about others but I've been travelling a lot, I'm taking dozens of thousands of images per year, spending 20-30 hours weekly to process them, identify them and sort them out and my uploaded images are piling up (and also those I consider good FP candidates). What is the point of punishing the most productive contributors? In the last 3 years, I uploaded 755 images for each one that you uploaded. If I'd propose poor images to FP I'd understand your comment but a quick check of my noms in November shows that the support rate is over 90% on average (in spite of you). I don't expect that you or anybody else thanks me for my contributions (because, in fact, it is fun contributing) but at least I'd hope for fairness and cannot understand your attempt to dump my motivation. Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am very surprised to find such a comment here. We are all different in terms of photographic skills, possibilities and interests. Using the number of nominations here reflects rather badly on the commentator. There are a few here who work with disrespectful comments. Please be considerate and remain objective and polite.--XRay 💬 05:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Funny thing you didn't mentioned anything about the actual criticism I made. I guess you don't care as I suspected as long as people here support your image. Anyways, count on my opposes as long as you pitch wonky candidates. - Benh (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It wasn't about the factual part of the criticism, but about the way we treat each other. I find the attitude of fundamental criticism, which is basically independent of the picture, just as remarkable. Or rather regrettable. What a pity. --XRay 💬 10:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was replying to Poco. Sorry for the misplacement of my comment. The rest, am not interested to discuss. - Benh (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What are you talking about? It's you who has ignored both, my feedback and my improved versions previously (see here and here). And still you reproach me for not adressing your comments? for what? No problem with opposes if they remain fair and you don't treat contributors here in a disrespectful way. Poco a poco (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who's disrespectful? Someone who dumps unfinished pictures, or someone who points at the issues? I wouldn't even upload most your candidates I oppose tbh. And none of your patches fixed the issues. You even say so on the first example ("at least improved" like "oh to hell, it will be promoted anyways because no one but a handful really cares"). Second one still non symmetrical. You'd have to reshoot for that. Other people go a great length to get shots at the right time, perfectly planned, with good execution and good processing. You just do that in batch and carelessly (aka for the numbers). I think if we could have more than 2 active noms per user, you'd happily spam us more. - Benh (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perfection is nothing neither you, me or anybody else will reach. You will always find a reason why you believe that the picture is not perfect. The problem is that when it comes to my picture anything is a good reason to oppose. I believe you are biased, either you do it consciously or not. You are clearly wrong with your judgement if you remain often as the only one opposer. And you will also find a reason why you believe that it is fine not to answer or give feedback when you are asked to do so, but angry if that happens the other way around. Talking to you is like talking to a wall, stay in your bubble, I don't care. Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --imehling (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)--imehling (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I don't like some comments here. Taking a good picture inside a building is never easy. Lights are good, the architecture isn't annoying at all. Good atmosphere... Perspective is good. This is what I want to see on an inside building picture. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This is an adequate real estate photo (well-done HDR, detailed, informative) and I'm grateful for Diego's documenting efforts, but I don't think it's a great photo. My main gripe is that, due to the wide-angle distortion, the table and chandelier look tiny compared to the stretched-out walls and ceiling. Perhaps a different angle or a longer focal length would have worked better. --11:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesvernex2 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice room and presentation but the obvious distortion is't convincing me. Maybe it would be better as a full panorama in a suitable viewer. --Milseburg (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment This is a standard room in a house, I stand at one corner to take a picture from the other corner and sourroundings. Either I use a low mm to capture the room (my intention, and sure there will be some distortion) or I use a higher mm to focus on a portion of it or some elements (this was not my intention). I see no way to take a picture of a room showing most of it using a higher mm to avoid distortion (is that distortion really so annoying?). Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Benh. -- Karelj (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Panoramic view of Wat Pa Phon Phao and Nam Khan river seen from Old French Bridge Luang Prabang Laos
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Laos
  •  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support So Laotian. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support So golden. ★ 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral The temple is too small for me (it is drowning in the landscape). The tree in front of the temple does not help either. I find the faded yellow of the tower somewhat disturbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice composition, mood and colors under these grey clouds but I wouldn't call this small viewing angle an panoramic view. --Milseburg (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I'm not convinced either, neither the sky nor the river in that color look appealing to me. I'd have probably focused rather on the temple Poco a poco (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I kind of like compo with that temple standing as a golden spark of hope while the world around it is dark, stormy and muddy. A photo like this tells a story rather than serve as just a representation of that particular piece of land. It could do with a bit more contrast though. --Cart (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. At least it is an answer to Selbymay's concern, below :-) Weather conditions were similar as here, in the same area -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Straightforward centred composition and temple itself is tiny and mostly obstructed. - Benh (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Je-str (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Informative picture, I don't get what it's featurable here. --Selbymay (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The temple + settlement mystically blending into the Laotian forests. That's what makes it so idyllic and FP-worthy. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Roques de Garcia from Parador.jpg[edit]

