Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to vote on this page.
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to participate here.
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 21:46:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Oxudercidae (Gobies, including mudskippers)
Info We have no FPs of this family of about 600 species of fish. Muskippers are fish that can survive and move around on land. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting critter!
pixel peep The left side of its head (right side of the photo) is a bit fuzzy. Is this simply perspective/DOF? JayCubby (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful – Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting reflections.--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Would support, but i saw mistakes which you could handle. Some anotations. Otherwise background cover mistakes more because of similar color. --Mile (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 21:36:03 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Elapidae (Elapids, Cobras)
Info This young cobra is spreading its neck flap; the start of a threat display which we didn't hang around to see completed. There are no cobra FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Sssuprrissed there are no FPs of cobras. This will be a fitting first. Nice capture and a wise choice not to continue its portrait session... JayCubby (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and excellent. – Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Support A pity that the depth of field is so short. But better not getting too close to this, its bite can be lethal. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This stack left one part of snake out of focus while sharp at border shots. Anotation. --Mile (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 20:49:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)
Info Pink skunk clownfish (Amphiprion perideraion), Anilao, Philippines. Note: there are no FPs of this species of clownfish. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Are you sure that the while balance is OK? Yann (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 17:54:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info created and uploaded by Dronepicr – nominated by ★ -- ★ 17:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- ★ 17:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Ships overexposured, with CA (left part). Could be more sharp. --Mile (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @PetarM: I can't the CA. Could you add a note? ★ 20:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ ★ see ships, left side - kind of tourquise color. Also seen on building top-left. DJI need underexposure on sunlight, not to blown white and to avoid mistakes. Some filter might help, UV or C-PL. --Mile (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Processing is no good. I don't think Dronepicr is still around, sadly. JayCubby (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Undetailed and overexposed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Comment I think it has a better processing, showing the rock formations and the cave. ★ 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 17:50:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by Victor Meirelles – uploaded by Dornicke – nominated by ★ -- ★ 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- ★ 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The painting is interesting, the resolution and colors are good, but there are weird horizontal lines, which are not part of the painting. See notes. Yann (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems shadows. Like this vertical ones. ★ 21:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- No, that's different. It seems the painting was damaged (scratched?). Yann (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe the time… ★ 00:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- No, that's different. It seems the painting was damaged (scratched?). Yann (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems shadows. Like this vertical ones. ★ 21:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 15:47:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Spain
Info Interior of the Cathedral of Almudena, Madrid. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 19:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's a pretty church, no doubt, but I find the bottom crop too abrupt, the lack of perspective correction is kind of disturbing and the light management is not the best (bright areas too bright with some color bleeding around the windows and there is no detail in darker areas). Poco a poco (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco --Tagooty (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 15:33:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Spain
Info A black an white interpretation of a stairway in the Sagrada Família Cathedral, Barcelona. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Wasn't sure what I was looking at at thumb, but opening the full size image it's fantastic. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Specially for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 15:29:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
Info This image shows a significant part of Chellah, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Left foreground are Roman ruins (~1,900 years old), right is a Marinid mosque complex (~700 years old). No FPs of Chellah. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not convinced but the compo. There are too many areas in shadow (wrong time of the day or wrong POV) and tourists are not helping, either. Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose unfavorable light --Gower (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above; light is very off. But even at best time compo is so-so. --Mile (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 12:19:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info created by Zachi Evenor – uploaded by MathKnight – nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Is it downscaled? 24MP camera, but CS5 doesn't leave good record of edits. Maybe the Flickr author can be persuaded to release the full image? JayCubby (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A bland image, no wow-factor. Small size and lacking detail. --Tagooty (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful flower. Not downscaled imho, such camera settings (per EXIF) Юрий Д.К. 19:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose With such a small size, we would expect a very sharp image of the flower, but that is not the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 10:20:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1960-1969
Info created by Don Hunstein, edited, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info Bob Dylan, 1963 promo photo by Don Hunstein for The Times They Are a-Changin' in a recording studio.
