Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to vote on this page.
The voting is open until 17 March 2026 23:59:59 (UTC).
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 19:47:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Malaconotidae_(Bushshrikes)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support very well done --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 16:04:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice. I might push the white balance 10% toward neutral though.JayCubby (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for your review. The picture was taken during the golden hour of the afternoon so I don't want to change the white balance or the colors would not be accurate to reality anymore -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- That would do it. The golden hour proper would begin a little later per this, but you are very much correct. JayCubby (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- On your link the hours shown are for London, the sunset is earlier in Namibia. Also on your link it says golden hour only lasts 29 minuts but in real life I already see golden colors 2 hours before sunset -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I can't share the results for a location, but Nambia's was +6:20 (London's would be two hours later). The proper golden hour feels more orange, I don't know why we call it that. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm probably wrong using the term golden hour but you get what I mean with the pre-golden hour colors of the afternoon. Also there was a bit of atmosphere for the sun to go through, which also contributes more to it -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I can't share the results for a location, but Nambia's was +6:20 (London's would be two hours later). The proper golden hour feels more orange, I don't know why we call it that. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- On your link the hours shown are for London, the sunset is earlier in Namibia. Also on your link it says golden hour only lasts 29 minuts but in real life I already see golden colors 2 hours before sunset -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- That would do it. The golden hour proper would begin a little later per this, but you are very much correct. JayCubby (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 16:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Excellent quality and dynamic depiction of an impressive animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good! --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Light (fantastic), subject and quality (high level of detail) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Basile, great work! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 15:30:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Interior of the parish church St. Ulrich in Lavant, Tyrol, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Excellent quality. But the extreme distortion of the lateral altars is disturbing. Please compare the golden crosses there with the one at the center. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Stunning quality, but the crop is very close on the sides in my opinion, and there is distortion as pointed out by Alvesgaspar – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment per Alves and Julian, since it is composed of several images, isn't there a little more space next to the side altars? --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 14:51:25 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Nepal
Info created and uploaded by Argenberg – edited and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing extraordinary mitigating the poor quality image. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Alvesgaspar, I would have chosen this image --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 10:53:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good composition and quality, somehow affected by a less than optimal lighting, as the larger part of the building's wall is in the shadow. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 06:36:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Vireonidae_(Vireos)
Info (hard to photograph) All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support very well captured and executed --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 05:53:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info Kremlin Wall texture. Moscow Kremlin Wall is a defensive wall that surrounds the Moscow Kremlin, built in 1485-1516. My photo Юрий Д.К. 05:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Simple with nice textures. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support And it looks the same as a brick wall only a century old! Great resolution, too. JayCubby (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I'm a fan of minimalism. That is why I cannot oppose this nom. But the picture lacks something exciting, not sure what. Maybe a broken brick, or one with a different color?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I think it's well done, and there are a few breaks in the visual flow that keep you engaged in the image. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2026 at 04:48:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Dacrymycetaceae
Info Fruit body of the Yellow Stagshorn (Calocera viscosa) on a mossy tree stump in the mixed forest near Jockgrim (Southern Palatinate), height approx. 1-4 cm. This is a very young fruiting body, probably only 1-2 days old, older specimens develop larger and denser fruiting bodies with many shoots (similar to a coral). Created, uploaded and nominated by Syntaxys, it's a re-nomination from an invalid set. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2026 at 15:34:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Romania
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I like how the monumental church building fits in the rural ambient. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It is the most accurate view of this church in its category, and the image is well done, with good composition. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2026 at 10:16:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info all by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Nice but too dark. Yann (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I improved the light have a look please. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I did it again. The whites should be white. I also renamed the file and the nomination. Yann (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- thank you dear Yann IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I did it again. The whites should be white. I also renamed the file and the nomination. Yann (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I improved the light have a look please. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful picture with the new lighting changes – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition, enhanced whites bring elegance and clarity. Blurred background keeps focus firmly on the women, adding depth rather than distraction. Very graceful and visually compelling. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)--
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2026 at 08:44:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Strigidae_(True_Owls)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The "beard" is striking! However, the characteristic reddish-brown mottling is mostly absent. This may be due to the high ISO 32,000 which tends to result in washed-out colours. Do you have an image with better colour, with less noise and without the crop of the tail? Conversion of this high ISO image to b/w may make it more impressive. --Tagooty (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do have other images of this trip but mostly front view, this image shows the most of the bird. Check 1 & 2, I can add as alternative if you like. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I like 2, it has some wow-factor -- the branches on either side look like extended wings -- and better image quality. Note: as the two images were taken on a different days and have very different compositions, it should be a fresh nomination, not an alternative (ref the FPC guidelines). Tagooty (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do have other images of this trip but mostly front view, this image shows the most of the bird. Check 1 & 2, I can add as alternative if you like. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Owls are usually not easy to find with good light conditions. I think the quality is ok considering it's at 32000 ISO. If possible, would be even better to have the bottom of the tail uncropped -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Giles. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough quality for a FP, most especially the lack of detail caused by the severe noise. I also don't like the cropped tail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Giles.--Ermell (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Despite high ISO and cropped tail, the owl's posture and expression are striking. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice posture, but washed out colours (reddish-brown missing from the mottling), lack of detail and noisy. --Tagooty (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2026 at 05:35:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info Andricus kollari oak gals on an oak branch. Focus stack of 14 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Correct picture though not perfect: there are unfocused parts in the plan nearest to the camera. But that is not my main point. Such a hard work to produce this trivial picture is like using a canon to kill a fly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Many 'errers' in het 'fowkus stapeling'. Maybe re-process it? JayCubby (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Could you please add a note to the photo? Then I'll know what you mean.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Famberhorst, parts of each gall are out of focus in patches. JayCubby (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubbyThank you for your explanation. Improved version posted.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Famberhorst, thank you. Unfortunately, sharpening doesn't make up for the areas not captured in focus. JayCubby (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and analysis. Unfortunately, there's nothing more in it, as the capsules are more or less decomposing.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubbyThank you for your explanation. Improved version posted.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Could you please add a note to the photo? Then I'll know what you mean.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2026 at 16:55:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Reflections (only) on objects
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Julian Lupyan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Info This picture was taken on one of Las Vegas's characteristic glass-sided pedestrian bridges, on which I was lucky enough to notice this reflection. The image is a single frame, not a composite, and portrays two major casinos in the same picture, even though they are opposite each other. I'm curious to see opinions about this, since it was quite difficult to take and a bit out there. I believe it characterizes the overwhelming and clashing feeling of the Vegas Strip quite well. I'm uncertain which gallery I should put it under, so changes are welcome. Thank you! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment This image is visually very complex and not easy to "decipher" at the first glance. I think this is what renders it exciting to look at. Just two minor details that I think could be improved: The building on the very right is leaning outward, and the image is lacking geocoding (which is probably relevant in this case). --Aciarium (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Doing… Thank you very much for the pointers, will have this fixed soon – Julian Lupyan (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Done @Aciarium: – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support @Julian Lupyan: Support per above. Thank you! --Aciarium (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support A really exiting candidate. I love photos which at first glance appear enigmatic and force us to think in order to understand them. At the same time, the shot is also truly attractive and (in my opinion) an impressive representation of the Las Vegas Strip, much better than many of the usual photos, in which the grandiose architecture often appears somewhat banal. – Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The nomination is very creative and you’ve captured exactly what you wanted, but the end result isn’t a truly outstanding composition in my opinion because of the distracting objects from the street in the lower part. I prefer a more minimalist approach with only the two casinos in the frame, which was perhaps achievable if you lowered down the camera to move the reflection upwards (I believe it was possible to position the reflection by moving around with the camera as it [the reflection] appears to be quite strong.). Moreover, the picture looks a bit grainy, and there’s slight chromatic aberration on the edges of Belaggio’s building. That’s my opinion. I hope it’s helpful. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thoughts Kiril, I agree I should’ve taken another picture composed that way too when I had the chance, that would’ve been a great idea. As for the grain, this was with my old D3500 so the image quality unfortunately couldn’t be as good as my newer pictures. I will do my best on the CA and let you know. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Kiril Simeonovski:
Done Chromatic aberration removed, denoised as far as I could without removing too much detail – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Kiril Simeonovski:
- Thank you for the thoughts Kiril, I agree I should’ve taken another picture composed that way too when I had the chance, that would’ve been a great idea. As for the grain, this was with my old D3500 so the image quality unfortunately couldn’t be as good as my newer pictures. I will do my best on the CA and let you know. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice idea, confusing outcome. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This photo captures a fleeting, almost surreal reflection of the Flamingo and Bellagio, compressing the chaos and spectacle of the Las Vegas Strip into a single, striking frame. The interplay of perspective and symmetry transforms a simple reflection into a layered, engaging composition, handled with subtle technical skill, making this a distinctive interpretation of the Strip's energy. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas and Radomianin, you'll remain captivated by this image and attempt to determine what you are seeing. A very intriguing candidate. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2026 at 16:08:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#Australia
Info A Pacific National freight train in Virginia, South Australia. Created by Tomoyn – uploaded by Tomoyn – nominated by Cutlass -- CutlassCiera 16:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- CutlassCiera 16:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose -- I fail to see anything extraordinary in this picture. Just a high quality image of a train. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Does FP require images to have something extraordinary in them? I feel like this argument does not make sense. CutlassCiera 21:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- That is precisely what I think! A featured picture is not (should not be) just a very high quality image, but part of the very best Commons has to offer. Thus, adjectives like extraordinary, exceptional, magic or unique come naturally to my mind when I evaluate a candidate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Does FP require images to have something extraordinary in them? I feel like this argument does not make sense. CutlassCiera 21:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2026 at 09:09:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info Winter view of Stockholm City Hall and Riddarfjärden in Stockholm. I like all the elements here. People skate across the ice, small groups pause and gather in the winter light, and the older passenger boat makes its way carefully through the frozen surface. Together, they transform a static cityscape into something dynamic and human. This kind of thick, walkable ice has become increasingly rare in Stockholm in recent year. Created, uploaded, and nominated by ArildV
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support CutlassCiera 17:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support very nice composition and execution. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2026 at 21:36:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications/Germany#Bavaria
Info Plassenburg Castle in Kulmbach seen from the southwest. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Composition, light and architecture -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 07:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Pleasant view and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the bottom crop is too tight, the cropped road on the left side is distracting and the composition would benefit from more sky. I think the subject is featurable if captured from greater distance. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Just one more of the German castles. We have many of them featured. I miss something like Chinese pagodas… ★ 19:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support More crop at the bottom would make it look more unbalanced because of the extra wide angle. Looks fine to me. Of course, ArionStar, I always appreciate more diversity in the subjects, I indeed try to contribute my grain of sand there (not China, but other exotic destinations) Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why not China? ★ 19:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2026 at 19:20:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Gastropoda
