Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Image:KleinerBlaupfeilKreta1.JPG - not featured[edit]

Orthetrum coerulescens 

2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg - featured[edit]

Baby Weddell Seal 

15 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aphrodite (genitalia).jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beech forest Mátra in winter.jpg featured[edit]

Short description

✓ Done Geocode added. – Susulyka 12:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Perspective dans le parc de Bercy.jpg - not featured[edit]

Les Parterres in the Bercy gardens of Paris (France) 

3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snipe-fly Rhagio scolopaceus copulation.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

It's a paradox .. as more clouds you have the light goes better .. slight rain is perfect --12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Danke --Richard Bartz 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tanzfliege Dance fly.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moraine Lake-Banff NP.JPG - not featured[edit]

turquiose Moraine Lake in Banff NP 

5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Llama de Bolivia (pixinn.net).jpg[edit]

A llama in southern Bolivia Edit

Original - not featured[edit]

5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured[edit]

How about the edit? Barabas 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blatt Rotbuche.JPG - not featured[edit]

Blatt einer Rotbuche

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 11:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

 Support Please sign your vote -- Alvesgaspar 01:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notocactus minimus.jpg - featured[edit]

Notocactus minimus 

11 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apollo 11 launch.jpg - not featured[edit]

Apollo 11 launch framed by American flag. 

3 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gemeine Skorpionsfliege Panorpa communis 2.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

No :-) i tried a few times but there must be a compression on commons when uploading, looks fine before uploading --Richard Bartz 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if you download the full size image from commons and compare it side by side with the one you uploaded they differ ? Sounds weird, why would there be any recompression of the images ? Do anyone know any more about that ? Did you view them in the same program, perhaps it might be a browser vs other image viewer difference rather than a difference in the file itself. /Daniel78 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Folio from a Koran (8th-9th century).jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

Is this momentous matter? This manuscript is in Kufic script and translation of that is difficult, and there is no more information about this page in the source. These is less than 20 words and may be not a complete sentence • Rohan T 10:45, 25 May 2008
That is a part of Sura:9, Verse:33 (and 32). I add it to file description • Rohan T 11:01, 25 May 2008
Just curiosity, thanks for the attempt. Lycaon 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nop. and your vote? • Rohan T 11:14, 25 May 2008
7 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasp May 2008-11.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

17 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nest of Ardea herodias .jpg - not featured[edit]

Great Blue Heron Nest 

2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:When you notice the stripes.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nace neckline

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small, much < 2megapixels - Peripitus 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blue starfish in Papua New Guinea.jpg - not featured[edit]

Blue Starfish 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nest of Ardea herodias .jpg - not featured[edit]

Great Blue Heron Nest 

2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mimicry of Siphanta acuta.jpg[edit]

Mimicry Mimicry Mimicry

Original - not featured[edit]

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured[edit]

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 - not featured[edit]

2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Sun Sets on Château de Chillon.jpg - not featured[edit]

w:Château de Chillon

That's a bold statement for a first ever Commons contribution. Welcome :) Mfield 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Preservewildlifeb.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LeopardMothBlueSpots.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description Short description

Original - not featured[edit]

10 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (Edit2 featured)-- Alvesgaspar 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1[edit]

0 support, 1 oppose >> Nomination withdrawn, not featured  --Richard Bartz 08:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 - featured[edit]

13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A praying mantis in Kona.jpg[edit]

Tenodera aridifolia sinensis in KonaTenodera aridifolia sinensis in Kona

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Thank you for your question and for the kind words. I tried to correct the problems, but I am not good with a photo shop. If somebody willing to give it a try with the original image, please let me know and I'll upload the original one. Thank you.--Mbz1 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 - not featured[edit]

 Info - Please use FOUR (4) equal signs to create the sub-section, not 3! -- Alvesgaspar 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

4 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cockchafer at the spring.JPG - not featured[edit]

Cockchafer sits on Dandelion

  • This photo supermakrosemkoy May bugs, which sits on listike dandelion. We see all the details of the structure as the May beetle (eyes and antennae) and dandelion. Rate it! Increase can be up to 100%, the quality will not become worse. Канопус Киля 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{FPX|out of focus - Alvesgaspar 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply] 