Support Thanks to JayCubby for finding this. -- Yann (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support. Many thanks for the restoration (I was not looking forward to the dust on the print). It was on eBay for $15. Could I request the PSD/XCF? JayCubby (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment - For licensing purposes, could we also have a copy of the reverse? We're claiming PD-no notice, but without a view of the reverse we can't readily confirm that. (I know they normally don't have notices, but at the FP level we should dot the Is and cross the Ts). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492, there is absolutely nothing on the reverse. Give me a few hours and I will get a pic, but I'm not setting the scanner up again, so it will be a bit different quality. JayCubby (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- No worries. Like I said, it's just a matter of dotting Is and crossing Ts. There's a couple ways of doing it without cluttering Commons. For example, File:Benjamin Britten, London Records 1968 publicity photo front and back.jpg did a front and back upload simultaneously, while File:Terry-Thomas in Burke's Law (1964).jpg had the reverse in the history before cropping to focus only on the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- True that is. In the future, I'll just upload the back before the front, as stitching two 100MP images is frustrating. JayCubby (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thank you for picking up these Ebay images! I've been wanting to do something similar for a while, but international shipping is prohibitively expensive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- True that is. In the future, I'll just upload the back before the front, as stitching two 100MP images is frustrating. JayCubby (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- No worries. Like I said, it's just a matter of dotting Is and crossing Ts. There's a couple ways of doing it without cluttering Commons. For example, File:Benjamin Britten, London Records 1968 publicity photo front and back.jpg did a front and back upload simultaneously, while File:Terry-Thomas in Burke's Law (1964).jpg had the reverse in the history before cropping to focus only on the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492, there is absolutely nothing on the reverse. Give me a few hours and I will get a pic, but I'm not setting the scanner up again, so it will be a bit different quality. JayCubby (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support On image quality, with the assumption that the above request will be actioned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 09:22:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Muscicapidae#Genus_:_Phoenicurus
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Small, and even smaller if we were to crop closer to the subject. Bird isn't particularly rare, so I don't think that mitigates it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Small size, lacking detail. --Tagooty (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I agree with the above reviews. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2026 at 06:30:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery:Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
Info Trail from Andiast to Breil-Brigels. Rapids in the Ual da Foppas.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 19:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose technically good but composition is messy and unbalanced to me --Gower (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose OK, but not special enough. The fern leaf is distracting, and the crop at top is too short. Yann (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree that composition is not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2026 at 21:28:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Caviidae_(Cavies)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good composition (nice profile view, also the intersection of the riverbank with the river-horizon), good hair detail, nice red-gold lighting. JayCubby (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good side profile of this humongous rodent. I wonder how many of such quality images I missed during my absence. Hopefully I'll be able to keep up but with the way things are going, I can't say for sure. Wolverine X-eye `
Support --Llez (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2026 at 13:35:16 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Japan
Info Atrium and ceiling at AEON MALL. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Question -- There is an aliasing moiré pattern in the central part of the ceiling. Is this a camera artefact? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it’s caused by the lens. I tried to correct it, but couldn’t fix it. --Laitche (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Fixed The sharpening filter was the cause. Disabling sharpening fixed the issue. --Laitche (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
New version uploaded Press Ctrl+F5 to show it. --Laitche (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Now the whole image is less sharp. Moiré was OK before IMO. JayCubby (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I don't care. We need more out-of-the-boxe pictures! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support A special recording for me.. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 19:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2026 at 09:08:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
Info created by Martin Hricko – uploaded by DarwIn – nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Aciarium (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Nice portrait, but only around 3 Mpx out of 16 Mpx. Yann (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Who is this guy? Information about pictures is fundamental here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar and @Radomianin, I think the guy is Giannos Michael Iosifidis, who died in 2017. Face search is scary! JayCubby (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you very much for looking into this and for sharing the information - much appreciated, JayCubby. However, identifying a person in an image based solely on face search results is not sufficient on Commons. Since the subject is, in all likelihood, a private individual rather than a public figure, such indirect identification methods are not considered acceptable. Without a reliable source explicitly linking this specific photograph to a named person, it would therefore not be appropriate to include a name in the description. In my view, it is safer and more policy-compliant to keep the subject anonymous and focus on the photographic qualities of the image. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. Hricko is a self-described street photographer, so the subject's identity is of course irrelevant. JayCubby (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support A great, very expressive photo. If this is an anonymous shot and the man is not known by name, that’s no problem. Once the nomination has been successfully completed, please give the file a more descriptive name. The weak support is solely due to the relatively small file size (2.9 MP). -- Radomianin (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - No valid reason that I see to the small picture size and the absence of information about the shot. The impression (forgive me if I am wrong) is that the picture was dumped here.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Thank you for your comment, Alvesgaspar. Could you please clarify what you mean by the impression that the image was "dumped here"? From my point of view, the nomination itself does not seem unusual - contributors are free to nominate images they find compelling, and FPC provides the space to discuss their merits and limitations. I agree that more information about the shot would be useful if available, but I would not interpret the nomination as problematic in itself. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Radomianin, 500px dropped support for CC licenses. Commons archived all CC'd photos. See Commons:500px licensing data JayCubby (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you so much for the clarification, JayCubby - I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the context. I wasn't aware, that this file is part of the controlled 500px CC archive import project. I also just noticed the deletion discussion, which was closed with positive consensus. Understanding that the file comes from this carefully managed archival effort helps explain why it may appear less contextualised than individually curated uploads. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Honestly I do not get the point of some comments here. This is street photography and a portrait, and we must assert it as such. It’s irrelevant for FPC that the image has been imported from 500px as long as that import was legal (AFAICS it was); legal imports from 500px are not more problematic than Flickr imports, on the contrary I would say that their average image quality is certainly much better than the average Flickr image quality. There are some valid points we can discuss, of course. Maybe the image is too small (not enough pixels). Maybe there are legal problems with the privacy of the man in the photograph (any insights here?). Maybe some of us say it just doesn’t wow them (OK!). IMHO we should discuss such points and vote according to our assessment of them. For me the image is an impressive casual portrait; it appears very authentic and likeable and makes me want to make the man’s acquaintance (for me that’s always a big plus for a portrait – many recognized portraits of stars, politicians and industrialists rather give me the impression that I do not need to know them ;–)). Sharpness, contrast etc. are fine. It’s just a bit small, probably cropped, maybe also scaled down. I would say the resolution is still adequate, therefore I vote with weak support. – Aristeas (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Thinking. I dont like crop; first his hand-fingers choped. Background of left is not so good - too much white, so wise-man is not isolated so good. And one mistake crop of man in border. I think he could be in photo complete, to make two man seating and idling. At the end-size. --Mile (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Now that’s a fair and well-founded oppose vote, thank you. – Aristeas (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2026 at 00:53:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Italy
Info The clock tower of the Bozen/Bolzano central train station, a cultural heritage monument, in the afternoon light. All by me. -- Aciarium (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Very good quality, but nothing more, unfortunately. A more saturated morning or evening sky is needed. The temporary construction on the tower, as well as the lamppost to the right are distracting. A half of the car is not a best crop. -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @George Chernilevsky: Thank you for your feedback, George! While I understand that it might be a better idea to re-shoot under better lighting conditions (which I will not be able to in the foreseeable future), I still tried to improve the image based on your feedback: No cut-off of any car is nearly impossible due to the almost always full parking lot nearby, but I tried to minimize the effect. The remaining lamp post was stitched out. (Forgot to add: Since the train station is — like a lot of Italian infrastructure — progressively decaying, the scaffolding is a rather long-term measure to protect passersby by potentially falling debris from the facade/roof. The image is from 2023, the most recent Google Street View images from 2025 still show the unchanged scaffolding, and I don't expect it to be removed anytime soon.) --Aciarium (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2026 at 18:19:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by NorbertNagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunate crop at the bottom. I also don't like the very bright and undetailed clouds, contrasting with he mountains. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --Aciarium (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose have to agree about the crop —brainandforce [yap] 00:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose This is such a beautiful picture apart from the unfortunate crop. @NorbertNagel: can we have a different, fuller crop? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your valuable feedback. Below the crop at the bottem is a parking lot and a busy road. Nothing to improve here. Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2026 at 11:38:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support —brainandforce [yap] 20:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2026 at 08:09:10 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
-
Pterocles exustus (Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse) male
-
Pterocles exustus (Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse) female
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Pteroclidae_(Sandgrouse)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support High quality pair of images. Surprisingly, no FPs of sandgrouse. --Tagooty (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Also a good illustration of disruptive camouflage. —brainandforce [yap] 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 22:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Are these images of the P. e. hindustan sub-species? --GRDN711 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry I have no idea, but I could not find such sub specie in ebird. But these pictures are taken in India, so it is possible. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Very nice. Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2026 at 03:17:16 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Brazil
Info created and initially uploaded by ZeroWin1010 – cropped and nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 03:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 03:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good vanishing point, sky, shadows and corrections. ★ 04:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral The cropping is well chosen. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it lacks a little sharpness due to the camera (a phone) and the comparatively low resolution. From Commons' point of view, I would perhaps have liked to see better categorization. Ergo: Good composition, technically not outstanding. -- XRay 💬 09:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poor image quality, too imposing foreground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting motif, but the technical quality is clearly below the FP-bar. --Milseburg (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose As per XRay, I like the composition, but phone camera quality doesn't cut it for me. JayCubby (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The Trapezium and Kleinmann–Low Nebula as seen by JWST
Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2026 at 22:35:36 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
-
Short wavelength view from NIRCam
-
Long wavelength view from NIRCam
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info data from the James Webb Space Telescope (NASA/ESA/CSA) – processed by Mark McCaughrean and Samuel Pearson – uploaded by Fabian_RRRR – nominated by brainandforce
Support A really nice comparison of the region, which is especially good at highlighting how bright the Becklin–Neugebauer object is in longer wavelength IR. —brainandforce [yap] 22:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! Fascinating and compelling - clear complementary short- and long-wavelength views of the same region, forming a coherent set. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 22:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
File:Fish lined up at a fresh fish store at Tezukayama, Osaka, Japan, February 2024 - 7017.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2026 at 13:35:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Fish lined up at a fresh fish store at Tezukayama, Osaka, Japan. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Info Sardines, Horse mackerel, Filefish, red tonguesole, Righteye flounder, Splendid alfonsino. --Laitche (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good, educational photo, but labeling each type of fish would make it more educational, so I request for you to do that in Japanese and English. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Done See note. --Laitche (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support and seconding Ikan Kekek's request. —brainandforce [yap] 22:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Yummy Japonese fresh fishes! ★ 03:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The variety of fish is impressive, also in terms of color. It's a bit of a shame that the fish on the far right isn't fully visible, but that's common with displays like this. Overall, a very harmonious and impressive photo. -- XRay 💬 09:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I can't see what is outstanding here. The technical quality is average, the composition looks random, and the three Japanese signs for six different types of fish are disturbing. I also don't find the way the food is presented particularly appealing. --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Six different types of fish may sound disturbing because these are common names rather than formal species names. This is simply how fish are referred to at fish stores. --Laitche (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Compo not so good, even think portrait format would be better, but crop above too tight. Mess/mix of fish neither so good idea. --Mile (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC) p.S. You should fill green board with more.