Info Nudibranch (Felimare picta webbi) surrounded by seeweed (Dictyota dichotoma), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. Felimare picta lives on rocky seabeds throughout the Mediterranean Sea, European waters, the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico in depths between 0–55 metres (0–180 ft). They are usually 10–15 centimetres (3.9–5.9 in) long and feed mainly on sponges of the genus Dysidea. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty. Could you add a category for at least the most prominent seaweed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek:
Done, thanks Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek:
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2026 at 08:32:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#China
Info Jiuxi'ao Tianhou Temple (九溪澳天后宫) on Nan'ao Island is a local temple dedicated to the sea goddess Mazu (also known as Tianhou). Mazu temples have long been established along China's southeastern coast as places where fishermen and seafarers pray for safety and good fortune at sea. created by MspreilsCN – uploaded by MspreilsCN – nominated by MspreilsCN -- MspreilsCN (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- MspreilsCN (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing wrong with the subject/framing, but the quality is too low for FP (in other words, too low detail / resolution). Furthermore I'd cropped the bottom with the ugly wall and you need to apply a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very nice subject, but unfortunately there is a lack of detail – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per the rest; details aren't up to FP standards. CutlassCiera 16:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2026 at 05:33:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Switzerland
Info ILanz, Reformierte Kirche Ilanz, (decorative vaulted ceiling.) Decorative vaulted ceiling of the old church in Lanz (a national monument, built in 1494). The decorations depict symbols of the evangelists.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but IMHO several things here are not up to FP. First of all, that bar in the middle of the image, that's a dealbreaker. Furthermore I find the ceiling too simple, and if there is an interesting spot that's the one at the top that has been cropped. Poco a poco (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for your comment about my photo. It's about an old, small church from 1494. The beam you're referring to is one of the tie rods (wall anchors) that hold the exterior walls together. That's part of the church. You also find the decoration too simple. Tastes differ, but I find these religious depictions beautiful and very refined. I've added another photo as an alternative; perhaps the decoration will look better in that one.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality. The use of a tripod here was very efficient. Unfortunately the bar in the middle is distracting, the wow factor low in my subjective view, and I agree with Poco the composition is not breathtaking -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info with a different distribution of the decoration.
Support Much better imo and the beams for some reason are not distracting in this version. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality. The use of a tripod here was very efficient. Unfortunately the two bars are distracting, the wow factor low in my subjective view, and the angle of view not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 18:05:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#North Macedonia
Info There are three main motifs in this composition: 1) Lake Ohrid 2) the village of Radožda and 3) Jablanica mountain. Each motif is presented in a different shape (the lake is rectangular, the village is in the shape of an inverted triangle and the mountain is in the shape of a triangle) with distinct textures. The composition is additionally enriched with the pier, which connects the village with the lake, and the rocks, which make a smooth transition from the village to the mountain. Created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good aerial pic, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support very good to me. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but the horizontal composition doesn't work in my view. Drone photos are becoming common, and neither these roofs nor the light at 10:30 am are extraordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the roofs aren’t extraordinary, but I disagree on the other points you make. The landscape orientation is what makes this composition work as the lines and shapes are more prominent. A vertical orientation would result in longer lines and irregular shapes. As for the light, this is probably the best period of the day to avoid an annoying sun patch on the surface of the lake, which would be observed if it was taken at noon or in the early afternoon, or shadows from the houses, which would be observed if it was taken in the late afternoon. Finally, if drone images are becoming common, it would be nice from you to point out to some FPs of a similar subject taken with a drone as useful examples. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Useful, many photos can be useful on Commons. Google Map is useful too. But extraordinary with 1 third of flat water, 1 third of standard roofs, and 1 third of arid land? What I expect from FPC is pictures that offer something special, unique, fascinating, uncommon. A structure unlikely to spot from the window of an airplane -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Basile Morin – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose -- Just an acceptable quality aerial image, not extraordinary either in the subject or composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 17:22:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Others
Info created by A S M Jobaer – uploaded by A S M Jobaer – nominated by A S M Jobaer -- A S M Jobaer (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- A S M Jobaer (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Nice idea, but the name is poetic, not Wikimedia-style. And are you sure the bird can't be identified? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The bright edges on the branches are distracting. Also, I'm not sure what the picture is supposed to represent. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose There's maybe an "artistic" intention here, but the darkness is too dominant in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Another picture with a title and description suggesting artistic intent, but which falls short in terms of quality. It is too dark and features a barely visible, unidentified bird that lacks sufficient detail to function as a clear subject. -- Jakubhal 08:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 15:03:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
Info created by Cleveland Museum of Art – uploaded by Madreiling and UnpetitproleX – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Info From the description: "This particular iconic form of Shiva visually indicates that he embodies all phenomena, even if they seem contradictory. He is male and female, destructive and creative, yogi and royal sovereign, hunter and musician." -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support, another beautiful and high quality artefact image from Cleveland Museum of Art; the verdigris gives it an attractive colour.-- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Kudos to the Cleveland Museum for donating such an excellent image of a piece of great art. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 15:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good museum photograph of an exquisite artwork. – Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 14:34:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info Fishing boat with nylon nets in late evening, Sholayar Reservoir, Valparai, Tamil Nadu, India. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support the nets add a splash of colour to an otherwise dull coloured scene. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The background seems a little bit noisy to me – Julian Lupyan (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Julian Lupyan: The noise is due to the low evening light and high ISO. I've further increased the NR in the background. Please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Much better, thank you! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Julian Lupyan: The noise is due to the low evening light and high ISO. I've further increased the NR in the background. Please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I'd call it a splash of color in an otherwise peaceful scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I find the background distracting and the image quite noisy. The noise reduction has caused the colors to appear washed out. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Ok for me, however some noise here. Юрий Д.К. 04:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support If noise could be reduced better, that would be great. Better the fishermen are using real nets than mosquito netting. JayCubby (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 12:36:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Umarxon III (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Info Mercedes Benz W221 in Tashkent, 2016