1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Platanthera bifolia (flower).jpg - featured[edit]

Platanthera bifolia

Is Crapload vote??? --Böhringer 08:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There are so many better flower images that get trashed here. This is one is pretty busy in combination with rather poor contrast. A different lighting choice might have changed my vote. -- Ram-Man 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I wonder if you considered that this is a rare (on the A-list of protected plants in Belgium) wild orchid and not some six-of-one bred variety from a garden next door (I drive 450 km after work to go take pictures)? They moreover only flower for a couple of weeks each year. I've seen pictures of rare phenomena pass here without the least concern about quality. Lycaon 05:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had not considered the rarity of the image. Personally I only rarely take into account such issues anyway. In the case of flowers, there is no compelling reason why we should favor a particular flower over another, so just because it is rare does not mean we lessen the standards. Many plants flower during a very narrow window, and rarity or difficulty to get to the subject does not change the ability to take the picture itself. In many of the other rare pictures the subject matter itself causes the pictures to be difficult. This is an important distinction I think. By no means do I think it is a bad picture, only just not quite enough for a featured picture. I have and will take pictures of rare plants, but that doesn't mean they deserve special treatment. -- Ram-Man 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support JukoFF 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Until a positive identification can be made. Is this Platanthera bifolia or is this a Platanthera chlorantha? (see the dispute -- carol (tomes) 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gasteracantha mammosa spiderlings next to their eggs capsule.jpg[edit]

spiderlingsspiderlingsspiderlings

Original - not featured[edit]

The discussion is moved to here --Mbz1 05:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 - not featured[edit]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 - not featured[edit]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ardea herodias at the nest 11.jpg not featured[edit]

Great Blue Heron mest 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cvs122ani.gif - not featured[edit]

Animation of a missed landing on a centreline flight deck

  •  Comment The way the two planes on the right rotate during the crash is weird. Shouldn't the top plane rotate counter-clockwise and the bottom plane clockwise? --norro 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blutzikade Cercopis vulnerata.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 12 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuestenwache vor Prerow 001.jpg - not featured[edit]

German customs ship 

 9 support, 8 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shiskin - The Forest Clearing.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

 3 support, 0 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corals sea worms.JPG - not featured[edit]

The Christmas tree worms 

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun flower sea star in tide pools.jpg - not featured[edit]

Sun flower sea star 

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bug on grass.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

I like green :-) --Richard Bartz 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something more like ? -- 67.180.38.172 04:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice, but just one nitpicking thing. Could it be renamed to soldier beetle on grass or something, since it isn't actually a bug. Sorry if that seems to be really anal. Chris_huh 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 14 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plachetnice Rhodos.jpg[edit]

Medieval city Rhodes on Rhodes Island Medieval city Rhodes on Rhodes Island

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Thanks for licence warning (and suppost, of course). I was practically sure, that I gave there Pd-self, but.... Probably starting demencia senillis>--Karelj 
 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon fix, not featured[edit]

4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Ö 09:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Artis black crowned crane2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Balearica pavonina Black Crowned Crane

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unfocussed, badly copped and noisy. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 11:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Dubai Towers Sun.jpg- not featured[edit]


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: underexposed, too noisy, distorted and has blown highlights and chromatic aberration. MER-C 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Hdd 80GB IBM 2.jpg- not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sufficiently in focus, especially for a studio shot Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Park of the Festetics Castle.jpg- not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sufficiently well-composed, and has intrusive shadows. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Sun flower sea star in tide pools.jpg - not featured[edit]

Sun flower sea star 

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corals sea worms.JPG - not featured[edit]

The Christmas tree worms 

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shiskin - The Forest Clearing.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

 3 support, 0 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuestenwache vor Prerow 001.jpg - not featured[edit]

German customs ship 

 9 support, 8 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cvs122ani.gif - not featured[edit]

