Commons:Featured picture candidates

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

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

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

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month.

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

Formal things

Nominating

Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

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

Set nominations

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

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

Simple tutorial for new users

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

STEP 1

  • STEP 1
    STEP 1

STEP 2

  • STEP 2
    STEP 2

STEP 3

  • STEP 3
    STEP 3

STEP 4

  • STEP 4
    STEP 4

STEP 5

  • STEP 5
    STEP 5

STEP 6

  • STEP 6
    STEP 6

STEP 7

  • STEP 7
    STEP 7

STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)
    STEP 8 (last step)

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

Adding a new nomination

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

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

All single files:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting

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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

General rules

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5):
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have fewer than two support votes.
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules

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

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

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 polite

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

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

See also

Table of contents

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

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

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

File:Jadeite Cabbage, National Palace Museum.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 21:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jadeite Cabbage, National Palace Museum, Taiwan

File:Carved pumpkin - Ludwigsburg 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 20:48:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Hassan Tower, Rabat, Marocco (صومعة حسان ).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 16:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hassan Tower, Rabat, Marocco (صومعة حسان)

File:Qutb Minar with Neem Tree.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 03:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Qutb Minar, a victory tower inside the Qutb complex, Delhi.

File:Rom (IT), Brücke „Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II“ -- 2024 -- 0732.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 22:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II (Bridge) in Rome, Italy at blue hour
There was indeed a (moderate) noise reduction on the water, which I removed in an updated version. It should be better now, shouldn't it? --A. Öztas 16:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Army Soldier's Book of Georgiy Pavlovich Osipov, 1946.pdf

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 19:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A seven-page high-resolution scan of a Красноармейская книжка (Red Army booklet, Rotarmistenbuch, Livret militaire de l'Armée rouge), a Red Army Soldier's ID issued to Georgiy Pavlovich Osipov on 13 May 1946.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
  •  Info This upload represents the first complete (7 pages), high-resolution (1200 dpi, 7,900 × 10,712 pixels) scan of a Red Army Soldier's ID (Красноармейская книжка) in public domain. Issued on 13 May 1946, this document offers a crucial window into the immediate post-WWII period. Unlike existing fragmented images, this seven-page scan meticulously captures every detail, including personal information, military service history, issued equipment, awards, and even subtle characteristics like handwriting and stamps. This comprehensive PDF document allows researchers to analyze not only the soldier's experience but also the document itself – the type of paper, ink, and printing methods used, providing valuable context. As physical copies become increasingly rare due to age and fragility, this high-quality digital preservation ensures long-term accessibility for historians, genealogists, and anyone interested in learning more about this pivotal period. I'm not certain which category to chose - Hope to receive you help on that. Created by David Osipov - uploaded by David Osipov - nominated by David Osipov -- David Osipov (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- David Osipov (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There's a red link in the categories. (And an orange warning sign on the file page ?) The pages don't have all the same dimension. Some pages are awkwardly cropped out (last one for example). There's a problem at the bottom of page 3 with blurred content. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 18:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Финляндский жд мост.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 16:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Architectural monument, railway bridge

File:Common buckeye (35663).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 14:57:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common buckeye

File:Apricot Mandarin duckling (22011).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 14:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of an apricot Mandarin duckling

File:Space X booster Full Stack.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 13:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Refueling Starship Heavy

File:Shen Nicolo Bay - Sazan 2023.png

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 10:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Nicol� Bay, Sazan Island 2023.

File:Lechfall - F�ssen 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 06:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lech falls, F�ssen, Ostallg�u, Bavaria, Germany

File:2024-08-24 Motorsport, Formel 1, Großer Preis der Niederlande 2024 STP 3369 by Stepro.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 05:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Replica of Francesco Baracca's Spad XIII, Piacenza-San Damiano Airport, 2024.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 14:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Replica of Francesco Baracca's Spad XIII, Piacenza-San Damiano Airport, 2024.

File:042 Masai giraffe in the Serengeti National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 23:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Masai giraffe in the Serengeti National Park

File:Untitled (point de vue), Niépce 1827 — HRC 2020 (cropped).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 20:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from the Window at Le Gras, by Nicéphore Niépce

File:Djebel Ayachi, Eastern High Atlas, Morocco By Mounir NEDDI3.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 19:35:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Djebel Ayachi, Eastern High Atlas, Morocco By Mounir NEDDI1.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 19:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • ✓ Done Here is an edited version which removes most CAs and also reduces the noise in the sky and the far (unsharp) background. It’s not easy to remove only the CAs because some of them have similar colours as the landscape; and it’s also not easy to get rid of the noise because the sky shows a subtle pattern (maybe from editing, maybe from the Canon sensor, I don’t know); but I hope my version is an improvement. @Cmao20: Would you say the edited version is a decent improvement? @Mounir Neddi: If you like the edited version, you can use it and you can (or I can) just upload over your version. Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upupa in posa.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 19:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops)

File:The Tanzoumaitak cave painting in Tassili n'ajjer.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 15:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This zoomorphic cave painting located Tanzoumaitak in Tassili n'ajjer park in Djanet in Algeria. I think it could be FP due to this feeling of Guernica of Picasso when someone see the whole painting which cover the back of the cave. I seems to be scene of play in family kids are in green but adults are in brown.

File:Giza Pyramids during "Forever is Now" exhibition.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 15:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:2024-08-25 Motorsport, Formel 1, Großer Preis der Niederlande 2024 STP 3912 by Stepro.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Formel 1, Grand Prix of the Netherlands, Zandvoort 2024: Carlos Sainz jr. (ESP, Scuderia Ferrari) during the race

File:Urbino - Duomo di Urbino - Visto da via Puccinotti (1) - 2024-09-23 16-14-34 001.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 13:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Urbino, Marche, Italy.

Alternative imageː Cathedral of Urbino, facade.

