Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
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 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 23:16:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Others
Info Following the input provided on the previous nomination, the picture was improved in two ways. Firstly, it was cropped vertically in order to get rid of the overexposed sky in the top right corner. Secondly, a version with warmer and more vivid colours was uploaded. I think this is a much better version than the previous one. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm glad to see another Photopea user in the wild :) FYI, Photopea messes up the metadata (at least on some browsers), I removed the problematic bit of the file's EXIF. JayCubby (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's a pity about the metadata, and I oftentimes forget it. I've transferred the metadata from the original unprocessed file. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 21:52:54 (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/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Türkiye
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Julian Lupyan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I took this picture with my former camera, and am aware of the moderate lack of detail. I'm hoping the composition and local noise reduction would make up for this. Perspective is corrected, however some of the building's vertical features seem to be naturally misaligned, which I unfortunately cannot account for. The image is one frame, not a composite. Thank you! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 20:21:23 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Facade of Big Theatre (built 1856) in Moscow, Russia. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment This image is very sharp, however I am noticing barrel distortion. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Too tight and inaccurate crop and CCW tilt. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)- I will try to fix. Юрий Д.К. 07:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 20:20:52 (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/Palaces#Russia
Info Grand Kremlin Palace (built 1849) and Taynitsky Garden in Moscow, Russia. My photo Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful lighting and good composition. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 18:46:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Photo_techniques/Styles_and_Techniques#Others
Info created by A.B. Phelan – uploaded and restored by Jay – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. This is an example of both a photomontage (overlay) and forced perspective. -- JayCubby (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 14:06:23 (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/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Indonesia
Info created by LukeTriton – uploaded by LukeTriton – nominated by TheBooker66 -- TheBooker66, but call me Ethan (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- TheBooker66, but call me Ethan (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The quality is not great probably because it was taken with a mobile phone, but the nice composition compensates for it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, a nice motif, but processing is not good, sorry. Shadows are too dark, sharpening halos visible and detail is not really at FP level. Poco a poco (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Posterised sky. Really falls short in quality. --C messier (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. //SHB2000 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 09:59:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Greece
Info View of the village of Zinta in central Crete. The village dates from the medieval time and retains a fortress like appearance. Also from this viewpoint the structures visible are mostly old building, giving a similar impression as a viewer of the previous centuries would have, rather rare for most Greek villages which were massively rebuilt in the post war era. Unfortunately, after the 2021 earthquake pretty much every stone-built house in the image has either collapsed or was heavily damaged (the image is from 2017). All by C messier.
Support -- C messier (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the picture would benefit from slight dehazing, but the lighting is great and the overall composition works. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I miss wow here, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I like how moody this picture is. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 09:15:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info Catholic branch church of St. Anna in Priegendorf. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 10:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Lmbuga (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:43:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info Porte de l'Aude in the historic fortified city of Carcassonne, Aude, France. The concentric yellow circles that can be seen from exactly this POV is a project from 2018 called "Concentric, eccentric", a work by Felice Varini to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the inscription on the World Heritage List of UNESCO. Founded during the Gallo-Roman period, the citadel derives its reputation from its 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) long double surrounding walls interspersed by 52 towers. The medieval citadel, situated on a hill on the right bank of the river Aude, was restored at the end of the 19th century by the theorist and architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)- In my opinion, this is an act of vandalism that destroys a historical monument. Similar circles could be created using lighting (spotlights) without damaging the historical appearance of the monument. However, i
Support this image as being of excellent quality and high educational. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I find this kind of expressiones too bold. The strips are composed of temporary thin aluminum and therefore should vanish soon, but it's probably gonna hold longer than they expected. Poco a poco (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support An interesting art form on a more or less historic building.--Ermell (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Well documeneted, also nice light.--C messier (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Magnificent view JackyM59 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment There's probably a bird next to the spire atop the pyramidal roof in the background (see the note). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski: Yes, definitely a bird. Not sure what your expectation is, do I need to remove the bird so that you can support this image as FP? To be honest, I don't really think that a birdfree sky (especially if they are so small) is required for the FP star. Poco a poco (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn’t entirely sure what it is even though it didn’t look like a dust spot. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I really like the angle and the ambient with the great winter morning light. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Great composition, nice detail. But the lighting does destroy any wow for me. --August (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:14:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae
Info Fallen over (Lepista flaccida) decaying on a compost heap. Focus stack of 113 photos.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Exceptional detail, good composition --Tagooty (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Tagooty above.
Question: Do you forage, or just photograph? JayCubby (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
*:Answer: I love nature (and I'm very concerned about it). I enjoy photographing the usefulness of transience, like this photo, which is ultimately what nature is all about. But don't eat mushrooms..--Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)- Thank you! I have the same sentiment about mushrooming (it's too easy to find a toxic lookalike). JayCubby (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2025 at 06:14:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info The Württemberg Mausoleum in the Rotenberg part of Untertürkheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Created/uploaded by Julian Herzog – nominated by Syntaxys -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support As far as I could determine, there is no FP of this motif in its category. In my opinion, this image is very well done in terms of technique and composition. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment From the four images of the monument by the uploader (Julian Herzog), IMHO this is the one with the least wow factor. --C messier (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to the other shots, the image lacks a certain wow factor, but it is better in terms of technique and composition. In the shots taken in the evening light, the subject is a little too small or there are distracting elements in the image (which could be cropped out). Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- The frontal symmetric shot has a much better composition. Wouldn't mind about the edges being slightly blurry given the wow factor it has. C messier (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, compared to the other shots, the image lacks a certain wow factor, but it is better in terms of technique and composition. In the shots taken in the evening light, the subject is a little too small or there are distracting elements in the image (which could be cropped out). Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 21:08:06 (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/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the picture because it shows how deeply rooted religiosity is in everyday life. A church or chapel can take many different forms.