Oppose} I am with Milseburg, the composition also looks random to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The fishes look good, the quality is fine, and I would support with a bit more space on the sides, especially if the red fish is not cropped. Yann (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per others. Quality image with high EV for sure, but not really much more. --Aciarium (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- You withdrew it too quickly. ★ 12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ArionStar: I decide on each work case by case, and this one just happened to move quickly. --Laitche (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2026 at 06:12:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
Info Knob of a Acer platanoides. Focus stack of 21 photos. (Dark leaved seedling)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 08:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support A little glary, but so much detail and such a small subject! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Once again, a photo where I don't really recognize what makes it special. It is technically excellent, and I can appreciate the effort that went into creating it. I support it because of its very high quality. -- XRay 💬 09:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support An excellent reproduction of a mundane subject is still worthy of the
. JayCubby (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent detail, good colours. --Tagooty (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Tagooty --Terragio67 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 20:46:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Gobiidae_(Gobies)
Info Yellow Pygmy Goby (Lubricogobius exiguus), Anilao, Philippines. It's a diminutive fish, with adults typically measuring around 2.5–3.5 centimetres (0.98–1.38 in) in length. Found in shallow waters in the Western Pacific, Japan and New Caledonia, it is a true survivalist, often dwelling among coral reefs or mangroves. Note: there are no FPs on Commons of the genus Lubricogobius. Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good given the fish size. Yann (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Terrific, per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Lovely colours, macroscopic detail. --Tagooty (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Typical for me when I see a photo like this: a fish, yes. What's so special about it? But the photo is technically so good that I'm happy to support it with a vote. -- XRay 💬 09:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Totally agree, I didn't even know that there are adult fishes of this size until I saw it. In fact it was my guide of course who spoted it :) The size, together with a decent quality is what I believe is extraordinary about this nom Poco a poco (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good find and capture. JayCubby (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 19:40:02
Info There is now a much better equivalent recently promoted: File:L'Annonciation - Vitraux 14 de la Basilique Notre-Dame de Gèneve - GT 2025 04 (HDR).jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist I created this nearly 17 years ago. We have a better replacement. -- Yann (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Delist in favor of the this photo, as I mentioned in this discussion. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Delist per nom. It was a great effort 17 years ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Delist I appreciate this nom. --AVDLCZ (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Delist Per creator. ★ 03:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist per nom. --Milseburg (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist Per creator. Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist Great for the time, and still good today. JayCubby (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist --Aciarium (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist Thank you for the exemplary modesty to propose your own (still excellent) FP for delisting in favour of an even better replacement. – Aristeas (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist I completely agree with you all. Let me add that I sense a common thread, a shared impression and interest between Yann's photo, taken 17 years ago, and my more recent one, so now they're both ours. Thank you, Yann. Terragio67 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 19:34:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Maurice Utrillo, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Rue du Mont-Cenis, 1911 painting by Maurice Utrillo. I created a scaled-down version: File:Rue du Mont-Cenis, 1911 - Maurice Utrillo, S.jpg.
Support Gigapixels image by Google Art & Culture. Public domain since January 1st. No FP of Maurice Utrillo yet. -- Yann (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 08:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Googolpixels! ★ 03:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I’m not sure if the gigapixel resolution is so informative for this small paining, but it’s certainly an excellent reproduction. The painting itself is fine and has a special charm. – Aristeas (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Museums try to digitally capture canvas detail below the level of brushstrokes (maybe to allow remote forensic examination?), while photo archives try to not grossly oversample beyond film's effective resolution. I say storage is cheap and scanners produce plentiful pixels, so why not capture every fleck of dust on large-grained photographs too! JayCubby (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as per nomination and Aristeas' convincing evaluation. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 16:49:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Historical, perhaps?
Info Ruby Loftus screwing a Breech-ring (1943, by Laura Knight). While checking out a peer review at the English Wikipedia, I decided to see if they had a new version of this iconic painting at the Imperial War Museum. They did, and it is of great detail. Painting itself is wonderful, historic. Created by Laura Knight, uploaded and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow, great! --Yann (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The older version is FP on the English Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to nominate it for delisting and replacement there as well. --AVDLCZ (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- At the PR I mentioned, someone has already expressed favour for keeping the old version. I'm deferring that to the editor who is making the FA push there; I definitely feel that the old version is oversaturated, and prefer the IWM's current version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent reproduction of an important painting, documenting and appreciating the indispensable contribution by women to defend the free world against the fascist forces. – Aristeas (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I like that with more contrast and lively colors, but this is still OK. I would still put Alt that FP-nom. --Mile (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per above, impressive for the documentary quality. - Terragio67 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 13:06:57 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Rallidae (Coots, Rails and Crakes)