Animation of a missed landing on a centreline flight deck

  •  Comment The way the two planes on the right rotate during the crash is weird. Shouldn't the top plane rotate counter-clockwise and the bottom plane clockwise? --norro 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ardea herodias at the nest 11.jpg not featured[edit]

Great Blue Heron mest 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gasteracantha mammosa spiderlings next to their eggs capsule.jpg[edit]

spiderlingsspiderlingsspiderlings

Original - not featured[edit]

The discussion is moved to here --Mbz1 05:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 - not featured[edit]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 - not featured[edit]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cockchafer at the spring.JPG - not featured[edit]

Cockchafer sits on Dandelion

  • This photo supermakrosemkoy May bugs, which sits on listike dandelion. We see all the details of the structure as the May beetle (eyes and antennae) and dandelion. Rate it! Increase can be up to 100%, the quality will not become worse. Канопус Киля 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{FPX|out of focus - Alvesgaspar 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply] 

1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A praying mantis in Kona.jpg[edit]

Tenodera aridifolia sinensis in KonaTenodera aridifolia sinensis in Kona

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Thank you for your question and for the kind words. I tried to correct the problems, but I am not good with a photo shop. If somebody willing to give it a try with the original image, please let me know and I'll upload the original one. Thank you.--Mbz1 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 - not featured[edit]

 Info - Please use FOUR (4) equal signs to create the sub-section, not 3! -- Alvesgaspar 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

4 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Preservewildlifeb.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Sun Sets on Château de Chillon.jpg - not featured[edit]

w:Château de Chillon

That's a bold statement for a first ever Commons contribution. Welcome :) Mfield 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SpringWaterSplash.jpg - not featured[edit]

Spring water from the melting ice of a lake. 

3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denoised version (right), not featured[edit]

  •  Support I very rarely nominate my own images, but I really like this one. This is a noise reduced version of the original nomination. About the high ISO, in this case it was needed to freeze the action, this was in strong sunlight at 1/8000 s. About the cropping, perhaps but I am not sure what a better crop is, please enlighten me if you have any ideas. About Kareljs questions: From Where: The melting ice of a lake. Why: because of gravity and temperatures above 0°C. :) /Daniel78 23:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it too. It looks really interesting in the full resolution.--Mbz1 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition is not strong enough. --MichaelMaggs 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info - Please put the pictures side by side and open a sub-section, using 4 equal signs instead of 3 -- Alvesgaspar 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Ö 09:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GradDornava1.JPG[edit]

Dornava castle near Ptuj, Slovenia. Edit 1.

Original - not featured[edit]

4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured

Edit 1 - not featured[edit]

3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Ö 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Green Flash in Santa Cruz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Green Flash