I'm sorry, I prepared a new nomination without checking the current list first. It just so happens to be on the same theme right after your nomination. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The light is exceptional, elevating this rather mundane motif. The frame is however rather tight. --C messier (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning contrast JackyM59 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent light. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 21:01:06 (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/Industry#Germany
Info Several hundred coke ovens in Essen – created and uploaded by GZagatta – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wov! --Lmbuga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support One of my favorite images from this year's wlm contest. --Wobbanight (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support That's great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, that's a great picture. Maybe I would have cropped it a little more at the top, but it's very well done with the reflection and lines. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 10:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The angularity is striking. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
| Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. A great candidate, but please, 2 noms at a time. Thank you. Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC) |
- @Poco a poco and Augustgeyler: I'm willing to take over this nomination under my name if needed (replace the nominator name at your will). Not that I condone creating more than 2 nominations at once, but mistakes happen and it's a good photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 18:46:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Serranidae (Serranids)
Info Longfin grouper (Epinephelus quoyanus), Anilao, Philippines. The longfin grouper is found on silty reefs in coastal waters at depths of less than 50 metres (160 ft) in the Indo-West Pacific, especially in the Indomalayan region. This species, that attains a maximum total length of 40 centimetres (16 in), is a sedentary species which feeds on worms, smaller fishes and crustaceans. Note: there are no FPs of this species on Commons. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support, but what I see at the end of the fish's tail looks like CAs to me.--Lmbuga (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is in fact some
chromatic aberration. --Wobbanight (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see it, too.
Support with the confidence that it'll be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Gone, thank you Poco a poco (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see it, too.
- There is in fact some
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the fixes. JayCubby (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 16:07:12 (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 : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info created by and uploaded by Charlesjsharp – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for the nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, sharp bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent work. Including the crop ;-) --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 11:41:16 (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/Ceilings#Uzbekistan
Info Wood carving Andijan Jame Mosque Complex (Мечеть Джами в Андижане, Andijon jome masjidi majmuasi). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Info 1st Place on 2025 WLM Uzbekistan.
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Earth605 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Congrats for the award, but is the lack of symmetry for real or due to an off-centered POV? within the square the center is too far to the left. Poco a poco (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Probably off-center, some answer was in the begining, and thank you. God'unov for me. Mile (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support –Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 09:53:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Russia
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 09:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 09:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Info Рекомендую, еслу солнце, диафрагму на ф/3.2 или ф/4. А обязательно EV (експозиция) на -0.3 или -0.7. Я сейчас пользую только RAW формат. Проблема с ДЙИ, отсутствует защитная бленда про бокововой свет. Потом надо коректироват хроматическу аберрацию + повысить резкость + повысить EV. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Спасибо, на будущее учту. Хотя, с дронами проблема в том, что пока настройки меняешь, он разряжается, а ещё тогда уже можно было получить проблемы с полицией за полёт над телебашней...
Красный wanna talk? 14:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Спасибо, на будущее учту. Хотя, с дронами проблема в том, что пока настройки меняешь, он разряжается, а ещё тогда уже можно было получить проблемы с полицией за полёт над телебашней...
Oppose Only the view of the tower is interesting but it is too small in the overall compo Poco a poco (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I've calculated the JPEG QF at 85--substantial artifacts! Red, can you export at a higher quality? JayCubby (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't store RAW files after 2-3 weeks after the uploading here. It would be too much disc space. Красный wanna talk? 20:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't get rid of your Raw files, it's the equivalent of throwing away film negatives: you lose the only real proof of authorship, and will no longer be able to benefit from future demosaicing algorithms. External hard drives (plural, so you have at least a backup) are cheap compared to the cost of photographic gear. Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't store RAW files after 2-3 weeks after the uploading here. It would be too much disc space. Красный wanna talk? 20:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 09:51:05 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Painted ceilings
Info created and uploaded by 26D – nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 09:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 09:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Despite missing EXIF info. --Mile (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Earth605 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 05:25:21 (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/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Hippeastrum houseplant. The delicate beauty of the flower buds. Focus stack of 14 photos}}
All by me -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking graphic clarity - the flower's form is distilled into such clean lines and nuanced tones that it evokes the precision of a classic botanical illustration. A refined and impeccably controlled study of shape and texture. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Superb stack, lovely lighting. JayCubby (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. Do please get rid of the 2 little red hot pixels toward the lower right, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Done, False pixels removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Agnes Monkelbaan, there are still a few. I've highlighted them for easy removal here using my preferred pixel-peeping tool. JayCubby (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Done Thank you very much for your comments. I found two and deleted them.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice work, I like the complementary nuances. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking composition.