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

Roques de Garcia in dusk
  •  Oppose This is not a subject (or perhaps this is not the composition for this subject) where a silhouette works for me. The shape and its place in the frame just don't do much for me, sorry to say. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I prefer a daylighted subject, in this case. ★ 02:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As per Rhododendrites --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Cappella di San Carlo Borromeo in the Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome, Lazio, Italy
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The marble (or whatever it is) patterns are a bit kitsch and overwhelming, distracting me from the painting itself. Also feels like clarity is a bit too strong. - Benh (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I haven't made a decision about this photo, but to me, the marble is beautiful, not kitschy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is Baroque. Of course, the artistic taste is changed from the half of 1600 (also in Rome). --Harlock81 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Detail of the main altar of the Santa Maria in Vallicella church in Rome, Lazio, Italy

File:Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada 131.jpg[edit]

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

Gazania krebsiana, Quebec city, Quebec
At a macro level, you need to have a steel pulse to be able to center something like that, I know that in editing I could do it, I am open to any cut but that would mean a change in the proportion which would break the cutting standard generated by the camera. IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Its in the nature, with a considerable amount of wind, take many photos before getting this shot. You can see a less closeup of the same flower here --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other pic you mention is as nice as this one, very good job. --Selbymay (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I have made other versions, outside Commons, with tighter crops, and they hold up very nicely too. But not fully with one tree dead center, since I like to keep the irregular forest feeling. With this framing you have a grading across the photo from heavier forest to the left, to clearing up into a field to the right. Your request is something to consider if other voters feel the same. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Just low quality images of some wooden pieces: There is no any reasonon for FP nomination here. -- Karelj (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I am dismayed about the itense hatred which manifests itself in such disparaging comments. What has wounded your soul, dear mate? Spraying hatred will not heal your pain. I would like to invite you to try hiking, meditation, prayer, yoga, whatever you like instead. But it should be constructive, because injuring others just keeps your wound open and bleeding. --Aristeas (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+2 I second this. Karelj, all you're doing is deliberately putting others down by spuriously claiming they have no reason to nominate a file for FP. Please read what you write and ask yourself: if someone said that to a photo you put your hard yards into, how would you feel? --SHB2000 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-2 We have a template {{FPX}} "where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP". Just imagine this template with the reason "Low quality". The judgment is subjective and contestable by anyone, however, it's a valid opinion, and here it's a simple comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 I almost expected the disparaging comment. Regrettably, it happens again and again. It would be good to remain respectful, polite and factual. --XRay 💬 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment As an artist I'm used to harsh critique, it comes with the territory, not everyone can like what you do. It's ok for me personally, but crude behavior in general is not good for this FPC section or Commons. It's not easy to remain civilized and polite in all situations online and I myself is not an exception to that. But to do so repetedly when users obviously are bothered by it, is not ok. A better tone would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-1 ● "Reasonon" is not in my dictionary but is it a reason to lynch a user who makes the effort to formulate a subjective criticism in a foreign language that he apparently masters approximately?
"In my view, it is a low quality image. Just trees. I don't see any reason for FP nomination." ► Is this opinion so harsh that it is unacceptable for the fragile little heart of this group? 💔😭
● Please remember we use official image guidelines at FPC to evaluate the candidates. These guidelines are supposed to be the rules to follow. How do you judge a "quality photo" when the official recommandation is Focus: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." and Motion Blur: "Too long exposure: image has become blurred because of hand shaking or subject moving too fast.". Note that this photo is not Panning, hence the obvious difficulty in judging whether the photo meets the quality criteria or not. The photo is called "Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg" (not "abstract"), so don't be surprised if some reviewers expect to find trees somewhere in the image. And how do you do at FPC when you have absolutely no clue, no indications, no guidelines to evaluate the "quality" of such unconventional pictures? COM:FPC states "General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality." Hmm, based on which aspects please?