  • I feel sorry for you that you were not impressed by the image, but I'm very glad that you were able to learn something new. It was the idea: Let the image to stay here for few days that more people could learn something new. Thank you for letting me know you did. My time was not wasted!--Mbz1 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose because of quality. I'd add the size exceeds the requirement, but not the resolution. Benh 06:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - This picture was nominated in March 2008 and the old nomination section is now destroyed by the new one. Could you please roll everything back and create a fresh one with another name? Not a good idea to kill the reviewing history! -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What an amazing coincidence. I just went to check on my e-mail and found this:
    Hello,
    You were in contact with my colleague Khedidja Sdouga in 2006 then in 2007 about green flash images.
    The french scientific book will be at last printed in june 2008 (we had some technicals problems). Yes !
    I’ll mention “© 2006 Lyudmila Zinkova
    (http://home.comcast.net/~milazinkova/Fogshadow.html)” except if your web site had changed.
    I get back to you because I don’t have your mail address to send you the book when it will be printed.
    Thank you
    Sophie Leonard
    BTW my green flash image was also published in Coelum Astronomia in November 2006 and in Oregonian news paper. But why am I telling you all this? To soften your hearts to the image? Hardly. I know that here at Wikipedia Encyclopedia the most important thing is the quality of the image and of course the quality of the image is really bad. After all it is only one of the best images of green flashes ever photographed --Mbz1 13:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not because my heart can't be softened ;-), not because of the value of the image (it is a good picture of a rather rare phenomenon), but because we have to follow the rules for featured pictures that we have set ourselves. Yes value is important, but yes image quality is too. You can't bypass one or the other. Mitigation only goes that far. I know you do not really like opposes (nobody does), but I think you are just testing us again and again, not to soften our hearts, but to soften the rules. Most often your images are special and/or rare, but you don't seem to want to take the quality factor into account. Fp's are a nice recognition but not the only aim of uploading to Commons (Less than 2.5% of the 800 images I have on my gallery have reached FP status so far, and several have failed trying). Lycaon 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lycaon, I 'm not trying to "soften the rules", I am trying to enforce them. Remember "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I know I have no chance to succeed in enforcing that rulles not as long as a Marine Biologist opposes an underwater image taken under Antarctic ice anyway :=)--Mbz1 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess at that point it is about time to add FPX template ;-). Could somebody do it for me please? MichaelMaggs, maybe you could do it?. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For me it is clearly a featurable picture for it is the best I have ever seen of such a rare phenomenon that is not easy to snap because of the special dawn light and short duration conditions. According to the usual standards of course it is not a quality image but why should it be a problem for a FP not to be a QI : requirements are not the same. FP is not just a QI+. --B.navez 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ah this time I was able to vote before it was withdrawn :) I do not think the quality problems are that bad. /Daniel78 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mihael Simonic 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I can't understand why the quality is so poor. Where is the Exif file? -- Alvesgaspar 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really want to know why the quality is so poor, I'll tell you why, but let's keep it between the two of us. OK? :=) You can't understand why the quality is so poor because the quality is great. I mean it. Green flash photo, which shows not overexposed green flash and nor really dark flash, but reall y green one and some colors at the sky and the ocean at the same time are very, very rare. Most of the time the sky would be almost black and no ocean would be seen in order to get green color of the flash. Here's the story about taking of the image and here's the original file with the data you asked for: Image:Green flash in santa cruz original.JPG. Thank you.--Mbz1 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice capture of a difficult and rare subject. --Dori - Talk 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you seen the photographer is the same person and this selected picture is the best of the series ? --B.navez 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral >> not featured -- Ö 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pavone 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

A Blue Peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) showing the train at Pistoia's Zoological Garden, Italy 

4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Ö 09:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03.jpg[edit]

Veli Antti Hyyrynen Veli Antti Hyyrynen

Original, not featured[edit]

There are a few versions of him at the band-gallery, but the better one with feet (Image:Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 02.jpg) does not really show his face that way because of the grimace he makes and also the light (the edge of his face is overexposed). -- Cecil 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support >> not featured -- Ö 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduced version, featured[edit]

Oops, sorry about that. Lycaon 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned the camera (lense, ...) before the concert and it's a digital image, so it has to be stuff in the air. They didn't use a fog machine, but the band before them used it a lot, and the stage are wasn't the cleanest place anyway. -- Cecil 10:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I  Support. --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I get any details about the problem? How should I make better pictures with that more than general feedback? -- Cecil 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem. I am just spoiled with this image. Taken by a pro, though. On the technical side highlights are overexposed, especially noticeably on his right arm. But that was not a factor in my decision. Crapload 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral >> featured --Ö 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SMP May 2008-3.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description

Original (left), not featured[edit]

3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured --Ö 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (right) - not featured[edit]

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Contre-jour SMP May 2008-1BW.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral >> not featured --Ö 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Green flash 02-09-08.jpg, not featured[edit]

...