Comment Is the background digitally blacked out? If so, this should be mentioned in the image description. --Tagooty (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Answer: The photo of this houseplant was taken in our home against a dark background.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning image. I would highly recommend denoising the background with a mask, but support regardless of the outcome. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 03:23:14 (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/Places/Settlements#Morocco
Info The old city of Taza is on a hillock. The new city on the plains below retains the traditional architecture of this semi-desert region: rectangular blocks, painted white and colours that blend with the scenery, and a prominent mosque. Note: No FPs of cities in Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very, very good. Excellent. I voted in favour thinking that you will correct the dust spots that I am going to point out to you. So far, I have seen four. One is right at the top of the sky above the street lamp that is next to the right-hand side of a restaurant called O'Belvedere. This restaurant is located at the right-hand edge of the image, almost at the bottom. I will try to locate the others for you.--Lmbuga (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot describe the others in words. If you wish, I can make notes on the image (approximate because it is a huge photograph).--Lmbuga (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Done @Lmbuga: Thanks for the review. Morocco is a dry, dusty region; while changing lenses in a mirrorless camera it is difficult to keep dust out. I've removed all the dust spots I could find and uploaded a new version. In case you see any more, please place a note on the image. --Tagooty (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see quite a few others in clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Done @Ikan Kekek: Thanks -- I've fixed several. Please see the latest version. --Tagooty (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I regret to say that there are a large number left, too many for me to try to mark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I found that the opacity setting in LR had inadvertently got reduced; this resulted in only partial removal of spots. I have increased opacity to 100% in all the spots and fine-tuned the removal where needed. Please see the new (final I hope) version. My apologies for the mistake the the extra effort it has caused you. --Tagooty (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see quite a few others in clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2025 at 01:48:23 (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/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info The Anzeiger-Hochhaus in Hanover – created and uploaded by T meltzer – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Symmetries always appeal to me. This one is beautifully executed. -- XRay 💬 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Side crop could be better. --Mile (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Is there some
chromatic aberration on the dome? --Wobbanight (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The thigh crop works here --Poco a poco (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Really nice chape and well-presented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support This is a place where tight cropping works well. Acroterion (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 23:34:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Leptodactylidae (Southern Frogs)
Info created by Alexander Abair – uploaded by Alexander Abair – nominated by User:Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment AA, there's no EXIF, can that be added? JayCubby (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have asked the photographer--Lmbuga (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have the EXIF data, but I don't know how to add it to the file page. Alexander Abair (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alexander Abair, see Template:Photo Information/doc. You could also overwrite the Commons file with the original. Cheers! JayCubby (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thank you. I've added EXIF data. Please let me know if any corrections need to be made. Alexander Abair (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alexander Abair, see Template:Photo Information/doc. You could also overwrite the Commons file with the original. Cheers! JayCubby (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexander Abair (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the metadata. JayCubby (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool, and a bit of a strange juxtaposition with a human finger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great picture, I almost nominated it myself! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow! And good quaity too! --C messier (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support An unusual subject and POV. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 20:51:01 (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 all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Kind of grainy. Probably opposing for FP but willing to hear an argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good imho despite some noise Юрий Д.К. 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 19:56:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Tunisia
Info created by Skander zarrad – uploaded by Skander zarrad – nominated by TOUMOU -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Good photo, may support, but it looks like there's a dust spot in a cloud top right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support But you should fix the dust spot. --C messier (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I do agree that there is FP potential here but I would only support with a more interesting lighting (golden hour?) Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose lighting subpar for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)}
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:41:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1930-1939
Info created by Fairfax Corporation – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Question This is not merely restored. Why did you choose to crop out a lot of the original photo and give this version a portrait orientation instead of the original landscape orientation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because you don't write on parts of the image that you intend to be part of the photo as cropped, so there's clear indications of the photographer's intent to crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: To give a bit more: This is a genre of photographs from the era when travelling by boat was common. Since passengers generally had to wait some time to disembark, newspapers would send photographers onto the ship to photograph anyone famous that was on it. This got you a chatty society article about all the people who were on the ship, and, if they did anything, you had a photograph for the paper. I believe that portable historical cameras generally were rather biased towards shooting in landscape. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the explanation, but you included some parts of the photo that had writing on them, cloning out the writing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, I'd like more insight into your specific choices of where to crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: My general rule is use the guides to see intent, but go a little more generous because this firstly maximises reuse potential, and secondly, it helps avoid historic usage from interfering with modern usage (If you look at an image marked for cropping, the crops can be exceedingly tight for newspaper use where the limited size of reproduction and low resolution of halftoning can make a huge difference. Reusers can make secondary crops, but these can only remove material, not add.
- I did consider adding more of the shoulder - the only cropped part in focus - but it made the image really unbalanced: There are certain rules for how portraits get cropped, and including all of the far shoulder at a one-quarter turn.... is not in line with them. To understand why, consider File:Learie Constantine 1930 03 - uncropped.png - the left (for the viewer) shoulder is three to four times the width of the right, vastly unbalancing the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks. I find myself agreeing with you on these matters of composition. I still think the file description should state more directly that part of the original has been cropped out and is not merely at different dimensions from the original, but it's ultimately probably clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I've clarified it a bit: put the original dimensions in the more standard width-by-height order, added a thumbnail of the uncropped original, and calculated the approximate dimensions of the crop on the image. Think that should clarify it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, I'd like more insight into your specific choices of where to crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the explanation, but you included some parts of the photo that had writing on them, cloning out the writing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ezarateesteban 17:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:31:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionidae#Genus : Iphiclides
Info One FP of the underside of this species which I have nominated for delisting. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good Sharp (in two ways) photo. Detail down to the scale can be seen. CJS, I tagged an area on the wing, is it a hot pixel or a reflection? JayCubby (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Done Some artefact, thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. JayCubby (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I was hoping more of the butterfly would be sharp at full size, but still good enough for FP and a nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Merely a fight between background vs DOF. But you had bonus to f/8-9. Interesting that camera put so much tolerance, i thought its Manual Exposure. --Mile (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I seldom use fully manual exposure. Not enough time! Here I would have selected 1/1250 shutter speed and auto ISO. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
File:Segelfalter04.JPG (delist)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:30:15
Info This was promoted with 6 positive votes and three negative. It would struggle at QI I beleive. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist also for procedural considerations. One of the ‘support’ voters, Idiot, was a one-day account (20 June 2008) which has been blocked only a few days later. Idiot’s contributions suggest to me that this user was just an alias of some long-time FPC regular – no real newbie makes 6 edits to their user page and then heads over to FPC voting. Idiot’s vote should have been deleted after the block and the votes on this nomination should have been re-counted. Of course the FPC rules of June 2008 were a bit different, they required only “[a]t least 5 supporting votes”, but they also required a “[r]atio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority)”, just as today. If we consider Idiot’s vote as invalid, we get 5 pro, 3 contra votes, so that the nomination does not reach the two-thirds majority. IMHO this candidate should be delisted also for that reason. – Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist --Wobbanight (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep 2008, sorry, in 2100, we're shit. Why do we need to declare that the above are not important?--Lmbuga (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Lmbuga, for the sake of the FPCBot, on delist nominations we don't use {{s}}. Please change your vote and use {{keep}} instead. For details, look at the rules at the top of the page. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Changed. Thank you. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Are we judging this by current-day standards? It's an interesting composition, though definitely not tack sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Delist This should not have been promoted anyway. Yann (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- True, and after all a good reason to
Delist . -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- +2.