Oppose Though the image is pleasant, I don't believe the composition or subject are outstanding enough for FP – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree, mostly because of the glare on the windshield and left (viewer's right) side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Black cars in sun don't equal good lighting. CutlassCiera 18:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but honestly in my eyes neither the subject (the car) nor the photo is exciting. – Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 12:32:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Blackstriped angelfish (Genicanthus lamarck), Anilao, Philippines. They are normally observed over the bottom in small harems with a dominant male and 2-6 females. They are sequential protogynous hermaphrodites and if the male in a harem goes missing the dominant female changes sex to become male. It occurs in the Indo-West Pacific region at depths between 10–50 metres (33–164 ft). Note: there are no FPs of the genus Genicanthus, containing 10 species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Bland colours and composition compared to the several FPs of angelfish. Some parts of the fish are blurry. --Tagooty (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just for the record, the current FP of anglefishes we have today are much bigger than this one, getting the same detail in this case is much more difficult. Poco a poco (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Satisfying composition and good details to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The pelvic fin is noisy in contrast to the rest of the picture. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski:
Done, I've also brightened it a bit up. Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski:
Support I like how the fish stands out from the calming background with harmonious colours. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan and Kiril. – Aristeas (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Kiril. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 11:35:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Others
Info created by Paul Klee, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Wald Bau (Forest Construction), a 1919 painting by Paul Klee.
Support Typical of Paul Klee's works. -- Yann (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good resolution (400MP). Nice painting, and thank you for uploading Klee's work! JayCubby (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive and exemplary painting, excellent reproduction. Thank you for uploading and nominating! – Aristeas (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per others. I've never seen this level of resolution in a reproduction of any work by Paul Klee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 08:22:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1860-1869
Info Here we have Scherzo di Follia, a famous 1860s photograph of the Countess of Castiglione, probably one of the first examples of artistic work in the entire history of photography. The history of the Countess herself is perhaps even more interesting. Alternative version available here: File:Scherzo di Follia MET DP160060.jpg. /// Photo taken by the french photographer Pierre Louis Pierson (1822-1913) much probably in his studio in Paris at Boulevard des Capucines n. 5 – uploaded by users Lalupa & Guise (higher res.) - curated by LucaLindholm (exif data, artwork tmp, etc.) – nominated by LucaLindholm -- LucaLindholm (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- LucaLindholm (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- A S M Jobaer (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice portrait, and good quality for its time. Yann (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent, and yes, a really fascinating personality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting portrait, it broadens our view of early portrait photography. – Aristeas (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This portrait is a striking example of early photographic artistry. The composition, lighting, and expression transform a simple studio shot into a theatrical, expressive work, showing photography's potential beyond mere documentation. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2026 at 07:13:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Austria
Info Nightly emissions from a sinter-plant chimney in Leoben-Donawitz, Austria. Photo by me. --Aciarium (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good, and not a common motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I was curious about the environmental impact of running a sinter plant at night. They appear to nominally give off the usual industrial nasties (NOx, SO2, metallic particulates), plus dioxins. Running the plant at night means smog (which needs sunlight reacting with the NOx) won't form, but the slower wind means pollutants will be more concentrated. These days, flue gas scrubbers are very effective at removing pollutants, in particular SO2. Voestalpine operates a fairly fancy scrubbing system. sorry for the ramble JayCubby (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Requirements regarding off-gas are comparably strict here in Austria, but not always have been (same steel mill, but this shows the BOF area). Interesting link you provided! --Aciarium (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- That red cloud looks to me more like iron oxide, though less extreme than this. Nowadays, electrostatic precipitators are commonly used for dust reduction. JayCubby (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Yes, definitely iron oxide. Also Donawitz has witnessed such a dust emission recently; however, this is a rather rare phenomenon nowadays. --Aciarium (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- That red cloud looks to me more like iron oxide, though less extreme than this. Nowadays, electrostatic precipitators are commonly used for dust reduction. JayCubby (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Requirements regarding off-gas are comparably strict here in Austria, but not always have been (same steel mill, but this shows the BOF area). Interesting link you provided! --Aciarium (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Dzkouslavia (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support Very impressive and beautiful! I love the contrast between the red parts of the chimney and the almost monochrome background, and the composition is striking – the narrow portrait format challenges our visual habits, the large empty room at the top is necessary to emphasize the emissions (cf. e.g. this classic photo of the moon), and the juxtaposed diagonals of the dark and bright wooded hillsides at the bottom complete the composition. – Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition: glowing chimney against dark sky, bold plume, vertical format emphasizes height. Wow factor outweighs moderate technical imperfections. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 23:16:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Agaricaceae
Info Rehbraune Dachpilze (Pluteus cervinus) im Bruderwald in Bamberg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice stack with good compo. JayCubby (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 10:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Fantastic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great. -- Bwag (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition and colours. Excellent detail. --Tagooty (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice compo, great detail Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Composition and level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Jay and Tagooty. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 16:45:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Building exteriors