{{FPX|too small. – flamurai 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

  •  Support Even in a bad dream I would not have nominated the image myself. No, no, no - too small, but as long as somebody else, who for sure knows what he's doing :=), nominatet it... Let's talk about the image size. As a ,matter of fact the size of the image hardly matters in this situation. The image shows what it should show : a very complex mock Mirage of tge setting sun, Green flash and just a litlle bit of sunset colors. Everything else is black (could not be otherwise because, if it were not black, both the sun and green flash would have been overxposed). It is a common sense, but I'm sure it will fail to the RULLS:-). Thank you.--
  •  Oppose - The image is too small, and the actual quality of the image is low. I appreciate that green flashes are rare, but they still do occur, so it is perfectly possible for a higher resolution/quality image to be made. Chris_huh 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, the image was taken with a higher resolution and as I explained it was all black execpt what is shown at the crop, but whatever...The rulls are the the rulls aren't they? Thank you.--Mbz1 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that an image like this may not necessarily gain from a higher resolution but then again it could do. I didn't realise that you had cropped off black around the edge of the image. The rules are more guidelines (from what i gather) but this is considerably lower than the minimum resolution. Even if the size was fine i would still oppose as the image is blurry and i am sure a higher quality image could be taken. You said yourself that you wouldn't dream of nominating it, so why support it if you don't think it could be FP. Chris_huh 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your very good questions,Chris_huh. First-of-all I'd like to agree with you that a better, maybe even much better image could be taken (this statement is correct for almost all subjects) with the use of a telescope, for example. The question is, if we should wait for somebody to take a better image and upload it with a free lisence. I cannot agree that the image is blurry. Remeber, the image is of mirage and in order to see the mirage there should be something in the atmosphere, something that makes image look as it does, not blurry, but rather floating. It is hard to explain to people, who have never seen mock mirage of the setting sun in a real life, but it is absolutely amazing to watch! Yes,I said that I wouldn't dream of nominating it, but not because I do not think that the image cannot be FP (I think it could), but rather because after cooking in this FP nomination kitchen for a year or so I know what will follow after such a nominatin. I'd also like to explain to you why I supported the image - the only reason is to introduce an amazing phenomena of a green flash and mirage to as many Wikipedia readers as possible. Let's see. How many people know about green flashes? If one has never heard about a green flash, how he would ever find the article about green flash. On the other hand, if the image is an FP and displayed at the Main Page, one could find it by a pure accident and maybe one day see a green flash on his own. I hope I answered your question, but please feel free to ask me, if you have some more. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe blurry was the wrong word, obviously mirages aren't pin sharp, but there appears to have artifacts (maybe thats a better word, i don't know) which make the image appear less smooth, if you understand me. Also, this is Commons so the image itself is more important than its encyclopeadic content, whereas Wikipedia puts a high importance on the images subject and its encyclopaedic content, so maybe this would be a better nomination there. ANother way would be to try to improve the Green flash article so that gets on the homepage of wikipedia. Chris_huh 15:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think I could agree with the statement: "Also, this is Commons so the image itself is more important than its encyclopeadic content" The Guidelines for nominators states just the opposite: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others.". I did try to nominate few mirage images at Wikipedia with no sucess. As I said earlier, it is hard to explain a mirage to one, who's never seen it in a real life. The Wikipedia voters also complained about image quality. Once it was realy funny. I challenged the reviewers to find a better image of sunset mirage anywhere at the NET. user Pengo accepted my challenge. In few days he posted a link to a "better" sunset mirage image. In his introduction to the link he wrote:"shooting the sun is difficult, but you can get better results than this one. Here's a link to a photo coincidently taken with the same camera, which I found because you posed the challenge", and here my respond:" Hi, Pengo, Thank you for taking on my challenge. By the way the photo you pointed out is not only coincidently taken by the same camera, but it is also just coincidently is taken by the same photographer (by me), and just because it is taken by me and not by someone else, I'll tell that the picture is much worse than the one posted here not because of the quality, but because the mirage was not so complex." So you see sometimes it gets really funny. It is a good idea to improve the green flash article. I cannot do it myself (not nearly enough knoledge about very, very coplex phenomena and not nearly enough English). I did ask the best green flash specialist Andy Young, if he's willing to work at the article, and he said that there's no use to put lots of work in writing the article, which could be changed by anybody, hwo has not a slightest idea what he's doing. I believe Andy is right.BTW may I please ask you, if you've seen another nomination of a different type of green flash few nominations down, and if you're interested in voting or commenting on the image? Thank you. --Mbz1 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only half the guidelines though... FP: Value + aesthetics; VI: Value only; QI: Aesthetics only. FP is for the most exceptional images on Commons. Personally, I only support images that show a professional level of mastery. Resolution is part of that. You would not be able to sell this image to many publications because at 300dpi, it would be about the size of a credit card. – flamurai 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment, Flamurai. I do not sell my images, I give them away for free and they are published all over the world and all over the NET--Mbz1 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured --Ö 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image:Valletta-view-from-senglea.jpg, not featured[edit]