Delist . --SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- +2.
- True, and after all a good reason to
Delist per Aristeas's argument. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Compared to other images in this category, this is a well-executed photograph. It is atmospheric and beautifully composed, even if the resolution is somewhat low by modern standards. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep FP for me Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 18:00:09 (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/Food_and_drink#Vegetables_(raw)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Lmbuga (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great level of detail. JayCubby (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support There are 3 existing FPs of romanesco broccoli. One is a great closeup, but the other two are more comparable to this one: File:Romanesco broccoli (Brassica oleracea).jpg and File:Fractal Broccoli.jpg. File:Romanesco broccoli (Brassica oleracea).jpg seems sharper and better to me, overall, but it's not a slam dunk, and this one does have great details and is of a different color, so I'll support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Would File:Fractal_Broccoli.jpg be a candidate for delisting? It seem's the author isn't a Commons user. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Already delisted in 2021. And the FP does not require a Commons/Wikipedian Author. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I didn't look carefully enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Already delisted in 2021. And the FP does not require a Commons/Wikipedian Author. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Would File:Fractal_Broccoli.jpg be a candidate for delisting? It seem's the author isn't a Commons user. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 17:12:02 (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/Food and drink#Nuts
Info created by Lmbuga – uploaded by Lmbuga – nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC).
Comment So many silent voices creating silent art to defend their lives. Sale of chestnuts from the Sofragal cooperative in Rúa Nova street. --Lmbuga (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice arrangement, beneficial soft light, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Each fiber is visible. Nicely lit as per Aristeas. chestnut blight is an interesting read. JayCubby (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great still life, good composition. --XRay 💬 22:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Beautiful image – Julian Lupyan (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 11:19:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Saarland
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Unlike most photos at FPC, this is a composition I can imagine trying to achieve (at lesser quality, of course) on my cellphone, but a lot of people wouldn't even notice it as a motif, though it's pretty. Thanks for noticing it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful composition and lovely colours. JackyM59 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Fine to me but the composition is too static (centered), I think the POV was not the best, the road is not a plus either. The subject is though nice. Poco a poco (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 20:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 09:09:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Animals
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice and nice composition. --Lmbuga (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Request Very nice photo, i will support. However, i can see some color residue. Can you convert it to pure black and white? -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do it tonight or tomorrow morning -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Thanks! -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do it tonight or tomorrow morning -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I prefer the version that wasn't in black and white.. I'm even considering withdrawing my vote.--Lmbuga (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- The original version (first file in history) was pure black and white as stated in the file description. With the second version in the file history I accidently introduced some colors in the image, which I fixed in the latest version. In any case you can't see the difference in colors in the thumbnail version of each file. The black and white presentation of this image serves a purpose: to better showcase the zebra stripes as I explain their role in the file description -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I prefer the version that wasn't in black and white.. I'm even considering withdrawing my vote.--Lmbuga (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Look at the detail reflected in the zebra's eye! JayCubby (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support That's really artistic! It would be natural to see this photo exhibited in a photography show in an art gallery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great image and composition. Please do a greyscale convertion! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek – Julian Lupyan (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The photo is reduced to a minimum and yet very expressive. However, it would be good if the categorization were better. -- XRay 💬 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Done categories added -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Something different Poco a poco (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zebras are such photogenic creatures, it's amazing. Wolverine X-eye 13:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support amazing. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 04:06:47 (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 Edward Lear – uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)- Interesting painting and a good but fairly small reproduction, considering the dimensions of the painting: 47 1/8 x 72 inches (119.7 x 182.9 cm). In view of that, this is a valuable VI/QI, but
Weak oppose for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 03:33:36 (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#China
Info all by 瑞丽江的河水.