File:Difara loz.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 23:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dom DeMarco cutting pizza

File:Saint Mary church in Los Arcos (15).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 17:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Tübingen - Altstadt - Neckarfront - Ansicht von Neckarinsel in blauer Stunde (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 13:21:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Neckarfront in Tübingen, Germany, at blue hour with Christmas lighting

File:Jindřichov - autumn.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 12:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trees in Jindřichov, Czech Republic

File:043 Little bee-eater in the Serengeti National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 11:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Little bee-eater in the Serengeti National Park

File:Rubens, Pieter Paul - Portrait of Lady-in-Waiting to the Infanta Isabella.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 10:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Peter Paul Rubens, Portrait of Lady-in-Waiting to the Infanta Isabella, circa 1625.
Here and here are photos of the painting in the museum. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Conjurer, ca. 1502.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 10:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Follower of Hieronymus Bosch: The Conjurer

File:Nude (Charis, Santa Monica).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 08:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) by Edward Weston
It was a mistake, sorry --Wilfredor (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dom (Deutzer Brücke).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 08:28:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great St. Martin Church and Cologne Cathedral seen from the Deutz Bridge

File:Château Frontenac, Quebec city, Canada.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 06:24:02
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photomontage - Château Frontenac, Quebec city, Canada
  •  Info Fake image. Heavily altered photograph, making it look like a Disney dreamy castle. Look at this 🌘 purple sunset ✨️, is that not extraordinary? I think many people like me have been fooled by this nomination, as nothing indicated the manipulation here nor in the file page, before my misleading support.
This picture has been uploaded on Commons without any mention of the fake background, neither in the file name, nor in the description, nor in the categories, and has certainly been nominated by Ikan Kekek in good faith, at this stage.
But oddly, it is a colorful sunset associated to a photo taken at 14:06, early afternoon, according to exif metada, a few minutes before this picture with similar shadows, this skyline, the same castle, same day at 16:42, and from another angle at 16:29.
The day after my vote, a template has been added saying "Retouched picture - The image was taken with the combination of 3 images at different times of the day". Was a tripod used here? Here is the building just 16 minutes later (same light, and very likely overprocessed photo). And look at this other incredible pink sunset taken same day at 16:30 in the afternoon. Is it real? Does anything indicate "fake", "retouched", "photomontage" or else in the current version? Is the sky similar to this one, taken just one minute before? How many fakes are there like those?
And how far did the cheating go? Following this fake of unreal building by the same author, discovered this year just by chance, nominated for delisting by A.Savin and leading to distrust among many of us, Aristeas requested from Wilfredor "Please check your featured pictures one by one. Are there more of them which were created artificially or were manipulated heavily? If yes, then please list these photos (and only these) here and we can discuss how to proceed with them". Wilfredor answered with a few links showing very minor retouches and wrote "In some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way." Why has this problematic FP been hidden in January 2024? We could have discussed the case earlier.
It is such an incredible view with vivid colors and extraordinary purple sky, it is no surprise that the image reached the 8th position among the thousand candidates at the Picture Of The Year (2020). But which position the real photo would have reached with no artificial sunset? And was the category appropriate? I don't think so. It is very obvious that if you add a rainbow, a full moon, a fantastic cloud, or anything spectacular in a picture, the wow factor is more likely to fascinate people, especially if your candidate is accepted at FPC. On the original nomination, Poco wrote "the result is great" but I have strong doubts the reviewing people really know which kind of picture exactly they had under the eyes. At least my own vote would have been an explicit {{Oppose}}, and perhaps other people would have discussed before taking another decision. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The sky is a bit purpleish ok, but the light on the buildings is beautiful. Photography is not only about realism. If the sky seems to be a bit "fantasy", it's not a problem to me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info It is not "a bit purpleish", it is totally different from what it was in reality. See the other pictures taken at the same time. And here, I suspect a huge modification, not just a minor local change. Moreover, everything should have been crystal clear from the beginning on the file page and in the file name. This is not "a bit fantasy", in my opinion. It's just completely impossible, once you check everything carefully. Similar case. Also "a bit fantasy"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the two are similar cases because in that image the added northern lights were a huge (if not main) component of the picture, whereas the sky in this image is not the main component, the autumn view of the castle is. And in this case the modification was not hidden, it was duly declared on the file page as well as the nomination page (albeit a bit late but it still received 10 +support votes even after the declaration). The main contention with this image is if the declared modification was indeed the real modification, or if the sky came from a completely different place. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I did have the impression this picture was an 'artistic' rather than realistic depiction at the time after reading Wilfredor's reply to Poco a Poco's comments, so I am not too troubled by it. However, it would have been nice if you'd been a bit more open about the manipulations made at the time, Wilfredor. Can you clarify for me how taking three exposures at different times of day produced this kind of effect? I'd like to know, partly out of interest as this technique is new to me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment +1. This is a very interesting case (to put it neutrally for now). Already during the nomination Daniel Case understood this photo as a “combination of different times of day” and called it “not so much a retouched image as a composite”. But we still do not know exactly if this is correct, or if maybe totally unrelated photos have been combined here. Therefore like Cmao20 I would be eager to learn how exactly this picture has been created. – Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hmm, i think i put S that time. Simple, Wilfredor can you upload original somewhere ? If "you havent" i must oppose. Colors are more pastel, if some vibrance added thats fine. Let see first. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I recall that these were three separate images: two long-exposure shots of the sky taken at different times to clear the clouds, and another of the castle with a shorter exposure to capture the trees clearly. Unfortunately, I no longer have the raw files or the Photoshop project used to merge the building with the sky. At that time, I didn't think it was necessary to explain the process, nor did I anticipate that such edits might be controversial. I now understand the importance of providing more details. I just got home from work, which is why it took me a while to respond, but I'm fully prepared to clarify any concerns you may have about this or any other image. BTW, In the future, ping me to know what people are talking about me, I always go through FPC but I could miss some discussion. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your vote, Wilfredor. The standard page for the delist process does not seem formatted to ping the photographers, contrary to a standard nomination page. There is just a transcluded code supposing to link to the original nomination. According to the light, it looks like the sky has been cut and pasted around the castle. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral leaning towards keep; the modification was declared at the time of nomination and did not receive any opposition then, but as Aristeas has pointed out, we don't know if the modification was limited to what was declared only. It comes down to whether or not Wilfredor is telling the truth above, and for the time being I'm choosing to assume good faith and believe them, until someone gives me enough reason not to. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Info 1) First, some modifications have been mentioned during the voting process, after 12 positive votes, not from the beginning as it should have been. Nothing was indicated at the start, and many of us may have missed this part. Thus, the start could have been totally different, and have given another orientation to the debate. As everybody know, it's always more difficult to invert a tendency where there is already a clear consensus. 2) Secondly, even if some reviewers noticed the modification, it is very improbable they were aware of what exactly / how far the photomontage was (because no way to compare). Taking 3 pictures at 18:00, 18:05 and 18:10 is totally different than taking three pictures at 14:00, 17:00 and 19:00. And does the sunset sky even come from the same day?? 3) As long as we don't have the original photos / real pictures under the eyes, it seems extremely difficult for us to figure out what would be the real sky. The closest we can imagine is this sky with burnt clouds apparently taken 2 hours later. The light of the building is different, but the sky may have been similar. 