Info Rallus obsoletus in California. Сreated by Becky Matsubara, uploaded and nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent! Strange species name. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - What a long bird! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Terragio67 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 08:11:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info In Orthodox Christian architecture, there is a tradition that a fresco depicting the Dormition of the Mother of God is placed above the main entrance. As usual with the Macedonian Orthodox churches and visible from the inscription below the fresco, it was donated do the church and the copyright was relinquished, so visitors are now allowed to take free pictures of it. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The picture is deformed, what should be a circle looks like an oval, detail is not af FP level, either. Poco a poco (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I've uploaded a new version with corrected deformation (easy fix) and worked on improving the detail. How does it look now? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- An improvement but the detail is still not convincing and I don't know what is special about this fresco. It's probably 15 years old. Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is a contemporary fresco painting of the Dormition of the Mother of God, which is one of the main events in the New Testament. I disagree that the time of creation should matter. In first place, contemporary fresco painting follows a different style compared to that of the Byzantine, late renaissance or revival periods. This is particularly noticeable from the use of wider colour palette (lighter and more vivid colours vs darker shades of red, yellow and blue), simpler representaton of objects and depictions of dressed ordinary people (ordinary people in the past were painted naked as a representation of sinfulness). So, contemporary and medieval fresco paintings are different as, for instance, romantic and abstract arts. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I don't like the top crop, but I'd also like to know how big this fresco is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- That top crop is inevitable as the ceiling is vaulted. As for the dimensions, the ordinary people are depicted in natural human proportions and the saints are slightly bigger, so its base is about 3.6 m long, the edges are about 2.4 m wide and the height is about 2.8 m. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I prefer the un-cropped/un-edited version. ★ 03:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Comment This is the original version as suggested by ArionStar. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 22:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as creator and nominator. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support This version works really well for me - it clearly conveys the photographer's natural perspective. Great work, and thanks to ArionStar for the suggestion! -- Radomianin (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support This one is very nice. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Per anderen.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2026 at 03:37:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sturnidae_(Starlings)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The bird is so beautiful. The plant is also striking. Could you identify it and add that to the file description and categories? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 05:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent sharpness and light; clean background. The thorny branch likely depicts a camelthorn acacia (Vachellia erioloba), and the corresponding category has been added. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Contrasting colours of the bird and background. --Tagooty (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support What makes this photo a FP? I ask myself this question again and again when looking at this and similar photos. The photo is technically excellent. The bird stands out very well against the background. That's what makes it a FP. Whether the bird is rare and whether that contributes to its rating is beyond my knowledge. I simply have no idea. -- XRay 💬 09:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Terragio67 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2026 at 16:46:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Japan
Info A daylighting window made of glass blocks at Osaka General Medical Center. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I will have to think on this one. I was feeling silly, and made the photo more rectilinear. JayCubby (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Question Just to avoid any misunderstandings, and apropos of Jay’s edit: I assume that the window is slightly curved in reality, the edge on the top is straight, and the wooden window ledge is asymmetric? (Sorry for the really stupid question, but it’s best to avoid any possible misunderstandings ;–).) Thanks, – Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- I think it is clear from the straigth joints between adjacent boards, in the wooden base, that the window is curved. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Info @JayCubby: @Aristeas: @Alvesgaspar: This daylighting window is installed along the curved section of this staircase, so it is actually curved. --Laitche (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
New version uploaded Press Ctrl+F5 to show it. --Laitche (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Graphic composition, roof shapes hinted, courtyard-like abstraction reminiscent of View from the Window at Le Gras, evoking magical first impression. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A nice idea but the aesthetics is not appealing to me. The first version was a little better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- You’re still the same as you were back then. I guess there’s something good about not changing :) --Laitche (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not exactely! In the past, I was very often concerned with technical issues, which is not the case now ... ;) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- You’re still the same as you were back then. I guess there’s something good about not changing :) --Laitche (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree, the idea is good, so a plus for originality but it isn't really beautiful. Maybe during dusk or dawn, with more interesting colours in the sky, it coulbe be FP Poco a poco (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I just took it while waiting for my appointment. You can’t get a doctor’s appointment at that time anyway. 8:30-11:00 ;-) --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The idea is actually good, but it needs to be implemented better. What can be seen dimly through the glass could be a little more interesting.--Ermell (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ermell: I don’t have the power to renovate a general hospital. You’re giving me way too much credit ;-) --Laitche (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Beautiful minimalist composition with a touch of magic. – Aristeas (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I don't see anything wrong here. ★ 04:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The curved window is unusual, but ultimately I find the photograph creative—also because of the hinted scenery in the background, which only appears vaguely. -- XRay 💬 09:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I prefer the original version. --Milseburg (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Wide crop. --Laitche (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good for the same reasons as the other version. The wider crop adds a kind of picture frame to the window. At the first glance, the asymmetry between the two bottom corners may be irritating, but in the end it adds some useful tension to the composition. – Aristeas (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 22:49:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#India