Ganden Sumtseling Monastery is a Tibetan Buddhist monastery established in 1679, which is located in Shangri-La, Yunnan, China. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author.-- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support The composition and lighting are beautiful. --Wobbanight (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The photo is interesting, but I doubt it could be FP, especially with those plant spikes sticking out at the bottom. At least the ones on the left half of the photo could have been removed. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Despite what has been said, I find it impressive. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)- I'd prefer more generous crops left and right, but still,
Support for the photo, the buildings and the labeling. The bits of tree or shrub tops at the bottom of the picture plain are OK with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support—FradonStar (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support per IK. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 00:49:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info I love the use of light and shadows in this French street scene. created by Tournasol7 – uploaded by Tournasol7 – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Many shades of yellow JackyM59 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice presentation of oldtown -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It’s often quite difficult to take a representative photo of these charming lanes; this is an excellent example. – Aristeas (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. Also a nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful composition. The photo combines two contradictory things: restlessness (due to the many elements) and calm (due to the similar elements). -- XRay 💬 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2025 at 00:49:11 (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/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info Extremely high quality astrophotography from an amateur astronomer with an account on Commons. created by Cpayoub – uploaded by Cpayoub – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very dramatic. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 21:13:21 (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/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 21:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 21:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Intricate and interesting. JayCubby (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Sorry, why wov? --Lmbuga (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't that ultimately a matter of personal taste? --XRay 💬 08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I was just wondering if there was anything special about the artistic design of the door. --Lmbuga (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support
- I've always liked geometric shapes. Here, minimalism and geometry come together in an appealing color scheme. I find that quite special. --XRay 💬 12:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you, your opinion encourages me to value it. The Portuguese text ‘Mundial sapatarias’ is very charming, surprising and expressive. Provides context. Now I like it much more. And ‘wov’ for so many silent voices making art to defend their lives.--Lmbuga (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- What does wov stand for in this context? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 16:01:30 (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/Sports#Individual sports
Info A hiker on the last meters before reaching the summit of the Schneespitze in the Stubai Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the picture is very well done, especially the composition. Perhaps the view into the background could be improved a little, but I know such situations too, it's difficult. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 08:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Impressive. --Lmbuga (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment It's an impressive composition. Only the cross is fully in focus, but maybe that's deliberate and symbolic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 14:33:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Coscoroba
Info No FPs of this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasant composition and nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Pretty, but a bit too much sharpening here (incl. halos), Charles, I believe. Poco a poco (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 09:02:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by User:JackyM59 – uploaded by User:JackyM59 – nominated by JackyM59 -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but on the right, only a few pixels are missing to include the entire building in the image, as shown here. I think the composition would be better then, even if it's just about the lighthouse.--Milseburg (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that composition is better. Also, the sky is a bit noisy in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I cropped the photo to remove a tourist's hair. Here is a new version cropped to 16:9 with the entire abbey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyM59 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Full agreement now. --Milseburg (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better. I saw directly this new version, and I was not understanding the comments, indeed. Statisfactory composition, imho. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support For me, the compo is well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's not just noise that you see in the sky and the rest of the photo. Oversharpened IMO. The image lacks natural detail. --Lmbuga (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose As per Lmbuga, noise is a little high for me. I don't think a good composition of something stationary like this without great technical achievement is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose excessive noise for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 06:09:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
Info created by Sumit Surai – uploaded by Sumit Surai – nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I thought others might like this photo a lot. Nice fall colors, to be sure, but no great composition to me, though it has some makings of one and thus I understand why you nominated it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2025 at 02:32:23 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#India
Info created and uploaded by Arjunfotografer – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)- Beautiful composition, but the sky is noisy with disturbing artifacts and a large apparent dust spot behind the central spire. I'll probably have to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support @Ikan Kekek, Wobbanight, Arjunfotografer, pic was worth to save. I removed CA, noise, some black spot and bird? above-left. CA was quiet heavy, but angle was such (border). --Mile (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It's an FP now, but User:Arjunfotografer, do you approve of the edits? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Petar, great work! JayCubby (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Excellent perspective, beautiful building. Many thanks to Mile for the repair! Detail resolution etc. is not that great, details are a bit mushy, hence the ‘weak’. That’s not Mile’s fault, of course, the problems are already in the original version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Aristeas.Ermell (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 20:18:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#United_Kingdom
Info Surprised how few FPs we have of Buckingham Palace. The only one which shows the full exterior is this one. So figured I'd give this one a try, taken during the Captain's inspection (hence the band playing and the crowd watching). In trying to retain detail on the building, I overexposed the sky a bit, but I decided to embrace the intensity of it on an otherwise gray day. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Per the same reason I promoted this image to QI status. --Wobbanight 02:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too many people. Yann (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The blow highlights are excessive, in my view. In this case HDR imaging seems essential for the management of the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too much overexposure, too many people Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose QI, but not extraordinary. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco and thi. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 20:13:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Chroicocephalus
Info Black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) vocalizing in London. Debated nominating this one, which has maybe a little more detail, but I prefer to see it calling. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The other one has a cleaner background, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I really like this gull, but the blurred bird in the background is too distracting to me. Were it further to the right and more separated from this gull, I'd be fine with it. I'd support the other gull picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agree, background is killing the subject. Especially that blue. Compo could be better. --Mile (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 18:27:36 (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/Exteriors/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I didn't even know Bielefeld existed ;-) But seriously, it's a very beautiful portrait of the old town. The tree stands proudly in spring despite the bad weather, and the composition is very well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but neither subject/compo, nor lighting nor Detail are extraordinary in my eyes, Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 17:21:57 (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/Historical/People#1980-1989
Info created by Sheila Rock – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Unlike so many publicity photos, this was scanned from the original negative, which was, per Janke, from a Hasselblad (and for the record Adam, you work wonders with prints). Fantastic detail and lighting. JayCubby (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed an excellent reproduction of a well-done publicity photo. Comparison with the only other photo by Sheila Rock on Commons shows a quality difference like night and day. – Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 16:49:42 (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/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Rembrandt, scanned by Google Art Project, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info The Abduction of Europa (1632) is Rembrandt's rare mythological subject paintings.