4) It is supposed to be a realistic image, giving faithful representation of the place, under realistic weather conditions. At least the picture competed in such category, and not in Composites and Montages (like this transparent creation for example). The discussion should have been oriented around this dreamy aspect, instead of taking us by surprise, or even misleading us. There are weird elements in the purple sky of this picture taken same day, inside the bell tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Comment According to the picture (check the road markings) and to google street view it looks like the picture was taken from the middle of the road. To achieve a true combination of 3 separate photos with different lightings the camera would need to be on a tripod (so that all pictures are taken from the exact same place with exact same framing to avoid inconsistencies when assembling) but the tripod would need to stay on the middle of the road and of the driving cars for an extended period which seems difficult/impossible. Also, this picture seems downsized to 2858x2960 pixels (this other photo from the same camera and place has 4 times more resolution�: 5929x5304 pixels). The fact that the picture was downsized makes it difficult to zoom in to search for inconsistencies. Could you please upload the full resolution picture Wilfredor and also enlighten us on how you made to keep a tripod on the middle of the road for an extended period? Thank you in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, maybe it's just a wrong impression of mine but when looking at the picture at thumbnail size it looks like to me that the sky is brighter all around the castle as if some editing happened there (but maybe it's just an exposure brush). Is it me or was that area edited? Thank you in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a small island where a tripod can be placed in the middle of the street. The street was lightly trafficked by vehicles and, in fact, there were very few people. Unfortunately, I do not have the RAW files of this photograph, as four years ago I did not give sufficient importance to backing up these files. However, in recent months I have started to do so, as this facilitates the verification and execution of future retouching. Wilfredor (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the small island on street view but when you look at the markings on the road we can see that you were on the middle of the crosswalk and not on the small island. The point of view from the small island would be to have the sidewalk from the left of your picture in front of you and not the road. Also if you would have been on the small island this tree would cover even more the building (look at the tree on the left) as it does from this streeview perspective closer to the island but not yet on it which is not the case in this photo (look at the tree on the left) and indicates that you were not on the small island.
    Even if you don't have the original raw, maybe you have the jpg of the 3 unedited shots that you used to assemble? Or if that's all you have can you show us the three edited shots that you assembled so that we can better understand the editing process? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 with Giles about the impression of brightness around the castle, at thumbnail size, as if the sun(set) was behind. Whereas the sun is supposed to be on the left, according to the shadows. Does this sky come from a totally different picture? Also agree that the drastically downsized resolution makes the search for inconsistencies more difficult. Thanks for your help. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nikon D7200 has a maximum image resolution of 6000 x 4000 pixels. The image you are trying to compare has a resolution of 5929 x 5304 pixels, which exceeds the capability that this camera can generate on its own. This leads me to believe that it is a composite photo made from several images. I do not recall having downsized it; perhaps I cut . Additionally, there are details that are really difficult to remember, as this photo was taken four years ago and I typically capture thousands of images each year. Remembering a specific detail is not easy, but it is evident that such a resolution is not possible with the Nikon D7200 without combining multiple images Wilfredor (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both this picture and this picture have been taken from the same distance of the castle. And this picture was even shot at 32mm which is a bigger zoom than the 26 mm used on this picture (so the 32mm picture should have building windows appearing bigger than in the 26mm shot). When you zoom in on both pictures at full size you can clearly see that the one on the left was downsized because everything is way smaller (compare the windows for example) when in reality the windows should have been bigger on the left than on the right because a bigger zoom was used on the image on the left. Even if this picture is a panorama, stitching images together to create a panorama won't give more resolution to each window on the building. Also this picture is much sharper than the other one, which is something that always happens when a picture is downsized. So it looks like to me that this picture is very likely downsized -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Delist , I guess, per creator's wishes, but I still don't really understand how this picture was made or to what extent it is manipulated/artificial. Giles Laurent's questions make me even more confused. If this picture had been presented as an artistic photomontage in the first place I'd still have voted for it, btw. But I'm not sure I can trust it anymore. Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The skies were combined into multiple layers using Photoshop, adjusting the transparency percentage of each to achieve a harmonious fusion. Subsequently, this composition was integrated with the photograph of the castle and the clouds. I mention this not with the intention of changing your opinion, but simply to provide a detailed explanation. I think that if you look for things there will always be theories of what could have been, what was not and supposedly incongruous things, and as Mile said, in the absence of a RAW that proves it, my word will not convince, so I suggest making a list of this and any image of mine that does not have a supporting RAW. I myself am not voluntarily nominating any more Featured Pictures. I sincerely feel that this process is demeaning. Wilfredor (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sun is setting on the left, should not the sky be brighter on the left too, like in this picture? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Delist If the picture had been classified as a photomontage from the beginning, and all the steps had been clearly documented, this de-listing would never have happened. The documentation would have also included the images from which the composite was created. I am sorry Wilfredor, but the undisclosed manipulations discovered by other users have damaged your good reputation. In my opinion, you are an outstanding photographer who does not need to gain kudos with undocumented manipulations. We have to be honest with each other in this forum, anything else leads to additional poisoning, of which we have already had far too much here. Honesty is the best policy. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know. My "+1" relates to Radomianin's comment. I am confused what to vote. This is a nice picture, but the undisclosed manipulations bring bad feelings. Yann (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Now i read about "Caracas building", i was mislead there too. Now, how to trust your future nomines, without original...--Mile (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Best solution. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist as viewers were deceived in FPC and POTY. It ran out of control, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant  Delist not because it shouldn't be a FP -- I think it should -- but because process is important. Just be as clear as you can with the {{Retouched}} template so as not to leave any lingering questions and nominate with that in place. If you forget to do so, it's important to ping everything who supported up to that point. IMO this should still be a FP, but it should undergo a new nomination once full information is provided on the file page. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks, everyone, for the reviews and various opinions. For the record, the Caracas building has been renominated last January, but didn't pass. About composite and montage pictures in general (not especially this one), perhaps we can suggest to 1) carefully choose the relevant galleries, 2) be in possession of the original photos (at least the JPG versions) so as to be able to talk transparently about the presented works, 3) maintain a standard resolution (no downsized pictures for example) in line with the present time, displaying enough pixels so as to compete with the very best images of the same kind. Now my personal opinion about this castle with colorful trees is that the original photo should have been able to be promoted with no major modification (because we can see the light is special somewhere). But perhaps the clouds were burnt with blown highlights at the beginning, something impossible to fix afterwards. In that case that would have been a technical issue (all photographers ever met this situation). But we learn from past errors, and we can improve by practicing. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jews Protest in Solidarity with Palestine -1 (52082106404).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 04:30:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Ali Mujtaba WLM2015 FAISAL MOSQUE m 10.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2024 at 03:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Faisal Mosque in the capital city of Pakistan, in 2014
This is a photo of a monument in Pakistan identified as the
ICT-5