Info created by Oscar Niemeyer – photographed by Nicolas de Camaret – initially uploaded by Sturm – edited and nominated by ★ -- ★ 16:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Another Oscar Niemeyer's great work and part of the Pampulha Modern Ensemble, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. -- ★ 16:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment High-quality photograph technically, but why black & white, and why these crops, which feel a bit arbitrary to me? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Black and white match with the modernist style of the church, IMO. The crop is not arbitrary; it is the roof the building. ★ 19:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the lower cut, and I think the colour version gives a better impression of the material on the front — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthold Werner (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 16:21:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Domestic dogs
Info A young labrador retriever of the Austrian Red Cross search and rescue dog unit. Photo by me. --Aciarium (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nicely composed pup-portrait. Some
chromatic aberration visible on the jacket stitching, GPS might be relevant. Feel free to revert any of the categories I added. JayCubby (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Done, I have reduced CA and added geocoding. Thank you for the review and for adding categories! —Aciarium (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support You really show how alert the dog is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The lighting and posture work also well here --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not outstanding enough for me for FP, bad background --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful lighting and posture, per PantheraLeo – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Uoaei1. Yann (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Same opinion and the DoF is definitely too shallow Poco a poco (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Poco a poco: I understand that the DoF could be a bit deeper, but I think it overall fits the subject? --Aciarium (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info @Uoaei1 and Yann: I tried to clone out the distracting car. Please reevaluate. --Aciarium (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Yes, much better. Yann (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the other voters as well @JayCubby, Ikan Kekek, PantheraLeo1359531, Julian Lupyan, and Poco a poco: for alternative. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- And a
Support from me. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support though the car didn't bother me. JayCubby (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support both good for me, per JayCubby – Julian Lupyan (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Just how much of the photo should be edited out? My feeling is, if you're going to edit out the car, edit out the snow, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I generally support your idea. Sadly, I don't have the best software/abilities for rather intricate masking; cloning out the car was comparably easy for me since it did not interfere much with the dog. Aciarium (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
SupportGood for me --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Well done, and IMHO this was the right amount of editing – the car was distracting and not an important part of the image, while the snow adds a bit to the atmosphere. – Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Alert, expressive portrait, beautifully composed and lit. Cloning out the distracting car enhances focus. Personally, it brings to mind the German verse: "The dog stayed faithful to me in the storm, the human not even in the wind". Loyalty and character clearly shine through. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 16:15:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Male singers
Info created by Raph_PH – uploaded by SilverBullitt – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 16:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Shame we don't have any good photos of Axl Rose from the 90s. We have only this one. -- heylenny (talk/edits) 16:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The file description is not so descriptive of the image. JayCubby (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you change it to a better description, then? Commons is a collaborative project. Thanks heylenny (talk/edits) 17:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)- The WB appears off. People (usually) aren't blue. JayCubby (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Per JayCubby. Another thing: To me, there is a lot of empty space especially on the left side of the subject and I don't think that this aspect ratio works particularly well for a photo. Maybe cropping it to 3:2 or 4:3 (still in landscape) could be worth a try? --Aciarium (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please do not crop it on the left (where he is facing), but a crop on the right would be OK. Yann (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This photographer uploaded a lot of great pictures but this one is not one of them. It doesn't even meet QI standards. --Selbymay (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 15:37:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/1900s#1950-1959
Info created by Virginia Schau on a Kodak Brownie – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support This photograph, of two truckers being rescued after driving their truck over the railing of the Pit River Bridge, won the 1954 Pulitzer Prize for Photography. Schau's biography is an interesting read. -- JayCubby (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)(I prefer the alternative over this) --Aciarium (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Impressive subject. Certainly, sharpness and framing could be better, but I think it is important to consider that this is a more than 70 years old image with quite some wow effect.- Thank you for the review, @Aciarium! I played with the sharpness while trying not to bring out the grain. Two possible attempts are at https://ibb.co/RpT0xJz6 and https://ibb.co/VW79pc9v. Would you prefer either over the current version? (ImgBB is recovering from another outage, so the files are slow in loading). JayCubby (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the first link is the best of the three versions. Would you like to offer it as an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, @Aciarium! I played with the sharpness while trying not to bring out the grain. Two possible attempts are at https://ibb.co/RpT0xJz6 and https://ibb.co/VW79pc9v. Would you prefer either over the current version? (ImgBB is recovering from another outage, so the files are slow in loading). JayCubby (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Aciarium. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support From my own experience with b&w film photography this version appears more authentic to me. – Aristeas (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Unsharp mask + layer blending. Ping User:Aciarium, User:Ikan Kekek, User:Yann. JayCubby (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support either version. JayCubby (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)- No improvement. Yann (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support While the original version was not bad, I think the sharpened one is significantly better. @JayCubby: Thanks for improving it! --Aciarium (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The edited version is good, too. – Aristeas (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 10:12:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Thuringia
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I like the left crop, but the right crop is wider than I'd prefer. I'd suggest cropping the brighter building to the right in half, just between the windows. Yes, that would produce asymmetrical crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support FP for me. However, Ikan's idea about the crop may improve the photo, but still very good work. Юрий Д.К. 20:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Cropped as proposed --Llez (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Thank you. I do think it makes a big difference and produces a neat composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)- @Llez: Would you mind nominating the original composition as an alternative? I honestry liked that a bit more. --Aciarium (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support