Support Another notable painting in a huge resolution. No problem with the display even with 1423.52 Megapixels. This is the highest resolution offered by Google for this painting. -- Yann (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A gigapixel image, good levels. I can't say whether it's accurate to the original, but I trust it is. JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely ridiculous level of detail, but I suppose that could be useful to someone. The rest of us can just zoom in from full-page size according to our preferences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great painting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 15:21:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Animals
Info created and uploaded by Roy Egloff – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting photograph. JayCubby (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a very accurate piece of work, also in terms of the monochrome finish and the amusing image that accompanies it. --Syntaxys (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 02:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Extreme processing is a choice but why are some parts blurry in the foreground, supposed to be in focus, according to the depth of field? -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that's strange somehow. Perhaps it comes from some kind of motion blur caused by rotation of the head. August (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- To me, it looks like a quick movement of the mouth caused by chewing, but I'm also surprised that it wasn't captured sharply at 1/500 s. Nevertheless, I think this slight motion blur is beneficial to the image as a whole. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Info George's and my vote got deleted. Please restore. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Mistake edit by Анастасия Львова, fixed now -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how :( Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Mistake edit by Анастасия Львова, fixed now -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support----Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I look pretty much the same when I wake up in the morning.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Syntaxys. – Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:24:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Could the highlights be reduced any? JayCubby (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have a question: What highlights? The highlights have already been reduced to give the waterfall some structure. But there aren't really any other highlights anywhere. -- XRay 💬 15:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- At the top of the stairs. JayCubby (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are those really highlights? The part is brighter thanks to the sunny section, but that's about it. I'll take a look at it anyway. -- XRay 💬 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have a question: What highlights? The highlights have already been reduced to give the waterfall some structure. But there aren't really any other highlights anywhere. -- XRay 💬 15:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Done I made a few corrections to the image: (1) The highlights, especially at the end of the stairs, were reduced. (2) The perspective corrections were reduced because the photo gave a slightly skewed impression. However, the individual steps are set so differently that no clear line can be seen. -- XRay 💬 09:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support: Besser, thank you. JayCubby (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice scenery, impressive cascade. – Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:21:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Regulidae_(Kinglets)
Info A goldcrest (Regulus regulus) – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Could the twig above the beak be cloned out? JayCubby (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ahad.F (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure which twig Jay means, but it's a very good composition as it stands, so I would leave it alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! There is a small out of focus twig sticking out behind the beak. I personally avoid removing elements even if it would clean-up the image a tad. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice portrait of the bird, but the background at the beak is a bit distracting. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 13:19:22 (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/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Paridae_(Tits)
Info A crested tit (Lophophanes cristatus) – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good feather detail, interesting pose, and pretty lighting. JayCubby (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Jay. Some people may say this is a busy composition, but I like the complexity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 09:13:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deer)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: As you recommend I am nominating this image. -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice quality and composition -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice atmosphere. Is he used to humans, or did he bolt soon after? JayCubby (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ahad.F (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good composition and detail on the chital. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 08:49:00 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Iran
Info created by Abdolahimehr – uploaded by Abdolahimehr – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: heavy
perspective distortion, noised sky with moire, low quality overall -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive composition and great use of wide-angle view. --August (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Type of photo where talking about PD is senseles. Good for me. --Mile (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- What does PD mean in this context? Perspective distortion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Yes, since mentioned above. --Mile (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I would love to support this if at least some of the distortion is corrected, but the leaning building and wall is a bit much. JayCubby (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I’m sorry to see the opposing votes here, all of which focus on perspective distortion. From my point of view, this is a rare and outstanding example of the intentional artistic use of perspective distortion. It is a well-considered part of the composition and contributes significantly to the impression of extreme spaciousness in the depicted site. --August (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point about distortion. However, there are also quality issues in general. Look at the sky at 100% zoom. It's very noisy and has moiré. In my opinion, the quality is too low, as i mentored earlier in my vote. -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The birds make the difference. Yann (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It is over-processed in my view. For example the clouds around the arch look weird. Also the extreme distortions severely impact the proportions -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per George Chernilevsky & others. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose In my eyes intentional artistic use of perspective distortion isn't working here. --Milseburg (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment You have to experiment with everything, especially in photography. But in the vast majority of cases, it's not very satisfying.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per George. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 08:42:47 (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#Other ceilings
Info created by Hamidespanani – uploaded by Hamidespanani – nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. An interesting place, but many quality issues: very noisy in the shadows, looks unnatural. There's also a strong chromatic aberrations at the edges of highlights. -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's a very interesting image, but it's very difficult to get right. If you have the chance, try it several times; it's worth it. Never give up in photography. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per George. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2025 at 02:59:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1900-1909
Info created by the Kolb brothers – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support An interesting (suspenseful?) scene -- JayCubby (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)- Great photo, but maybe should be digitally restored for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've got it Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden, if you want the PSD, it's at https://files.catbox.moe/sgyer8.psd
- I don't use layers, and save my JPEGs at 100%, so it's not a huge deal either way. JayCubby (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've got it Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Meiræ 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 22:16:47 (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 : Lamiaceae
Info Close-up of a lavender flower. Stacked from 21 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent executed focus stack with crisp detail and beautiful light. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support That's just amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Question Do you know which lavender species this flower belongs to? This would add greater future utility. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure at all. The plant is in my garden and was bought at the garden center, but it's not an unusual type of lavender.--Ermell (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Like some bird species, there is a whole diverse taxonomy associated with lavender. Not sure but Google AI Plant ID suggests that this may be English lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), or more likely a hybrid known as Lavandin (Lavandula x intermedia).- Lavandin, sometimes referred to as French lavender; sometimes Dutch lavender (some disagreement there), is a sterile hybrid cross-over between English lavender (L. augusifolia) and Portuguese lavender (L. latifolia). It is found in many gardens (beautiful flowers; wonderful scent) and used commercially for lavender oil.