Alternative evening view

Faisal Mosque with the majestic Margalla Hills in the backdrop

File:Амбуланта во Чаниште.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 22:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The entrance of the former medical facility in the village of Čanište

File:Djebel Ayachi, Eastern High Atlas, Morocco By Mounir NEDDI4.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Ayachi summit in the eastern High Atlas

File:Aromia moschata on Heracleum sphondylium 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 14:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aromia moschata on Heracleum sphondylium
Good pick :-) Thanks for your research and comment. Here another one from 2018 also with more pixels, while smaller in size (the body is only 12mm length). Same light and same iridescent aspect. Sure the equipment is important, and it looks like this picture was taken with a Panasonic compact camera DC-TZ200. However, the sensor resolution is supposed to be 5492 x 3661 pixels, far more than the current nomination. So perhaps this picture has been downsized or cropped? Of course better equipment tends to give better photos, nevertheless it happens that very good shots from compact cameras, and even mobile phone's, get promoted here. Nice to hear you've visited Laos, and good luck for your photographing work in the future! -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Basile Morinǃ The picture is downsized and cropped. Also, I have used the automatic focus stacking function of the camera, without being very familiar with it. I uploaded File:Aromia moschata on Heracleum sphondylium 01b.jpg (3,504 × 2,336 pixels) today, without any manipulation I am aware of, for comparison with the nominated picture. I have also uploaded a "02b" - the quality is more or less the same, malheureusement. - It was interesting to hear that it has actually happened, that shots from compact cameras and even mobile phone's have been promoted, I was hesitant about this. If possible and it you ever have time, it would be interesting to see some samplesǃ Best regards Simiha (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Београдски сајам Хала 1, Београд (Belgrade Fair – Hall 1, Serbia).jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 10:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Belgrade Fair, Serbia

File:Catedral de la Natividad, Chisináu, Moldavia, 2023-11-03, DD 36-38 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 06:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iconostasis of the Nativity Cathedral, Chișinău, Moldova.
  • I think the lack of sharpness in some places is more likely because this picture was taken using a much higher ISO than most of Poco's church interiors. Perhaps this church did not allow a tripod so using high ISO was the only option. Cmao20 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is right, Cmao20. Poco a poco (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14, DD 48-50 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 06:00:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Capilla del Sagrario of the cathedral of Segovia, Spain.
�Support Better now, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak dllu.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 22:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak
Thanks for taking the time to put the EXIF and improve the noise, however, IMHO denoise could be better, I uploaded a new version with better denoise (Topaz denoise low light profile) but it needs your approval and re-put the EXIF information. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the author did disclose the existence of the other one. I agree that the light is a lot better in Benh's panorama. However, I slightly prefer the wider composition here. Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'm grateful for the link. And respect the subjective view of the nominator (i.e. "higher resolution, wider field of view, less saturation, and taken during late blue hour"), just I want to say that the result is less striking than the other shot in my personal opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cucumis metuliferus fruit - whole and cross section.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 20:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I don't know if it's a good idea to make a delist of an image that is being selected among the images of the year 2023 Wilfredor (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's literally a POTY finalist right now so I'll leave it. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my humble and subjective opinion, the probability that the previous FP will not be delisted, if nominated, is high, because the quality is excellent, and the composition sufficiently different -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Fruits (raw)

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 17:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This valley (in green) alone produces more than 80 percent of Morocco's apples. It makes Morocco the second largest apple producer in the Arab region. This valley is located in the center of the Ait Ayach commune. To take a picture of this commune, you must climb the summit of Mount Ayachi in the eastern High Atlas, at an altitude of about 3,800 meters above sea level.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I think "terrible" is a bit harsh. Sure, it's not up to the usual technical standards for FP but far from terrible IMO. --BigDom (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, maybe I could have said "the quality could have been better but the composition is terrific". Terrible might have a different weight in Spanish (my native language), but it is not an excuse and I apologize. Wilfredor (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Sturnidae (Starlings)

File:Portrait a man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality, Nepal-4556.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 16:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait a man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality, Nepal
  • Why? I don't see why it's unsafe, it's not like it's a motorway or he's in the middle of the road. People walk along roadside verges all the time in my country, idk if it's different where you live. Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    �Support I was carefully checking the place, I saw that there is no google street map there, so I looked for videos of the roads. From what I see, people walk and move freely without any apparent traffic rules, so I will assume that it is a peculiarity of the place, I will change my vote in favor. Wilfredor (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Per Commons:Talk page guidelines#Communication good practice, the custom is rather to cross out the vote with <s> and </s> instead of modifying it on the fly, which makes the current vote in total inadequacy with the above comment, as it stands, in addition to altering the history -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower of Hercules, an ancient Roman lighthouse in Spain.