- I prefer the alternative -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Cropped as proposed by Aciarium --Llez (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support @Llez: Thank you! I appreciate the horizontal symmetry. --Aciarium (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support This one is good as well. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support This one looks more balanced to me. – Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Good too.MZaplotnik(talk) 07:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per my remarks above, in favor of the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Daft Punk in 2013
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2026 at 06:48:53 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
-
Promotional picture of Daft Punk after the release of Random Access Memories in 2013, medium shot
-
Promotional picture of Daft Punk after the release of Random Access Memories in 2013, medium long shot
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Sony Music Entertainment – uploaded by Wikitest2222 – nominated by It's moon -- It's moon (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- It's moon (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 07:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The top crop of the right picture is unfortunate. Furthermore this isn't complying with any of the criterias for nomination like a set. I recommend you to nominate the left picture as standalone. Poco a poco (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The top crop doesn't ruin this impressive promotional set. ★ 19:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco. I would support the left picture if it were nominated as a standalone. --Aciarium (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above. Will support left picture – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I doubt this is a good set. Would probably support the left one. – Aristeas (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as per others above. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2026 at 12:55:16 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info all by me-- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment imo, this would benefit from a crop, on top to follow the rule of thirds (1/3rd dark, 2/3rds dancers) and on left to crop out the individual standing there (please see added note). Otherwise very nice and I am leaning support. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- done have a look please. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have to add something the standing sheikh as said by Achim Lammerts is the leading person of the whole ritual and he is assisted by a similair sheikh near him. It is as a maestro in an orchestra. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- done have a look please. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I also think that it is a very good picture in terms of atmosphere; it expresses very well the trance that the dancers are in. The person on the left of the picture is the sheikh, he is the spiritual leader and conducts the ritual of the Mevlevi Sema ceremony. He is therefore very important to the message of the picture, but I also think it's a shame that he is cropped out. I wouldn't crop the picture any further. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support valuable and well-captured. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I do still think that fully cropping out the person on left would make the composition balanced and more harmonious, but I understand the reasoning behind keeping him. FP to me either way. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very poor image quality. I can't see any mitigating factor, other than the difficulty caused by unsufficient light. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support with the sheikh and assistant sheikh in. Appreciate your comments on their roles and would encourage you to add those notes in the image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- done I did some improved the description whit their roles and a global description of the ritual. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Umarxon III (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is a valuable image, but image quality is poor and the crop at the bottom is too tight --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Motif is very good but quality too poor.--Ermell (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The photo should have a better focus on the performers, as well as cropping. GGOTCC (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per others. Not particularly sharp, bad crop, and noticeable noise. --Aciarium (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I really appreciate the subject, it’s very valuable, the mood is fine and IMHO the framing is OK. The technical problems (noise, limited sharpness) can be explained by the difficult situation – rather dark, fast moving people. However I still can’t completely ignore them, so I am neutral here. – Aristeas (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2026 at 09:11:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created by A S M Jobaer – uploaded by A S M Jobaer – nominated by A S M Jobaer -- A S M Jobaer (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- A S M Jobaer (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Cute, fun, and the kind of thing I'd photograph with my cellphone, pretty good quality but not a wowy composition to me so far, so I'm leaning toward opposing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Might slightly lighten the image, and possibly tune the contrast but support this image as a symbol of emotions that transcends world cultures and time. Smileys started in the 1950s and are now represented as emoticons on our cell phones. IMO the wow comes from the immediate recognition of that connection. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Very cute object indeed, but the composition of the picture is somewhat suboptimal. It was taken at a slight angle, with more empty space on the right than on the left. There are branches in front of the subject. There is also a person at the left edge of the object, hardly visible but still noticeable - and this was completely avoidable. It would have been enough to wait a second for them to move out of view. -- Jakubhal 07:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice opject but not an FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Berthold, others. Fun, valuable image, but not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Featurable subject for me. But fallen branch and person is distracting a bit. I would have just thrown the branch away and waited as the person went off. I sometimes throw away some things that get in the way of taking a photo. Юрий Д.К. 23:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I am very sorry because this is really a likeable subject – cf. Ikan’s and GRDN711’s comments. However I cannot overlook the IMHO insufficient quality – the contrast appears exaggerated, the sharpening of coarse edges too strong, while the resolution of fine details and textures is lacking. – Aristeas (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2026 at 06:58:25 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info View of the Krottenkopf with the Weilheimer Hut in the Ester Mountains. Created, uploaded and nominated by Syntaxys -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Abstain as author. At first glance, the mountain looks like nothing more than a small hill, but the peak cross and the buildings at „Weilheimer Hütte“ make you realize just how big it really is, it's the highest mountain in this area. There is no similar view of this mountain or even a FP on this subject yet. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Also, it's a 2009 photo. JayCubby (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! I was undecided whether to nominate it. I am currently transferring many older photos from my archive to Commons. Those taken before 2009 were shot with a Nikon D100, so the native resolution (3008 x 2000 px) is correspondingly low. Nevertheless, there are some good photos of subjects that are historical documents now or do not yet exist on Commons. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I find the composition unbalanced. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree and I miss something more here to consider it one of our finest images. Poco a poco (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I can understand that this nomination may seem a little out of line with my other submissions, perhaps because of its minimalism. I try to create some variety instead of always presenting super-great mushroom macros. And really, it's not about getting this picture awarded, honest criticism is much more important to me.