- The USDA “considers lavender as generally recognized as safe for human consumption” Inhaling when you smell this flower should be considered a safe practice 😊. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Seal of Support: superb stack! JayCubby (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Perfect! – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very well done! --Syntaxys (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 18:08:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Others
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Julian Lupyan – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Info I found this scene to be interesting, as it seems as though the entablature on the right is inspired by the much older one on the left. The whites being bright are a deliberate choice, as whitewashed buildings on a sunny day are rather blinding. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose You should document in that retouched template that it's a composite. The gate is unsharp and the rework around/near the right wall doesn't look good Poco a poco (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, would you mind clarifying where it is you're mentioning? The photo is not a composite, and retouching was only done within what would now be the sky mask (specifically the left side, above the older entablature). Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I have reworked the right wall as per Mile's advice (there was no rework prior). Would you mind specifying what you mean by "gate" so I can locally sharpen it? Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I mean the left side of the image. Even if it would be sharp this is no FP to me. I don't understand what is extraordinary here. Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp, strong distorrted -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good showing of Architecture, i would try to remove that wire.--Mile (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 23:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 17:33:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science#Science
Info created by Phillipe Rekacewicz – uploaded by User:RedAndr – nominated by Prototyperspective -- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support High-quality, important, heavily-used, and educational.-- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support. Only 250k, which is impressive for an SVG of this complexity. JayCubby (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 23:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral no wow factor for me, though maybe that's because I've seen this diagram way too many times. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2025 at 01:54:22 (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/Places/Cemeteries#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by MuhammadAmdadHossain – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Found here--imo of all images, this with the nun clad in the iconic white cotton sari conveys its unique south Asian context the best. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, this is one of my favourite photos from Wiki Loves Folklore. I am impressed by the deep devotion and the picturesque grave decorations in the images from All Souls’ Day in Bangladesh. IMHO the quality is really good when we consider the difficult circumstances – extreme contrast between burning candles and dark shadows in this night scene, and the people were moving. – Aristeas (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The image convinces me with its thoughtful use of light and its calm, well-balanced composition under challenging conditions. The subtle details in the candlelight and the quiet focus of the scene make it exceptionally compelling. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely, moving photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 21:18:09 (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/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Great egret fishing during a foggy day at Champ-Pittet, Switzerland. Exceptional weather circumstances with no wind and the presence of fog were needed to take this picture. The absence of wind allowed to have a perfect water reflection while the presence of fog allowed to have perfect colorless clean water instead of having the sky and vegetation reflecting their colors in the water. Image rotated 90 degrees to the left to better highlight the bird's perspective and the reflection on the water's surface.
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support In striking detail. Reminds me of POTY 2020, and will have my vote at POTY 2025! Incredible capture. Do you use a polarizing filter to eliminate reflections? JayCubby (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated! No polarizing filter was used, I just took advantage of the fog which allowed to have no sky and no vegetation reflecting in the water :) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cool!!! Je-str (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely amazing Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Award worthy shot here. --Polinova (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding image --Tagooty (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great decision turning it into landscape orientation. --August (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 18:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral This is an exceptional image but rotating it 90 degrees seems unnecessary and overly contrived. IMO right-side up would relieve the viewer from wondering what’s going on and bring better focus on the action of the bird. Also suggest cropping a little tighter (marked with note) to center the strike. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review but I honestly think that the current rotation fits the image better. From the very beginning (in 2021) I've orientated the image this way because it looked a lot better to me and also because it gave a very original artistic touch to the image as these almost unreal weather conditions can make it look like the subject is floating in the void and opening a portal to another world. Before uploading this to Wikimedia Commons I've spend a lot of time thinking if I would keep my original orientation or rotate it back to "normal" view. Every time I compared both images side by side, the current version looked like a 10/10 while the other only looked like a 7/10 to my eyes. To me it is only with this current rotation that we can truly enjoy the beauty of the reflection at it fullest because it is much more pleasant to compare the subject and the reflection by comparing left to right instead of comparing it top to bottom. Also I very much like the way this orientation is much more immersive as it gives us the bird's perspective. Finally, I think photography is also about proposing unusual perspective and surprising the viewer, making him look the image more than just a second to figure out what is going on. And it is anyway not hard to figure it out and in case people wouldn't, it is clearly written in the image description. So thank you for the suggestion but I stand by my rotation choice -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per GRDN711. -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Very creative and artistic. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Creative shot. But i agree more tight crop would be beter. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Done, new file uploaded with slightly tighter crop -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Excellent. Thank you for rotating the image! It’s always good to challenge our visual habits a bit ;–) as long as the change serves a good purpose – and here it does, IMHO it is a substantial aesthetic improvement. – Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral per GRDN711. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Strong support POTY 2025! --Wobbanight (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support With an artistic flame but great Poco a poco (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2025 at 17:17:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Brazil
Info created by Editorial J from Porto Alegre, Brasil – uploaded by Sturm – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Lovely mood and good composition, however it is quite noisy near the bottom. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I understand why you nominated it: the leaves are beautifully lit. However, the overall composition is not outstanding to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, I can't find anything exceptional. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ohh of course. Unless it was a tree in Berlin uh... heylenny (talk/edits) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I like the comp, but there is a bit of noise at the bottom, and the lighting doesn't help. --Wobbanight (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 19:15:01 (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 : Poaceae