* Comment @ Fernando I had Nex, and know green is always oversaturated. Perhaps yellow too. I would low saturation on green, and a bit yellow. Something like this. --Mile (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain

File:Open wing Basking of Papilio crino (Fabricius, 1793) - Common Banded Peacock WLB.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
COM:FPC "The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator." Cmao20 is right. About the allegation of "fake background", see this recent and promoted case. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Planck by Hugo Erfurth 1938cr - restoration1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 14:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Max Planck by Hugo Erfurth, 1938
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical/People#1930-1939

File:Hệ Mặt Trời trong con mắt của tàu vũ trụ (2024).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 22:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solar System Diagram
  • For categorization, see COM:CAT. For language, the problem is in the file page. You write "English" for descriptions not in English. Idem caption. Of course, an additional description and caption in English would be a nice addition. But first, fix the current one, please. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry but while this is a useful diagram, the standard for diagrams at FP should be SVG, not JPEG. I'm also not convinced by the way Saturn's rings are depicted. Cmao20 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the images taken of planets and moons are in the raster format and converting it to SVG will have no benefit, as you couldn't scale up a raster image. Making a diagram of these planets in SVG might be possible, but it would have an insanely big filesize and would not be able to capture these bodies realistically. WhatisMars (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing this in SVG allows for easier editing, simpler translation, etc. Wilfredor (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree that normally SVG should be used for diagrams due to its many advantages (vector graphics are far superior in many respects), but in this case I understand that it’s reasonable to want to use raster images for the planets and moons; we could embed them one by one into a SVG, but the result would be a rather complicated SVG file. So it’s certainly easier to go with a single big raster image in this case, and I must admit that this one is well done, clear and more elegant than most other solar system diagrams I have seen. – Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SVG supports embedding bitmap images. In this case, that would be my recommendation instead of creating a vectorized (raster) image of the planets. My request to transform this into SVG is primarily to make it easier to translate and edit if there is something to add, correct, or to create derivative images with more or less information. Wilfredor (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it makes sense now. I'm reading this section in Help:SVG#Bitmaps and it is fascinating that you can embed bitmap pictures to SVG. I never know about this before, plus it also helps with adding names of planets for a lot of languages. The only minor thing that I don't like is the limited font selection but that should be the least of my concerns haha. WhatisMars (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain Without speaking Vietnamese, I'm unable to check the content, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment That’s indeed a good general question. Can I vote pro/contra a diagram like this one when I cannot check the texts thoroughly? The diagram is very similar to this one with English captions (they are OK, AFAIK). The names of the moons ar the same in both languages and are OK, too (unlike the English version the Vietnamese one spells Callisto correctly). In addition I have checked some of the Vietnamese captions and the Vietnamese description of the file with internet translation services and the texts seem completely sound. But such translation services are, as I know from several tests, not 100% reliable, so this is not absolutely certain; that’s a problem. On the other hand, it’s also kind of a problem when diagrams in languages which are not spoken by many FPC regulars do not get votes just because we do not have enough people familiar with the language; that could be seen as – completely unintentional! – discrimination. For now I keep my support vote, as I see no reason to mistrust the nominator’s reliability, but I would be happy if we would get some additional input from people who speak Vietnamese. – Aristeas (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Ah, maybe there are some little errors (or things I don’t understand): AFAICS moons are listed in increasing radius from bottom to top, but the list for Saturn omits Iapetus which according to the English Wikipedia should be listed between Rhea and Dione. And the order of moons of the Jupiter is different from the order in the English article; according to diameter or mass, I would expect Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa. IMHO it would also be easier to understand if the moons would be listed in increasing radius from top to bottom, i.e. in the opposite order. WhatisMars, could you please check this? – Aristeas (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Iapetus is definitely missing. I think the order is fine because it's in order of orbits from closest to furthest from the planet. But Proteus is also missing for Neptune, and seeing it's larger than Mimas which you did include, it should be there. All this would be easier to fix if we had an SVG version of course... Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an error on my part. I would like to withdraw the nomination and I will create an SVG-raster version of the image to encourage easy translation. WhatisMars (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a new SVG-raster image and based on en:List of natural satellites, I will only list moons that has a diameter of >100 km for planets and list all moons for dwarf planets. WhatisMars (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Шуховская башня Дзержинск.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 13:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High tension poles

File:Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park, October 2024 - 4185.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 23:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park.

File:Korczew Palace.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 17:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front view of the palace in Korczew, Poland.

Alternative image, Korczew Palace

100 Ruble "History of Monetary Circulation of Russia" commemorative coin (2009)

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 12:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Obverse
    Obverse
  • Reverse
    Reverse