Info created uploaded by Pradeep Parihar – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)I'm not sure how much I should care about the lack of details in the trees in the background, but this is so much fun and a pretty scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support- @Ikan Kekek: I’ve dehazed it a slight bit to try to bring out some detail. This stood out to me because it's a rare good quality winter image from a seldom photographed (esp. on commons) section of the Indian Himalaya. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- But the sky is noisier now, which I don't like. Can you do something about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve applied some selective denoising, should be better. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's a lot better than the previous version, but it's still got larger noise than the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've crossed out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Denoised further. The noise is now less than the original—if it appears more that may be because noise becomes more apparent on deeper colours, an effect of reducing haze. I’ve also dialed down the dehazing. Overall, less noise than the original. CC also @AVDLCZ: re: the noise. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- The noise is better now, but the sky color has changed to a ligher and less saturated one, which I think should be fixed. AVDLCZ (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- I see a couple of blotches above the middle hill that might be dust spots. I'll probably support again, as the photo is so much fun, but I can understand why some of the people looking at the photo critically think it's not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Those were indeed dust spots, thanks for pointing them out. I have removed them and scanned the rest of the image for any more. @AVDLCZ: I've readjusted the dehazing. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I see a couple of blotches above the middle hill that might be dust spots. I'll probably support again, as the photo is so much fun, but I can understand why some of the people looking at the photo critically think it's not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- The noise is better now, but the sky color has changed to a ligher and less saturated one, which I think should be fixed. AVDLCZ (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Denoised further. The noise is now less than the original—if it appears more that may be because noise becomes more apparent on deeper colours, an effect of reducing haze. I’ve also dialed down the dehazing. Overall, less noise than the original. CC also @AVDLCZ: re: the noise. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've crossed out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's a lot better than the previous version, but it's still got larger noise than the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve applied some selective denoising, should be better. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- But the sky is noisier now, which I don't like. Can you do something about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I’ve dehazed it a slight bit to try to bring out some detail. This stood out to me because it's a rare good quality winter image from a seldom photographed (esp. on commons) section of the Indian Himalaya. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 06:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Tilted CW, would need some PC to be FP. --Aciarium (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @Aciarium: PC
Done -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:
Not done; looks like rotation instead of PC. Buildings on the left side fall to the right, and buildings on the right side to the left. Since I see that you are working with Darktable: Please use the Perspective Correction module. --Aciarium (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Aciarium: Redid with vertical lens shift + rotate. Please check now. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:
Support Thank you, looks much better now. --Aciarium (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:
- @Aciarium: Redid with vertical lens shift + rotate. Please check now. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @UnpetitproleX:
- @Aciarium: PC
Oppose Nice photo of average quality, but not good enough to justify the FP star. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Nice application of the rule of thirds—looks just like the flag of Estonia—but the noise and lack of detail almost make me want to oppose. Almost. --AVDLCZ (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A nice shot, but there is too much uninteresting foreground and disturbing shadows on the snow Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve thought about a crop (see annotation), though I’m unsure it is better since I like the three part division we sort of have. Might add an alternative, open to others’ input. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Without the foreground it would look unbalanced. Motif is also fine. But the image quality is lacking and below the FP-bar. --Milseburg (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Nice scene, and agree with Milseburg that the foreground is important. The quality is no perfect –probably ƒ/11 takes its toll (diffraction); but I mostly see the negative effect in the dark areas and on the left, overall it’s still good, and I’d guess many people with good taste would prefer this scene to some of our much decorated FP winners, because, as Ikan has put it nicely, “the photo is so much fun”. – Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Impressive scenery and nice mood but the composition just isn't FP standard IMO; too much foreground in particular. I wonder whether a bit of a longer focal length would have worked better here. BigDom (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 19:40:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Horology
Info Prague Astronomical Clock at sunrise. Created by Pierre Blaché (Flickr) – uploaded by Юрий Д.К. – nominated by AVDLCZ -- AVDLCZ (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Love the scene and colors. We also don't have a wide FP of the clock yet, just a close-up detail. -- AVDLCZ (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice to see this place not overcrowded, and the light is very good. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Here is the magic I mean when referring to what a FP should be. I very much like the contrast between the vivid colors of the clock and the dark clouds. Yes, maybe those vivid colors are the result of oversaturation, but I really don't care. Photography is also a form of art. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Yeah, that's quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Thank for nomination, AVDLCZ! Юрий Д.К. 06:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for uploading many of this photographer's images to Commons. I already have my eyes on a few more that I'll be nominating for FP. AVDLCZ (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It's amazing that out of 566 photos, only this one offers a wide shot with context to the surroundings without perspective distortion. What bothers me a little is that the HDR processing seems somewhat artificial and a little too dark. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Considering the constant crowds at this location, it is impressive to capture such a clean and calm scene. The composition works well, and the carriage fits naturally into the historical setting. My neutral vote is due to the rather strong HDR processing, especially in the local contrast and sky, which slightly reduces the natural look for my taste. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral
Oppose Upon careful reconsideration, the strong HDR processing - especially in the sky and local contrast - feels overdone and artificial, overpowers the otherwise excellent composition, and weakens the encyclopedic value; therefore, I withdraw my neutral vote and cast a Contra. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The moiré is somewhat distracting, but it’s within an acceptable range. --Laitche (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