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice to see something submitted for pure artistic value Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A beautiful and atmospheric image. However, this subject could be dangerous for a mirrorless camera. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 21:31:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Uzbekistan
Info Small Dome of Devonaboy mosque, Andijan. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment A very detailed image with a clean and clear composition. But I would strongly suggest, cropping the left symmetrically with the right side. --August (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @August --Mile (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Thank you. But what becomes obvious now is, that the camera was not centred exactely so the perspective itself is not symetrical. So unfortunately, I think this can't be fixed in post. --August (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The lack of symmetry is a dealbreaker for me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great picture. The lack of symmetry is not a dealbreaker for me. It does cause some tension, which I hope is intentional, but regardless, this is a very clear picture of a wonderful dome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. I like the slight imbalance in lighting. JayCubby (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support because this is so close to symmetrical that the asymmetry doesn't look intentional and thus I do see it as a flaw; however, quality and motif is very good Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose as per Cmao20 - Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 16:05:02 (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/Places/Architecture/Bridges#China
Info all by 瑞丽江的河水. Double Dragon Bridge in Jianshui County, Yunnan, China, is a masterpiece of ancient Chinese bridge architecture. It was originally built as a 3-arch bridge in the 18th century and was expanded into a 17-arch bridge in 1839. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- At last again a photo from China! Je-str (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear photo of a striking bridge. If you know the year of construction, please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: it's fine that it's not ancient; I'm just telling you how I use that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have wrote the article: en:Double Dragon Bridge. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: it's fine that it's not ancient; I'm just telling you how I use that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The desturbing twig at the right corner should be cloned out.--Ermell (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the suggestion. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kcx36 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's a nice building but the right crop is unfortunate, the main element is too centered and the main subject mostly in shadow, Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I have cloned the crop out, hope this version increases the score. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better now and FP in my eyes.--Ermell (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support A fascinating subject captured under pleasant golden light and with an elegant composition. Well done. Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --PexEric (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 11:12:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Galaxies
Info The horizontal and vertical field of view is 212°, which corresponds to the target region of the astronomical survey. An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular).
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tk833 -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support High level, high valuable picture, and very nice, also. Thanks for this and the others. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image is not circular, though: it's cropped on at least 3 sides. Is it possible to uncrop it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. However, the purpose of this image is to show the entire target region (and not to satisfy an ideal of beauty). That’s why the field of view is 212° (see the comment above). On the other hand, I did not want to throw away the additional border where data with reduced quality are available. (Cropping this border would also result in a round image.)
- Also note that the purpose of the astronomical survey is not to make pretty pictures. Tk833 (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely noted. But then why do you say "An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular)"? You mean one side was not cropped? It doesn't make the image circular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I
Support, and I think everyone else should, too, but I don't think your description is clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC) - The region for which data is usable is approximately 214°. Because the field of view in the horizontal and vertical directions is 212°, about 1° of data (usable but not relevant) is cropped on all four edges. (It is possible that we misunderstand each other because our objectives appear to be completely different.) Tk833 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I understand this, but it's not what you posted in "Info" above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I
- Definitely noted. But then why do you say "An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular)"? You mean one side was not cropped? It doesn't make the image circular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive and unique view. --C messier (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:05:34 (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 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Lovely composition, but lacking in detail. The loco on right is blurry, the vegetation very blurry. Surprising given the high-end camera. Is a better version available? --Tagooty (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a Hasselblad, but I've often wondered how the best aerial cameras compare with the ones landscape photographers use on land? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Don't read too much into the Hasselblad name. They may have been involved in the development but the camera itself is a cheap plastic thing with poor quality control (seriously, this is my second Mavic 3, the first one was worse). DJI only cares about video quality and for 4K their cameras are good enough, while their photo quality is mediocre at best. Nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Reluctantly
Oppose for my reasons above. --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Reluctantly
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The 'Hasselblad' in DJI drones is in name only (see also what happened to RadioShack, Invicta, etc). It's not every day that nuclear fuel is schlepped around, and taken as a whole it's a pretty and interesting scene. JayCubby (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Question for Kabelleger: Did you happen to get lucky with spotting a cask-bearing train, or was it published in advance? JayCubby (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- These trains are published just like all other freight trains on https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk (and some alternative sites), however you typically only know up to ~12h (often less) in advance if the train is actually running (there are many planned paths for these trains but >90% end up unused) and you need to "read between the lines" to figure out if it is likely to be a nuclear transport (good hints are if it starts or ends at Sellafield, Carlisle Kingmoor or Georgemas Junction, there certainly are other relevant stations I'm not aware of). And of course it might run early or late. So there is some information but it's not entirely straight-forward. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support The image quality is not great, but as always with Kabelleger's shots it is a special capture that must have required a lot of forward planning, and in this case I am very impressed by both composition and light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 17:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 04 Dec → Tue 09 Dec Fri 05 Dec → Wed 10 Dec Sat 06 Dec → Thu 11 Dec Sun 07 Dec → Fri 12 Dec Mon 08 Dec → Sat 13 Dec Tue 09 Dec → Sun 14 Dec
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 30 Nov → Tue 09 Dec Mon 01 Dec → Wed 10 Dec Tue 02 Dec → Thu 11 Dec Wed 03 Dec → Fri 12 Dec Thu 04 Dec → Sat 13 Dec Fri 05 Dec → Sun 14 Dec Sat 06 Dec → Mon 15 Dec Sun 07 Dec → Tue 16 Dec Mon 08 Dec → Wed 17 Dec Tue 09 Dec → Thu 18 Dec
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag featured or not featured – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the com-nom parameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:
== Set Promoted to FP ==
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}}, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with {{Assessments|featured=2}}.
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological list.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