File:Rom (IT), Kolosseum -- 2024 -- 0610.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colosseum in Rome, Italy at blue hour
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me --A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very beautiful and well done. The problem is that your photo directly competes with this very similar FP which has been taken by Diliff in 2007. It’s not one of his very best photos, but still a very strong competitor with high sharpness of details. Of course there are misc. differences – your photo is more of a night view, while Diliff’s one is a blue-hour shot; Diliff’s version shows misc. persons while your one is free of them; etc. In the end I think the point of view is different enough and better in your shot – the central way leading to the entrance is a clear advantage. So we can keep Diliff’s FP as FP because of the beautiful blue hour atmosphere and the details sharpness, and feature your new photo because of the somewhat better perspective and the better lighting of the arches. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there were a few people around the Colosseum, when I was there to take some night shots. Unfortunately some of them were launching flying LED toys into the air, which caused unwanted light trails… To manage this and still capture the scene cleanly, I opted for a 15-minute long exposure. This helped me minimize the distracting elements while enhancing the lighting of the arches and overall atmosphere. Meanwhile, a police car drove past twice, but due to the long exposure time, it's not to be seen here. --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked, if he is on Commons. He showed me some photographs of one of his friends, who uses Sony, but to my shame I haven't noticed his Instagram username. If it helps, he had a Nikon Z9, which he had bought a short time earlier. Perhaps we should attach small Commons badges to our camera straps or tripods so that we can recognize each other (satire - or not). --A. Öztas 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a sock puppet (openly declared and linked as such) for a few days for some edits because I could not edit in Wikipedia via this user account due to Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the No open proxies Policy. I had already written to the steward team about this at the time. I have replaced the image because I believe that this (17 years later) image is also good and suitable. I was not aware that there is a grandfathering clause. Fortunately, this is an open project and you can undo any changes. Even if the picture is rejected by you as an FP for this reason - or do you have any comments on what I could do better in future shots, because that's what we're talking about here? I'm always trying to get better at what I do, so this would help in that regard too. By the way I don't know what you mean by "Livio/Commonists is greeting", but perhaps you could elaborate on that. --A. �ztas 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Colosseum has changed much in all this time. I consider Diliff's Photo to be superior. Usually, out of politeness, such a change is put up for debate on the article's discussion page. Wilfredor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Careless replace of pictures is exactly what the person behind accounts "Livioandronico", "Comminists", "Spartakos" etc.pp. did. We don't replace excellent pictures, unless significant update is necessary. Why don't you replace this one instead (still being used on four pages)? Again, you replace because you care about quality of Wikipedia or because it's your picture you would like to showcase? --A.Savin 05:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not that familiar with meta-discussions about other users, but that's also not the reason why I participate in Wikimedia projects. So please understand that I will not go into further detail in this regard. Regarding your actual question: I have already explained why I replaced the image. The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image. This is not about ego or the need to showcase my image, as you subtly imply, but about offering an image that I believe is equivalent and more current - even if not much changed about the Colosseum itself in that time. I am active on Wikimedia almost exclusively on Commons. Other users tend to work in different projects, some have a balanced mix. For me, it usually works like this: I publish photos on Commons for which I think a free licence would be useful, and then see whether some of them could also offer added value in articles. Unfortunately, you haven't said anything about the photo itself yet, although that's exactly what this is about here. As I've already mentioned, I'm always endeavouring to improve my photography skills and would appreciate your expert feedback. I've already said everything I need to say on the other points you've raised here and anything more would just be repetitive, which is why I consider the discussion closed for me at this point. However, if you consider it necessary, we can continue the discussion in a suitable place. --A. Öztas 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the user who has suspicions, I also made a comment to which you did not respond. In a structure like the Colosseum in Rome you don't see changes in 10, 20, 30 years but in centuries, and I continue to find the Diliff photo above. I would just like to ask you a question to be sure and close this topic, do you have any relationship with the user @Livioandronico2013: ?. Thanks for answer Wilfredor (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think this question is inappropriate, as are the "suspicions" that seem to exist. The entire discussion that has arisen here seems out of place to me overall, especially at this depth. It was triggered out of nowhere and basically has nothing to do with the photo itself - I'm so hung up on this point because it's an vote of the candidate photo; if it had been a rejection that included at least a brief review of the weaknesses of the photo itself, as I assumed I could expect according to the voting policy, I wouldn't care at all and I would know how to make a better photo like this next time, but as it is, it's - unfortunately - just unobjective and not pertinent. If it had been a simple comment, we could have met for a coffee and cake to discuss that matter at leisure and had a good laugh together. To be clear - even if it's ridiculous that I'm even commenting on this: I have no relationships with said users and this is the first I've heard of them. But anyone can say that, can't they? If there are still "suspicions" - for which I can do nothing, but which obviously affect me - you are free to submit a checkuser request to clear them up so that I am not accused of any shadows here for which I then have to justify myself. Basically, I don't care what anyone thinks about me or not, as long as things that have nothing to do with me are not made my problem - as is the case here. Perhaps that explains why I react the way I do, in case that might also be a cause for "suspicion". --A. Öztas 12:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go on a witch hunt please. This user is German (Livio was Italian), uses Sony equipment (Livio used Nikon), and has been active for ten years. There is no connection between him and Livio. His English is also very good and Livio's was not. We don't need to put people off with a climate of suspicion. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you meant any of my comments, I was stating about similar behaviour and not about sockpuppetry (Wilfredor's assumption about possible identity of A. Öztas and Livio/Commonists is quite obviously wrong, if not to say embarrassing). This makes this behaviour (careless mass replaces of pictures on Wikipedia in various languages) not less problematic, though. --A.Savin 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you. It was obvious to me that you were saying that Livio had also replaced images with his own, not that you were saying this user is the same as Livio. As you say the equation of the two is quite obviously wrong. I agree with you that the Diliff picture should not have been replaced in these articles. Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This discussion is already very long, but when you write: “The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image”, you urge me to emphasize that (as I already mentioned in my vote) the detail resolution of Diliff’s photo is clearly better. That’s quite impressive when we consider that his photo “is 17 year old”, and points out Diliff’s outstanding skills and diligence. In addition I can only second the obvious statement that the Colosseum does not change much over 17 years, thank God! – Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it Diliff's photo is a stitched panorama, not a single frame. It has probably been downsampled, which was a lot more accepted in 'early Commons', and explains why the details are so sharp. Both are very good - I actually prefer the composition in this one and the light in Diliff's - but A. Savin is right that a high quality picture shouldn't be replaced in an article, certainly not without plenty of discussion first. By all means replace low quality pictures with yours though, A. Öztas . Cmao20 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that the other photo might be a panorama. That would then also explain the difference in the height proportions of the Colosseum, which I had wondered about. --A. Öztas (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) - Common Mime (Male) ( From Dissimilis) WLB.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) - Common Mime (Male) From Dissimilis