- @Poco a poco, of course I appreciate your opinion. You always support your own nominations. Why do you find your own image more interesting in terms of composition than this one? Mind you, there are no FPs in Commons for either of these completely different motifs, only the fish is a little more colorful than the mountain. And please: I am asking you this question as if this were not one of my images. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you have feedback to that candidate (which is out of scope here), please, give it there, this is not the place and your feedback not the best way to try to refute my comment. Poco a poco (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support At first I thought like the opponents, but when I look at the picture in full size for a while, I am really impressed by the curved course of the mountain saddle – almost like a geometric curve it sweeps downwards, gives space for the tiny-looking buildings, then sweeps up again to end abruptly in the rock on the right, from which there is still a small arc to the summit, where the summit cross, through its apparent tininess, emphasizes the majesty of the mountain. From today’s perspective, resolution and details could be better, therefore only ‘weak’ support, sorry; but it’s still very good. – Aristeas (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Everything's fine, thanks for the review. I'm not here to chase trophies, so I question whether it makes sense or is desirable to nominate works (not just my own) that were created with older equipment and are therefore technically not comparable to newer images in terms of resolution and dynamic range. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Ordinary landscape in my view. Flowers missing, or animals. The small buildings are almost hidden, and the architecture common. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. Just for a better understanding: this landscape is located at an altitude of 2000 m in the Bavarian Alps, where there is hardly any vegetation and therefore only few animals, apart from birds. Perhaps an ibex will stray to this altitude at some point. It makes no sense to build palaces and churches up there. Therefore, construction is limited to alpine huts and shelters. Such architecture is usually small. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand the place is naturally desert. But here we're looking for the exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is primarily a portrait of this mountain and its surroundings. However, I can understand that there are more interesting and exciting mountain portraits. My plan at the time was to stay overnight at the hut and photograph the panorama of the Karwendel Mountains. But the weather changed very quickly and messed up my plans. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand the place is naturally desert. But here we're looking for the exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2026 at 21:07:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Brazil
Info created and uploaded by Belith Bernardo – nominated by ★ -- ★ 21:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The sun provided a spiritual mood for the picture! -- ★ 21:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 21:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poor quality. Yann (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- The spiritual composition has a huge wow factor, IMO. ★ 21:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Composition has a wow factor, yes, but the blur is too strong to be compensated by composition. --Aciarium (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- The spiritual composition has a huge wow factor, IMO. ★ 21:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Arion, but quality may be better Юрий Д.К. 00:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Arion. --HVL talk 01:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Lambda image. Dull colors, big sun spot -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Lambda? ★ 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- In French, it's slang for "average, ordinary". BigDom (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Lambda? ★ 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile, no wow and low technical quality, sorry. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps because it is not a monastery in Germany? ★ 20:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't think that Achim has voted oppose just because the building is not from Germany
. I agree that quality isn't super, but compo and light works for me, so I support. In regard to the photo, I've made some fixes. Юрий Д.К. 21:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- To what extent does a convent in Brazil not have a "wow" factor? Would a similar place in a European country have the same effect? ★ 00:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- My assumption is that, if all other things being equal, a photo from Europe will have a better chance to take FP star than a photo from anywhere else. Maybe it's because most people here are European, and it's especially pleasant for someone to support a European photo. BTW, my recent nomination has broken the record for oppose votes, but I guess why
. Юрий Д.К. 13:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- My assumption is that, if all other things being equal, a photo from Europe will have a better chance to take FP star than a photo from anywhere else. Maybe it's because most people here are European, and it's especially pleasant for someone to support a European photo. BTW, my recent nomination has broken the record for oppose votes, but I guess why
- To what extent does a convent in Brazil not have a "wow" factor? Would a similar place in a European country have the same effect? ★ 00:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ArionStar, seriously? I don't vote based on countries, only on images. Unfortunately, despite the large selection in this category, there are hardly any images that have been produced with higher technical quality. I like this one best, but it was already nominated. And no, I don't prefer it because it was shot with a Nikon. I can understand that it is hardly possible to take a close-up of this object without a tilted perspective. But the image should be sharp and correctly developed. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm glad you don't vote in such a way, because it seems to me that there is a great cultural bias on FPC, in which German/Western European photos dominate the section and "automatically" pass. ★ 15:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- ArionStar, I honestly don't think there is a voluntary bias. It is true that there is an overrepresentation of Europe in the FP galleries compared to other continents but I think it's only due to a much higher number of people with very good cameras. This means that finding FP candidate to nominate from other continents might be harder not because buildings are less interesting but only because there unfortunately is much less photos on Commons with good technical quality -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also there is another reason : there are much more users from some countries than from others and each user is most likely to upload files on Commons from nearby its country. Here is what I found on Google : Wikipedia editing is heavily concentrated in the Global North, with nearly 50% of all edits originating from just five countries: the US, UK, Germany, France, and Italy. Research indicates that, for example, the Netherlands has more active contributors than the entire continent of Africa. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I have to agree with Arionstar in some respects. Unfortunately, there is a wealth gap in this world, and with it an education gap, which prevents any kind of equal opportunity. This is of course also noticeable in the image quality, which is a major factor in the evaluation here. However, we also have this inequality of opportunity in all wealthy countries, including here in Germany. But to lower the quality level so that everyone can feel represented is, in my opinion, not a good idea and would render this project absurd. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I took another closer look at the picture. It could have been taken better, as the equipment used is high quality. With an aperture of 8, it would have been sharper, and 1/500 s would have been enough to prevent motion blurring. The sun could easily have been positioned behind the building, which would have made it a good backlit shot. The magenta color cast could also have been avoided. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- ArionStar, I honestly don't think there is a voluntary bias. It is true that there is an overrepresentation of Europe in the FP galleries compared to other continents but I think it's only due to a much higher number of people with very good cameras. This means that finding FP candidate to nominate from other continents might be harder not because buildings are less interesting but only because there unfortunately is much less photos on Commons with good technical quality -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm glad you don't vote in such a way, because it seems to me that there is a great cultural bias on FPC, in which German/Western European photos dominate the section and "automatically" pass. ★ 15:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't think that Achim has voted oppose just because the building is not from Germany
- Perhaps because it is not a monastery in Germany? ★ 20:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support For me, the composition and lighting are beautiful, and they slightly outweigh the issues with technical quality – Julian Lupyan (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, and thank you Юрий Д.К. for editing! ★ 01:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Юрий Д.К. 13:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, and thank you Юрий Д.К. for editing! ★ 01:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I guess I will be crucified for this. ;—) Yes, I usually require high technical quality to support a photo. However this is not a well-balanced documentary photo in which the important parts of the subject must be 100% sharp and free of technical deficits. This is more of a mood shot, intended less to depict the building’s details than to convey the specific atmosphere and aesthetic impact of the church under these circumstances, to capture, in a sense, some of the location’s spirit. Admittedly, the effect shown (contre-jour with sun at the edge of a building) isn’t new; I have seen it often. But here it’s executed in such a way that everything comes together, creating a truly impressive effect. Therefore, I must endorse this image; it might not be a QI for me, but it is a FP – such cases can occur, because FP is (we recall the wise words) “about magic.” – Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2026 at 18:59:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Nice winter view from Moos mountain, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. A lot of beauty here: cold cloudy sunset, winter woody mountains, fog, sea of clouds and many contrails. German atmosphere! Created by Thomas Heins, uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 18:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 18:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 21:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Just a sunset. Yann (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Definitely not just sunset! Юрий Д.К. 21:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I agree. ★ 21:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Me too. Beautiful photo, fine composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Agree, very well done – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Definitely not just sunset! Юрий Д.К. 21:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I've intentionally stated in description why it is not just sunset. And what wrong with sunsets? Юрий Д.К. 15:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I love the staggered appearance of the mountain ridges against the sea of fog. This kind of effect only works with strong backlighting like here, so we can't complain about the prominent sun. The sky is also very beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Stunning mood and depth, beautiful composition - more than just a sunset. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2026 at 10:11:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Artisans (craftspeople)
Info created and uploaded by Christopher Michel , nominated by Yann
Info Adam Savage at his workshop in 2025. He is an US American special effects designer and fabricator, actor, educator, television personality, and producer.
Support -- Yann (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very fancy camera! JayCubby (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 22:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Even fancy cameras can produce sub-par images. For an environmental portrait it's too weak, in my opinion. Too much clutter; my eye goes to the lower left hand corner first, given the brightness. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The image works well for me. The viewer's eye is clearly guided towards the subject's face by the contrast against the dark background and the face being in the center of the image. The clutter, just like the crop showing some of the workshop, acts as a helpful device for "storytelling", I would say. --Aciarium (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Frank's objection is valid, but before I read what he said, my eyes moved around the picture frame easily, and I like him being at the center of all that clutter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I don't entirely agree with Frank either. There is certainly an overload of information in this image, but here the centered position of the person tends to anchor the viewer's gaze in the image, and the pose, the friendly facial expression, and the direct eye contact with the viewer convey a sense of peace in the eye of the storm. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's definitely a lot of 'clutter', but I think it is beneficial. Once I'm done taking in the overall scene, it is fun to pan around the bench and see what is there (a plan for a sculpture, a Map-Gas cylinder, several drills, two Dremels, hardware, etc). JayCubby (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I think the clutter is a purposeful part of the portrait. Adam Savage is a special effects artist and an entertainer who uses these tools in his work. It’s a portrait of him in his workshop. --E bailey (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- It's moon (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Support E bailey has explained the point of this image very well. A good environmental portrait which tells us a lot about Mr Savage and his work. Frank is right that the lower left hand corner is a bit distracting (it would be better if that area would be a bit darker), but IMHO the image still sufficiently emphasizes Mr Savage – his face is well-lit and very sharp. – Aristeas (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Fri 27 Feb → Wed 04 Mar Sat 28 Feb → Thu 05 Mar Sun 01 Mar → Fri 06 Mar Mon 02 Mar → Sat 07 Mar Tue 03 Mar → Sun 08 Mar Wed 04 Mar → Mon 09 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Mon 23 Feb → Wed 04 Mar Tue 24 Feb → Thu 05 Mar Wed 25 Feb → Fri 06 Mar Thu 26 Feb → Sat 07 Mar Fri 27 Feb → Sun 08 Mar Sat 28 Feb → Mon 09 Mar Sun 01 Mar → Tue 10 Mar Mon 02 Mar → Wed 11 Mar Tue 03 Mar → Thu 12 Mar Wed 04 Mar → Fri 13 Mar
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.)
- Add the template
{{Assessments|featured=1}}to the image description page.- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
com-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}} - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
featured=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with{{Assessments|featured=2}}. - Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1–6) with (1–6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological archives.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the section above. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