● Karelj sees just "wooden pieces". Well, everyone is entitled to share one's point of view. Is there anything else than trunks and branches (wooden pieces) on this photograph? White snow, perhaps, but compare with this work. I don't see anything wrong with someone finding the content rather empty, bare or boring. Is the crime of opinion sanctioned on Commons? Once again, our guidelines states Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" Is the wow an imperative diktat, in this case? Matter of personal taste. Not everyone has to like Jackson Pollock either: Many observers consider it is "just spilled paint on canvas", sharing this opinion does not mean being hateful.
● "No reason for FP nomination" certainly means "nothing special" (sometimes other people agree). Karelj is among the rare regular contributors working on the POTD templates, and as you know, all pictures of the day are selected from the FP pool. Perhaps this blurry photograph was considered unsuitable for the home page, well, this vision can be justified according to our quality criteria / reception criteria. Once again, it's a question of taste, not of behavior.
● Certainly, the review above could be more softened, and written in a better English (not my mother tongue either, by the way). However, it seems mainly focused on the content of the image. What's wrong? Where are the personal attacks that everyone is complaining about? No insults, no vulgarity. Just a negative comment hastily written. Is it a serious fault?
●  Question @Aristeas, you are one of the most polite and rational people around here, and I am very surprised to discover your allegations of "hatred". You say "Spraying hatred" and "Injuring others" but are you yourself calm /rested /zen /serene enough to hear a point of view different from yours? Hate speech is something else, comrade. In our democracies, anyone is perfectly entitled to dislike an image, a song, a film, and to say it openly, you know. That's not insulting the authors to criticise (negatively) their works, on the contrary, negative feedback often helps to improve.
● I think Kallerna is among the most talented photographers of Commons, and he's probably right to regret that "the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy". It's difficult enough to find the courage to cast a non-consensual opinion in the middle of an unanimous pack, so please don't unnecessarily hinder these divergent points of view, because Commons is not intended to become a Care Bears world 🌈 nor the universality of beauty and good. These {{Oppose}} votes represent minor red spots in a green forest, you should make the effort to welcome these differences rather than digging on wrong ground to discredit them. Marginality / originality is precious.
● I read with astonishment that many people above feel "dismayed about the intense hatred", but honestly, such a lynching for such an insignificant gap gives me the impression that intolerance rather comes from the other side, if I dare express my feeling. I had to check if the comment had been modified to believe this discussion. Unfortunately no, this relentlessness is only caused by this clumsy little text? Wow! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment As most readers apparently understood immediately, my comment does not refer to the mere fact that Karelj voted against this picture – objective contra voices with meaningful, constructive reasons related to the specific picture always enrich the discussion. Rather, my comment refers to the patronising wording of Karelj’s comment, which (apart from the dismissive phrase “some wooden pieces”) has no recognisable reference to the picture, and to the fact that it fits seamlessly into a long series of similar disparaging comments by Karelj. This series of scornful remarks, some with clearly insulting expressions like “a picture for the waste bin” etc., gives me the impression that Karelj is very injured, harbours a deep resentment and has difficulty dealing with his aggression. That dismays me. So I’ve tried to point Karelj towards better ways of dealing with aggression and emotional wounds. If I have hurt him – or you? – with this, I am of course deeply sorry. That doesn’t change the fact that I consider disparaging comments to be inappropriate and unhelpful. I prefer to discuss pictures objectively with constructive and respectful reviews, and I have the impression that many other participants hold the same view. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only "some wooden pieces", the comment also mentions the (alleged) "low quality", that directly refers to the technical aspect of the picture. By the way, let's see the glass half full rather than half empty: if the previous comments were "waste bin" (I don't remember but perhaps), then this one appears much more moderate in comparison. Honestly, and once again, I do not read this comment as an attack, in my opinion it expresses a firm rejection of the image, with surely a lot of clumsiness in the writing, and without a doubt an absence of delicacy, but nothing catastrophic, no insult, no marked hatred. This is an important point given the allegations and the consequences -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) You make some pretty valid and fair points, Basile, and kudos on you for making it more balanced. However, as a native English speaker, the phrase "I don't see any reason for FP nomination" (or "no reason for FP nomination" as Karel mentions in some other FPC noms) goes a lot more than what it sounds at face value. To me, it comes out across as "why did you nominate this?!" or "what was the purpose of you nominating this utterly useless pic?", because the tone of it is passive aggressive and flat-out rude (which is something you would never say in real life without consequences – same applies here). That's what Aristeas and I find problematic – not because of Karel's different opinions. We just don't think Karel should be allowed to simply get a slap on the wrist for their choice of words. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question "why did you nominate this?" (as you say for comparison) sounds very neutral, soft and valid, in my view, based on the FP requirements in relation to the "quality" criteria. In real life, many things can be said with an adequate tone. We need evidence, no guesses. COM:AGF: "When using a second language, people can sometimes express themselves in ways that convey a different tone or message than the one intended. To avoid false assumptions about the intentions of other editors, keep in mind that language barriers can cause misunderstandings. Editors who use a language other than their own usually do so out of courtesy to others." Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, this is one of the few cases where I don't exactly agree with the principle of COM:AGF – words can be subject to interpretation differently, based on context, and English is one of those languages where there is no one certain way of speaking and understanding it. I could write a message in very bad faith but twist it to make it deliberately ambiguous, and you'd have no way of proving that I had ill-intent. Same applies here, which is why the principle of COM:AGF is hard to apply here. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
France Dans nos sociétés civilisées, il existe un principe important qui s'appelle la "Présomption d'innocence". Tu imagines sinon ? On pourrait aussi supposer que ton but ici est de régler un vieux différend avec cette personne, et que toute ta stratégie consiste à exploiter un mauvais prétexte pour harceler cet ennemi ? Comment te disculper si COM:AGF est remis en cause? Soyons prudent et modéré avec les extrapolations de micro-bribes de textes aussi insignifiantes que celle-ci. Par ailleurs, même si tu es en désaccord avec une règle de Commons, celle-ci faisant partie des directives officielles, je crois qu'il est impératif de la respecter, pour un bon fonctionnement collectif. Chacun est maître de ses émotions, de son imaginaire et de ses spéculations, mais je suis quand même assez sidéré d'entendre tes suspicions par rapport à ce commentaire anodin, sur le fait qu'il puisse selon toi (si j'ai bien compris ton anglais) être déguisé de manière à tromper les lecteurs, c'est-à-dire ceux qui y verraient simplement un message neutre et indolore n'auraient en fait pas saisi la véritable intention de nuire, habilement dissimulée ? Oh la la.... Non seulement, rien n'est flagrant, mais en plus le niveau d'anglais et de négligence est lui-même facile à vérifier. Excuse-moi mais à ce stade, les craintes me paraissent plus que fantaisistes, plutôt délétères. Je ne vois pas non plus pourquoi COM:AGF serait davantage sujet à précaution dans ce cas plutôt plutôt que dans un autre. Je pense au contraire que cette règle à été rédigée précisément pour dissoudre ce genre de difficulté, en particulier. Enfin bon, peut-être qu'un jour on découvrira toute l'extraordinaire machination qui a été mise en oeuvre à notre insu, et qu'on tombera de haut face au niveau d'élaboration du piège machiavélique? En attendant, relax, Max ! (Carpe diem, mon ami ☮). Plus de méprise que de mal, à mon avis.
United States In our civilized societies, there is an important principle called the “presumption of innocence”. Can you imagine otherwise? We could also assume that your goal here is to settle an old dispute with this person, and that your whole strategy consists of exploiting a bad pretext to harass this enemy? How can you exonerate yourself if COM:AGF is called into question? Let us be careful and moderate with extrapolations of micro-snippets of text as insignificant as this. Furthermore, even if you disagree with a Commons rule, it being part of the official guidelines, I believe that it is imperative to respect it, for good collective functioning. Everyone is master of their emotions, their imagination and their speculations, but I am still quite stunned to hear your suspicions in relation to this innocuous comment, in relation to the fact that it could according to you (if I have correctly understood your English) be disguised in such a way as to deceive the readers, that is to say those who would simply see a neutral and painless message would not in fact have grasped the real intention to harm, skillfully concealed? Oh my.... Not only is nothing obvious, but the level of English and negligence itself is easy to check. Excuse me but at this stage, the fears seem more than fanciful to me, rather deleterious. I also don't see why COM:AGF would be more subject to precaution in this case rather than in another. On the contrary, I think that this rule was written precisely to dissolve this type of difficulty specifically. Anyway, maybe one day we will discover the whole extraordinary plot that was implemented without our knowledge, and we will fall head over heels in the face of the level of elaboration of the Machiavellian trap? In the meantime, chillax ! (Carpe diem, my friend ☮) More mistake than harm, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My two cents: I don't mind opposes for cause or even simply e.g. "lack of wow". That's part of this process. Where I find myself getting a little annoyed is when people apply one standard to everyone else's photos that they do not apply to their own. Someone who almost exclusively votes oppose on other people's work while more than 75% of their own nominations fail (interesting stats here) is inevitably going to generate resentment. Does that mean they should be prohibited from voting? No, but I understand others' frustration. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Did I recently write a support, saying something about the art of photography? This is a totally differnt genre of the art of photography, but I absolutely love this. There is a feeling of the woods in this picture that a more traditional image with perfect sharpness could not capture. Thanks for nominating! --Kritzolina (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong support I like it very much, an impressive artistic transformation that reminds me of the so-called ghost forest Gespensterwald in my adoptive home. Thank you very much for the nomination! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ❄️ ★ 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Wonderful composition, good example of ICM photography. --XRay 💬 18:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Blurry and noisy image of random forest, Commons should not be a amateur art gallery. —kallerna (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you are wrong about the 'amateur' part applying to me. I am in fact a professional artist, taught by Einar Jolin who in turn was taught by Henri Matisse. But hey, we all make mistakes. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, where's your Wikipedia article where we can add this photo? —kallerna (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is your understanding of the scope of Commons? Also - as XRay pointed out, this is a wonderful example of a photography technique and can be added to all articles where this technique is mentioned. Kritzolina (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E.g. to Intentional camera movement, and this photo would indeed be an excellent example for that article. Or to Wikibooks textbooks about photography, etc. But as Kritzolina has already pointed out, Commons has a far wider scope than illustrating Wikipedia articles. E.g. this photo would make a wonderful album cover or dust jacket illustration. Yes, Commons provides media for such uses, too. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want to devalue art by amateurs? It's often amateurs who are involved in art. I myself am active here locally with many other artists - and they are all amateurs. I see no reason to see this in a derogatory way. I think the photos like this one are very valuable for our FP collection. They are the pictures that show that you can think outside the box. It's also pointless to always refer to Wikipedia here. Commons is not just for Wikipedia alone. BTW: Cart is a professional artist with excellent work. I really appreciate her pictures. --XRay 💬 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kallerna, like other users have pointed out, Commons is not just an image databank for Wikipedia articles. The images here also serve all the other Wikipedia's sister projects, see list here: Template:Wikipedia's sister projects. As an Admin you should know they exist. The images on Commons are also used by schools, museums, organisations, websites, newspapers, etc. outside the WikiProject, thanks to the generous licenses they are published under. For example, a similar dreamy photo I made is now used on the cover of a printed book, and the writer found it on Commons. I sometimes do searches online to see where my images are used on and outside Wiki, and it's really fun to see all the contexts they show up in. We frequently import images of art into Commons, is it really so outlandish to see that Commons also exports art out of the site? --Cart (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been around long enough to know these guidelines. I think I also have the right for my opinion, and as I've said, nowadays the bar for all qualifications for the images is too low. This photo is IMO not among the best images of Commons, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. You should have written this as an explanation for your vote, instead of lashing out. That way all these unpleasantries and comments would have been avoided. Your own opinion is valued and respected. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you. This is a voting, not a therapy session. General outlook: It is not a surprise that the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy. Just support all nominations and others will support your nomination? —kallerna (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not all “opposing votes create controversy”. The two votes which created controversy here missed any substantial reason and did not even provide any concrete allusions to the image; instead they just stringed together some interchangeable disparaging words. This is why they attracted critical comments. If you would have set forth why the intentional camera movement was not successful in this case, or not appropriate for the subject, or done in an insufficent manner etc., this would have been constructive criticism and we all had learned something useful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm having a decent conversation with Cart, why do you want to join and say my comment is shit? I also think supporting votes should have a reason if opposing do - there are lots of people here who don't know anything about the history of FP and support just about anything. This is now off-topic, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one said your comment was shit; anyone can join a conversation – this is Wikimedia, not a private chatroom. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) I agree that the bar for FP has been constantly lowered in the past few years, especially for artistic composition, as skilled photographers have given up. Emphasis has tilted over to the technical side, which, with today's cameras and size of photos is an almost academic discussion. I don't know about the second part of your comment though... Due to problem with my eyes I haven't voted on anything for almost a year. Instead I have dedicated my time to maintenance work on the site, and generally been a p.i.t.a. for many users. I fully expected this nom to be all about people venting their aggressions towards me in oppose votes. The strong support here has been something of a chock for me. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, it was a general comment, not towards your actions (that's why "General outlook"). —kallerna (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Excellent example for intentional camera movement. By the movement the image gets a mysterious, slightly ghostly effect which intensifies the atmosphere of the snowy wood. --Aristeas (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support different and actually eye catching. Looks like a painting, makes the forest more vertical and more intimidating plus emphasises the winterish vibe. But the coolest thing with that kind of photo is that everyone will read it differently. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Även om jag också gillar den första versionen. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support And I don't get Karelj's vote one bit. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support phantastic! Currently I'm barely active on commons. Noms like this one lure me back. Accompanying discussions serve as a warning, though. ;-) ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not sure interacting with the comments above is the best course of action, irrespectively of the underlying intentions. Feedback can be hurtful, even when it's not put crassly, but it's often a better learning tool than praise. Also, some languages sound more aggressive than intended when translated to English, so some leeway is necessary. And if the intention was pure shock value, well, as the old Internet adage goes, "don't feed the trolls". If things get out of hand and rules of conduct are broken, there's dispute resolution tools available. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry to jump in here, I beleive your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but here you are stating two things here that are widely popular opinions that have been disproven scientifically. Criticism, especially crassly worded, harsh criticism, is not a good learning tool. It can actually hinder learning and often does. Praise is a much better learning tool. Also the rule of "don't feed the trolls" has been proven unhelpful and not stopping trolling in a number of research projects. Kritzolina (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not al all, thanks for jumping in. Can you point me to the scientific evidence you are referring to? My understanding is that modern psychological findings support the opposite. I found Jonathan Haidt's book, albeit focused on US college campuses, a good summary of the current state-of-the-art on this topic: [3] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for linking this. In this kind of context praise vs criticism is only one of many facets of raising children. What we are talking about here on this site is the effect of criticism on adults who often are already experts in their field. I will be looking for some more specific articles, but currently travelling, so this might take a few days, as I will be very busy over the weekend. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course, whenever you have a chance. If you're not able to find adequate support (claiming that a theory has been disproven is a tall order, as it requires scientific consensus), I think it would be helpful for the discussion to retract the statement, or to change it to something more precise (e.g., "some studies suggest") --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the meantime, please bear in mind that being polite and being hurtful are not mutually exclusive. Personally I will take feedback in any shape or form it is offered, but others may find statements such as "I believe your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but" patronising. Cart, hopefully this tangent didn't take too much away from your amazing nomination. As one of the many amateurs on Commons, I'm glad to have the opportunity to interact with pros! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Julesvernex2, don't worry, it's not the first time a work of mine has sparked controversy. ;-) At least this time, the "storm" is just on a section of FPC and not a whole town. (yes, it has happened :-D). --Cart (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Julesvernex2, I am really sorry that I came across as patronising. This was not my intention and I want to ask your forgiveness for not taking more time to think about the impact this wording could have on you. And I totally agree, nothing can guarantee our words don't hurt others unintentionally. We still should try to choose words and phrases that have a smaller likelihood than others, but giving our different backgrounds and life experiences we all fail at times. Sorry again!