File:Balancing rock, Atsgara Valley, Mount Zagedan, Caucasus Mountains.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 12:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Atsgara Valley, Caucasus Mountains.
The theme of the photograph is the rock in the context of the surrounding valley and distant cliffs. So it’s not just the rock, but the rock in the valley around it, under a blue sky, in very sunny weather. The rock itself is naturally dark, maybe be even graphite/black because of granite intrusions, and it contrasts with the chalky white cliffs in the distance, which have a different mineral composition. And the shadow on the side of the rock makes it look darker to isolate it further in the landscape. For me, this is a pleasant shadow that reinforces the composition. Like when something is dark, it looks better in the dark. Like a dark spot under the radiant sun. The shadow also highlights the rock’s shape and form, giving it more silhouette, which is again more important here than texture. Thanks for your feedback. Anyway, I made a little shadow lift and will upload it soon. It still looks dark as expected, but maybe less menacing and with more detail and texture in the shadow. There’s plenty of information in the shadows, they don’t look underexposed to me. --Argenberg (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of light.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 11:13:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of light
  •  Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
  • �Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Keep Why is this request coming from a 20-minute-old account? (in addition to what's been mentioned by Cart below) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) All images created by combining 2 or more photos or should be properly categorised ho highlight this, right? There are rules for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria) and this picture clearly violates them.
    2) HDR should be just a series of pictures stacked together, but shot in the same time and place. I would be OK if this was the case. However, it looks like night sky was combined with a daylight foreground. I am not convinced that Moon or any other light source would create such hard shadows. Compared to other daylight shots (e.g https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/53735747194/), the light looks very similar. Compared to ther night shots (https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-vik-church-546515572), the light is very different. In reality, there are spotlights around the church and nothing to cast light on the mountains around.
    4) I believe that the encyclopedical value of FPs should come from the fact that they show the reality, which is not the case here. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Comment I recommend confirming the date of the photo with the Northern Lights at that time. I think there should be no problem combining photos from the same place regardless of the time or day. Having this information in the image description would be much appreciated but many users do not know how to do this or do not find it necessary. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • �Comment Having been twice to V�k � M�rdal in Iceland and seen that church on a hill on top of the city I am not sure wether this is a single photo or the combination of multiple photos. With long exposure at night, any small light source gets exponentially increased and pictures can look like as if they were taken in day time even though they were taken at night. I can't exclude that the illumination of this picture takes it's source from city light + moon light + aurora light. For example on this picture that I took at 22:01 in Switzerland when it was completely dark to the human eye, the mountain on the photo has harsh light and shadows that only come from the moon and nothing else (but to the human eye the light and shadows were not that harsh, only to the camera because of long exposure)! And the effect is even bigger on white surfaces such as with the snow or the church painting. Conclusion�: yes it is possible to have harsh light and shadows on photos taken in complete darkness with long exposure and I can't exclude that this picture is just 1 picture and not a combination of multiple pictures -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had an occasion were I had chromatic aberrations on the middle-top of a picture so it can happen even with good equipment but you're right that normally one side is red and the other is blue and that in this case it's two blue sides on the church tower. The difference of noise level is also present when comparing the illuminated parts and the not illuminated parts of this picture that I did but you're right that in the case of the church picture the difference seems a bit too big. Also it's very strange that the cross of the church was removed. Finally in light of this I have no doubt anymore that the church picture is unfortunately not real. The position of the northern light also felt too perfect to be true (even if sometimes people can get very lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately all these hypotheses can be classified with the presentation of the RAW, something that I proposed some time ago is that each FPC should have its respective RAW to support the editions. Wilfredor (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support what you have written. It is common that all serious photo competitions require the participants to be able to provide the original RAW files. Wikipedia does not require this so I am sure there are many more secretly manipulated pictures around here. I would be OK with this picture, if it would be properly categorised as manipulated (as all the panoramas and other merged shots should be) and if the manipulation would be done properly (no visible transitions, no artifacts, no ghosts and no alternation of the objects in the scene – like e.g. the cross on the tower, which is missing). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As an original supporter of the nomination, I'm leaning towards a Neutral Delist vote. On the one hand, the indications are in favor of delisting, but on the other hand, the arguments of Cart, Giles, and Wilfredor need to be considered. Because of the recent cases of undeclared manipulation that have come to light, I am more sensitive these days than I was 2 ½ years ago when I supported the image in good faith. If retouching goes beyond the norm, it must be disclosed on the file page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just found out that not only the cross on the top of the tower is missing, but also a lamp was painted out. Here is a Google Street View for comparison. Everyone can clearly see that the lamp used to be in the picture, but was retouched. You can still see the leftover around pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. With all due respect to the image author, I believe he is indeed a good photographer, but a very poor photo editor. If someone could please turn on image notes on this page, I can highlight all the issues directly in the picture. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain for now, but tending to {{Delist}} because the orientation of the shadows / light seems different on the church versus on the mountains behind. Church : light comes from the right, while mountains : light comes from the left. Or is it an illusion / perspective effect? However, I find SHB2000's question legitimate, and think it deserves an answer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to make fun of you, believe me. If you have that feeling, I am very sorry for that. Please notice that I am not attacking anybody. I am here to raise awareness that cheating with photos is unfortunately a big topic here on Wikipedia and that the community here needs to focus on it a bit more. Pictures by this author are an easy example, but in the nearby future, AI generated / edited pictures will bring more difficult challenges, where it will be very hard to distinguish original vs fake images... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New account, you want to teach us something on Commons, but you've also like completely lost your background / history / identity before entering here. Obviously you're an experienced user with knowledge on the process, the site, the image note gadget, etc. and for whatever reason do not want to reveal these elements of your profile. Pardon me, but that's rather odd, unless you're the real Zorro? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here is my another contribution. I have checked other photos made by the same author, AstroAnthony. He received a honorary mention in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2019/Winners/Ireland for this picture: File:The stars and man.jpg. The picture is again a fake. The background can be found in another upload here: File:Milky way nebula.jpg. The foreground is copy-pasted from another photo. Put the images one over another as layers and you will see it. What's the point of awarding a photomanipulation? All heavily manipulated images should be properly categorized and described. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing this comment I went to see for other uploads of the uploader and I found this picture were there is absolutely no doubt that it is fake with three layers. There is a big difference in detail and focus between the man and the rock on which he is standing. The light on the man is completely different and doesn't match the light of the rock. Also, the man seems badly placed. Finally, we can see that the rocks were cut from their original picture...