I withdraw my support Over-processing. --Laitche (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral A nice shot, per Radomianin, but epecially the sky looks overprocessed to me. Poco a poco (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Though I agree there is quite a bit of processing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Overprocessed; otherwise nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very nice and certainly useful, but overprocessed, giving the image a forced ‘painterly’ or fake historical look. – Aristeas (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above.--Ermell (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I'm very undecided. The photo already seems very emphasized. Certainly, there is a certain rarity value simply because there aren't that many people standing in front of the clock. There are small spots in the sky that could be dust spots. A rainbow can be seen very faintly. The cropped market stalls are a bit distracting. Somehow, I'm missing that final kick for an FP. -- XRay 💬 09:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Procesing went a bit to far - colors. --Mile (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Appears overprocessed – Julian Lupyan (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Overprocessed and questionable crops of the top of the arch and the marquee. BigDom (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 11:53:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Ceiling of the church of St. Laurentius in Ebern. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is a disturbing asymmetry relative to the central left-right axis. Also, the image would benefit from a 90º rotation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice angle. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice details, but I would have tried to reduce the distortion a little. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose For the reason explained above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The right crop annoys me, maybe inordinately, but I really wish I could see that whole railing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I concur, the crop is not optimal, it looks too abrupt in all 4 sides IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral The distortions caused by the likely short focal length add to the subject. However, I would prefer it if, for example, the railing on the right were completely visible. -- XRay 💬 09:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 11:44:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support not very sharp but... --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose it appears overprocessed in my opinion – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It looks fine to me. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Julian Lupyan, really looks a bit artificial. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)- User:Kabelleger, please eliminate the dust spot near the upper left corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Ikan Kekek, I've uploaded a new version which has the dust spot removed. Regarding the "artificial" look: I didn't do any particular processing beyond what I do with pretty much all photos, so I'd say that's just how it looked. I think the impression might have to so something with the very yellow grass which provides an unusually high contrast. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Weak support per others. It's quite a good composition, the water and rocks are pretty to me, and the train works really well in the composition. Some of the vegetation is unsharp, but I don't think we should oppose this nomination because of details like that, instead of judging it mainly on the basis of the entire composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- Hi Ikan Kekek, I've uploaded a new version which has the dust spot removed. Regarding the "artificial" look: I didn't do any particular processing beyond what I do with pretty much all photos, so I'd say that's just how it looked. I think the impression might have to so something with the very yellow grass which provides an unusually high contrast. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I would avoid Vibrance on water (river), seems too much arty. But other is OK. --Mile (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong compo, detail ok. This is an FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I had to think about it for a moment. The photo is technically good, but I'm not sure if the central placement of the railway line is ideal. The empty sky takes up a lot of space as negative space. Nevertheless, it's worth supporting. -- XRay 💬 09:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support What stays with me is not the train, but the river. The foreground stones create depth and pull the eye into the scene, giving the landscape a quiet gravity. The railway line becomes a subtle counterpoint rather than the subject - a restrained human trace within a dominant, flowing landscape. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Agree with Mile that the river looks almost too blue and too contrasty (clarity?). But it may very well be just realistic, and it does not diminish the beauty of the composition. – Aristeas (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I get what the photographer was trying to do but I don't think the composition quite works. For one, I believe the train should take up more space in the frame as it's the main subject. The image would also benefit from a horizontal crop of the sky, and perhaps more importantly a crop of the rocks and vegetation in the bottom left frame of the image. Wolverine X-eye 12:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 21:58:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)- A traditional house in Hydra, Greece. I like how it stands above the wild and uninvating vegetation and the slightly dramatic sky.
Support -- C messier (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 07:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Milseburg (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice image, good quality and composition. But not exceptional, justifying the star. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition; the clouded sky adds a painterly quality. Best appreciated in full-screen view. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Very pleasant scene – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment This is a really nice photo. The only thing that's holding me back from supporting is the blue sky above the house. If that part of the sky had some interesting clouds in it, that could make the entire photo great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Simply nice composition and the mood. --Laitche (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose The subject is ok, detail moderate (12 MPx), ligthing ok but the compo is too static, the subject is centered. Poco a poco (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: IMHO, the diagonals lines leading towards the bottom left corner dominate the image visually (the slope, the prickly pear cacti and the yellow flowers, even the illuminated parts of the building follow similar lines) and make it a bit dynamic for a static subject. (Also it is 16 Mpix) C messier (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, clear and effective composition, and IMHO it also has that certain something, maybe due to the contrast between the clear orthogonal shapes of the house and the rounded shapes of the cacti. – Aristeas (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 16:34:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Amazing motif. Is this a single shot? Some of the tiles seem significantly less sharp than others, and there doesn't always seem to be a pattern to which ones. Is that mainly down to the appearance of the tiles, except near the right margin? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment It may be that some of the tiles are just poor quality.Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment @ Ikan Kekek and Charlesjsharp. Yes, it is a single shot and the tiles are over 300 years old. The Porcelain Pavilion in Schwetzingen Palace Park is a small, pavilion-like building designed by the architect Nicolas de Pigage with a single room of only a few square meters. The walls of its interior are covered with tiles. The impressive Delft tiles originate from Rotterdam manufactories (Delft faience) and were delivered for the pavilion's furnishings as early as 1723. The porcelain pavilion itself was built was built between 1762 and 1764, 40 years after the tiles were delivered, as part of the palace gardens in the 18th century. The wall coverings depict landscape motifs (landschap in achtkant op gesprenkeld fond met uitgespaarde lelie) and equestrian tiles (Ruiter; hoekmotief: spin). The tiles are among the most valuable furnishings of the building. -- Llez (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Well done, I like photos like that. -- XRay 💬 20:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting motif. It seems like all tiles depict similar, yet different sceneries. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I like the work, too. Its layout and composition appeal to me, and it conveys an interesting uniformity that unfolds as an intriguing object of exploration upon closer inspection. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Reminds me of XRay's recent door composite. JayCubby (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- That was my first thought too, by the way. ;-) -- XRay 💬 09:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Beauty is often a fundamental component of Photography, and symmetry a well-known component of beauty. In this case, symmetry is obviously not enough to make the image asthetically appealing. On the other hand, there is no exceptional historical value in the set of 17th century tiles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per discussion, others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The small variation of the symmetry adds grace to the image. – Aristeas (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Seeeing diferent drawings. --Mile (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 04:57:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)