    If you want to discuss further on the praise vs criticism issue, I would suggest moving to the talkpage here, as this is not just about this nomination and the reactions of some users to it, this has a bigger scope. As an intro I suggest looking into this article, which clearly opens with the affirmation that "praise has long been recognized as an important form of social reinforcement" while "Criticism ... has been identified as a poor way to encourage better performance". It then goes on to differentiate more, which we also should do perhaps. Kritzolina (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need for that, Kritzolina! As I mentioned above, no offence taken. Happy to continue the discussion on scientific evidence elsewhere, but I propose we stick to findings that are more recent than the one you provided, and that enjoy wide academical consensus. Much has changed in this field since the 80s, with much more to come as the replication crisis continues to make its way through empirical psychology. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a question. I would assume that criticism should be concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful in order to serve as a good learning tool. Now the feedback we discuss here was neither concrete (it did not describe any concrete shortcomings of the specific photo) nor constructive (no hint was provided to what should be different or how one could achieve a better result) nor respectful (on the contrary, it appeared just disparaging). Is this kind of dismissive comments really helpful? Of course great people can learn from everything, but wouldn’t it in most cases much more successful to provide concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful criticism? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that the best feedback is concrete, constructive and respectful. However, I don't think this is something that should be enforced, as everybody has the right to express an opinion how they deem fit (excluding ad hominem attacks and other nonsense, which are disallowed by the existing code of conduct). As I defended in another context, the more rules, restrictions and hurdles we put in place, the less diverse the nominations and votes will be. And we should perhaps give extra leeway for opposing votes, which are an endangered species around here :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation! That’s a plausible point of view. --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar, this is a single photograph. Doing ICM is actually a lot harder than it looks. Most people begin with just swiveling/panning the camera on a tripod. That way you get a feeling for what the movement does to the photo. When you are comfortable with that you can start doing free-hand moves. You set the camera so you'll get some time to move it, some photographers also use an ND filter to get enough time (I don't own such a filter).
When doing this free-hand, you can adjust the speed of the movement during the shot. You can have a small pause in the movement at the beginning, during, or end of the shot. Whatever you have in front of the camera during the pause, will get a bit longer exposure and look more distinct in the image. The result of these short pauses, will look like double exposure. For this scene, a long steady camera movement looks like this. In that shot I started a little lower and got some of the walkway too (the black at the bottom). To get the branches a bit visible, I went for a slower movement and started with a small pause, before moving the camera downwards. That did the "double exposure effect" you see here.
Mind you, it all had to be done in 1/6 sec (see EXIF) since it was done in daylight. I also used ISO 100 and f/29 to get some more time to do the movement. If you want to start testing this, the best time is at dusk or dawn. On this scene I did over 50 shots to get the movement right; only two were acceptable, the rest only looked strange and blurry. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Thank you for the explanations Cart! Like some paintings (e.g. many impressionist ones) this picture is to be viewed from a distance. The typical "pixel-peeping" approach some FPC reviewers are so fond of doesn't work here! :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I can understand Alvesgaspar's question that it looks like a dual exposure. Ghost trees. Winter Is Coming. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, understandable, since most of the ICM photos you see are just smooth motions without the tiny pauses. I just like to try out as many aspects of a technique as I can. In theory, if you stretch the exposure time to say 10 seconds you can do move-pause-move-pause with the camera as many times as you like, and the result will look like a multi-exposure in a single shot. --Cart (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 22:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St Philipp and James, Naples, Italy
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Italy


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 27 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Tue 28 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Wed 29 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Thu 30 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Fri 01 Dec → Wed 06 Dec
Sat 02 Dec → Thu 07 Dec

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

Thu 23 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Fri 24 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Sat 25 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Sun 26 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Mon 27 Nov → Wed 06 Dec
Tue 28 Nov → Thu 07 Dec
Wed 29 Nov → Fri 08 Dec
Thu 30 Nov → Sat 09 Dec
Fri 01 Dec → Sun 10 Dec
Sat 02 Dec → Mon 11 Dec

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

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

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

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

Closing a delisting request[edit]

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

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]

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