So with all the hints on the other images as well it seems many night shots of this user are not true...
The position of the aurora on the church also seemed a bit too perfect to be true (but I was hoping that the photographer was just lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked some of his other photos. This and this are also suspicious – a man on the rock is inserted. See the different levels of sharpness and contrast. The second photo also won an award outside Wikipedia. Is there any place on Wiki where we could discuss this topic further? I guess this page should stay focused on the church picture... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delist Thanks for the helpful comments -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist The arguments above have convinced me. This isn't just normal HDR, the transitions between land and sky are too abrupt for this to be the result of one frame. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I don’t see a problem if this photo is composed from two or more different exposures taken at the same date in the same place; this is a common approach in astrophotography – normally one or more frames of the sky are combined with a shot for the foreground which benefits from very different exposure times, ISO and/or aperture settings. Of course it would be much better if that was explained in the description page. It‘s also possible that the combined shots were taken at different dates or times of the day; this certainly would require to be documented; but that’s not sure. But what is sure (and what convinces me to vote for delisting) is that there are some obvious defects, like the missing cross and the coarse contours, which indicate that the montage has been done in a rather careless way. This is indeed a clear argument against the FP status, independent from the other questions. So many thanks to RealPhotoManiac for bringing this to our attention, and also many thanks to other participants, especially to Giles Laurent for the solid information. – Aristeas (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist For example the missing cross is too obvious problem. --Thi (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Many thanks to all involved for the wide range of information that now provides a conclusive overview to make a reliable decision. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist It now became very clear to me, thanks RealPhotoManiac for the new arguments. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist as per all above explanation. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aurora
4th position at Picture of the year, that's not far from the podium. I wonder which place(s) would have reached the background and the church separately :-) But would they just reach the start of the competition? Not sure. I would love to see this church with its natural sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I wonder how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022. I also wonder how many other competitions was this guy able to cheat with fake pictures. And the worst thing is that nobody was able to recognize it. I can understand somebody is cheating, but I cannot believe that the community here is so easily fooled by so poor photomanipulations. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We're not superheros.
  2. You're not a superhero.
  3. Why nature manipulates us? To answer your question "how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022", that's because it was nominated at FPC in 2022, same year as this painting of 1913. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
�update Coincidence or not, suddenly the link given above seems disabled. In any case, there are other "real photo maniacs" according to Google. The link targeted a public account on Instagram, with mobile phone pics of nature and text in Cyrillic script. Maybe nothing in relation with RealPhotoManiac, though, apart from the name -- BM alias Sherlock Holmes (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not a superhero and I do not expect others to be superheros. But it doesn't need a superhero to invest more than 3 seconds checking the picture or to put in the competition rules and FP guidelines a line stating that uploaders need to provide the orginal raw files. After seeing what is possible and what seems to be widely accepted here, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I am doing all these my actions to draw attention to this topic in hope that the rules and guidelines would be improved and that at least some members of this community would learn to have their eyes a bit more open next time. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"3 seconds", only?!
About RAW images, see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 21#Comment: RAW with FPCs (2019 discussion)
And Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#A necessary requirement (October 2024). -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in life has trade-offs. Instituting a rule to require RAW files would marginally improve the authenticity/security of nominations and prevent cases like this, but it is also clear that it would gut participation in FPC and that the vast majority of regulars strongly oppose it. We are not a professional photo competition in a position to award prize money, we are a volunteer site and should be greatful to those generous enough to upload their frequently superb content here. Not make their lives harder by adding more onerous requirements. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milano - Portico dell'Elefante - 2024-09-27 09-41-52 001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 17:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dukes' Courtyard, Milan
  •  Comment It’s good that you dissent, Basile, because you introduce a new point of view and arguments. Only by sharing different points of view we get an informative debate. Your suggested crop is a very interesting alternative. – Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Aristeas. I also think divergent opinions allow us to move forward, within the framework of a respectful exchange. Fortunately I am not the only one nor always a dissenter here :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the photographer gives us the context that the sitting person is posing, and I find that to be important context. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, Basile, but personally I have a more favourable view of tourists taking pictures at monuments/tourist places. In this image particularly, the scene just happens to capture what I think is a gentle moment between two women—a painting within a painting kind of thing, while keeping the focus on the monument itself. That’s why I think the photographer forms important context about the woman being photographed. That said, I do also think a square(r) crop would be nice regardless of the women. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your point of view. A square crop is also interesting and I may (weakly) support. Only weakly, because the crop would be too tight at the right of the sitting woman. Thus the larger view below is in my opinion a more airy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative image, Dukes' Courtyard - Milan

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 13 Oct → Fri 18 Oct
Mon 14 Oct → Sat 19 Oct
Tue 15 Oct → Sun 20 Oct
Wed 16 Oct → Mon 21 Oct
Thu 17 Oct → Tue 22 Oct
Fri 18 Oct → Wed 23 Oct

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

Wed 09 Oct → Fri 18 Oct
Thu 10 Oct → Sat 19 Oct
Fri 11 Oct → Sun 20 Oct
Sat 12 Oct → Mon 21 Oct
Sun 13 Oct → Tue 22 Oct
Mon 14 Oct → Wed 23 Oct
Tue 15 Oct → Thu 24 Oct
Wed 16 Oct → Fri 25 Oct
Thu 17 Oct → Sat 26 Oct
Fri 18 Oct → Sun 27 Oct

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=884719385"