Info Ploceus ocularis in South Africa. Detailed shot of interesting bird. Сreated by Andy Morffew – uploaded and nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 04:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Cuting negative space is not so good idea. It just could be cut some less space, while central is so-so. Would "s" if wouldnt saw original. --Mile (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)- Ok, I've added original as alternative. Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I find the composition of this one more balanced -- Giles Laurent (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Giles Laurent.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support For me, this frame/crop works much better. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Good quality and impressive look (but a bit boring, I prefer the original). – Aristeas (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose of this version per Mile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose in favour of the other version. – Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Original of the upper photo Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Yeah, this is a better composition. Beautiful bird and great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan. Oppose was relative, one should pass, good yellow colors. Some mono CA, but probably older camera. --Mile (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This solution is no better than the original, given the small empty space on the right (and also on the topo and bottom). This is one of thouse situations where the rule of thirds would apply. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you about the crop. But I think that overall value and quality of the photo (colors, details, sharpness) still makes it FP. Also this is a quite rare photo of a bird (face to face view). Юрий Д.К. 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar: This is the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you about the crop. But I think that overall value and quality of the photo (colors, details, sharpness) still makes it FP. Also this is a quite rare photo of a bird (face to face view). Юрий Д.К. 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Subject is too far to the right. --Tagooty (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Breaking rules and visual habits can make images more interesting, and to my own surprise this intentionally unbalanced composition works very well for me. Reminds me e.g. of this portrait. – Aristeas (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 04:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Support agree with Aristeas, the unbalanced composition works extremely well with the shallow depth of field and the subject staring directly at the viewer. Overall, an attention-grabber. —brainandforce [yap] 00:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support both. --Laitche (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I have a slight preference for this one here. --Terragio67 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 15:43:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info I think this relief from 1894 is quite striking and strange at the same time (the previous nomination is available here). All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Question There don't appear to be any guidelines on renominations apart from /2 instruction. Are there any? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any additional guidelines as they would probably be specified in the comprehensive introductory box. Furthermore, re-nominations are nowadays more common (see this as a very recent example). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nine years vs a few monthsǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any additional guidelines as they would probably be specified in the comprehensive introductory box. Furthermore, re-nominations are nowadays more common (see this as a very recent example). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment за православна црква ово првпат гледам, скулптура од животина, ем не знам шо е, изгледа ко муфлон а не крава. Прашај поп шо е ово или сељак-кључаро. --Mile (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- @PetarM: Да, необично е, но сум видел и сликал на неколку места (на пр. ова и ова). А на истата оваа црква има и скулптури на птици. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 09:33:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Prasan Shrestha – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Needs a substancial crop of the foreground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, the image has some technical flaws: the mountain in the background is overexposed, while the shadows on the horse are very dark. Dust spots are visible in the sky. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's a good camera and good image. Maybe @Prasan Shrestha can tweak it from the RAW? Surely there is more dynamic range there. JayCubby (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The horse is nice, and the foreground is fine, but the snow on the mountain is indeed overexposed. Yann (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I agree entirely with Syntaxys. Kiril, you're OK with all that in an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The small area of overexposed snow is okay given the bright sun at high altitude. The dust spots need to be removed, and cropping the bottom up to the rock on left will improve the composition. I'll support if edited. --Tagooty (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Agree with Syntaxys. This could be a great photo if the author could try to recover at least some of the overexposed areas and get rid of the dust spots; lifting the dark shadows a bit would even better. (We could remove the dust spots, but in order to recover the over- and underexposed spots one needs the raw image file.) – Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Info I posted on their talk page after making the nom and emailed them yesterday. I realise now I should’ve done this before nominating. I will let this nomination take its course. If the photographer makes the changes prior to the lapse of this nomination, I will ping everyone. Or I can nominate the edited version in the future. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you very much, UnpetitproleX! I really hope that the photographer will answer to you. It would be great if the photo could be improved, it would make an excellent FP. – Aristeas (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Fri 30 Jan → Wed 04 Feb Sat 31 Jan → Thu 05 Feb Sun 01 Feb → Fri 06 Feb Mon 02 Feb → Sat 07 Feb Tue 03 Feb → Sun 08 Feb Wed 04 Feb → Mon 09 Feb
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Mon 26 Jan → Wed 04 Feb Tue 27 Jan → Thu 05 Feb Wed 28 Jan → Fri 06 Feb Thu 29 Jan → Sat 07 Feb Fri 30 Jan → Sun 08 Feb Sat 31 Jan → Mon 09 Feb Sun 01 Feb → Tue 10 Feb Mon 02 Feb → Wed 11 Feb Tue 03 Feb → Thu 12 Feb Wed 04 Feb → Fri 13 Feb
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.)
- Add the template
{{Assessments|featured=1}}to the image description page.- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
com-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}} - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
featured=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with{{Assessments|featured=2}}. - Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1–6) with (1–6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological archives.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the section above. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