Valletta southern coast 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kid girl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moringa moth.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roof hafez tomb.jpg, featured[edit]

Ceramic ceiling decorating the roof of persian poet Hafez at Shiraz, Iran 

result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-eyed Tree Frog - Litoria chloris edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Red-eyed Tree Frog 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lubber.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cuzco-Pano edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Cuzco, Peru 

result: 8 support,2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amsterdam Canals - July 2006.jpg, featured[edit]

Canal in Amsterdam 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NM interior 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Interior on National Museum in Prague 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Real bug.png, not featured[edit]

line drawing of a classic bug

Weird. Can't obviously see how to fix that. --MichaelMaggs 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ayutthaya Thailand 2004.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acanthochondria cornuta on flounder.jpg, not featured[edit]

Acanthochondria cornuta on flounder Acanthochondria cornuta on flounder

Original, not featured[edit]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

I have fixed this. --MichaelMaggs 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PlatycryptusUndatusFemale.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Total internal reflection of Chelonia mydas .jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • not that soon :) (but I'd give it a try if I had opportunity). I was wondering if you used some kind of box with your DSLR or not. Benh 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apis mellifera carnica female.jpg, not featured[edit]

Apis mellifera carnica 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FraxernVlbg1.JPG, featured[edit]

Spring in Vorarlberg

Can you explain why not? --MichaelMaggs 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason as here I assume... --Aqwis 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Atlanta may 08 033.jpg, not featured[edit]

Midtown Atlanta Night Modified version

Original, not featured[edit]

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albours 2008 may.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mount Elbrus, Russia

Original, not featured[edit]

result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:573px-Fred and Ginger from the Front2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Looking at the original, Image:Fred and Ginger from the Front.jpg I much prefer this version which has enhanced saturation allowing for better colour quality. Mangwanani 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that category. Suggest your desired image is nominated instead of this then? Mangwanani 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is an important building, I'm not sure. At least not without edit, the black frame should be removed, there is also a watermark in the lover left corner. Haros 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case take a look at this: Image:PG07ME957 edit.jpg Mangwanani 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted - not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Haflinger Fohlen 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Haflinger Foals 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Vertical Caterpillar 2000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Monarch caterpillar

And you still think that there should be only one single FP of a specific species? Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to remove this nomination or to nominate the other "version" for delisting. I hope you changed your mind about having only one FP per species. :-) --AngMoKio 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my statement. I do not think there should only be one FP per species and never had. I do not think their should be FPs of the same subject. This image has both a different pose and it shows a different part of the plant. In fact, this is a good plant example in addition to a caterpillar picture. The line between similar and non-similar is not always clear, but this isn't the same exact caterpillar either. -- Ram-Man 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..and what is your statement about the already existing FP of that species? I hope soon I can convince you that allowing only one FP per species is not a good idea. :-) --AngMoKio 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg, featured[edit]

Puffer Fish

  • May I please ask, if by any chance you've noticed that it is ONE-OF-A-KIND picture of common fish or maybe you saw few other like that?--Mbz1 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every picture is one-of-a-kind, you're arguments don't cut wood. Underwater pictures, meteo stuff, etc are no different from insects, historical buildings or boats. A bad quality image of a rare phenomenon/organism/situation is still a bad quality image, and why should commons ridicule itself by putting bad quality on its front page? Lycaon 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because when most people look at an image on the front page like this, they are not likely thinking "wow the technical quality is low", they are thinking "wow, this is such a cute picture, I wish I could get shots like that". If you want technically high images, we have a whole collection of QIs which we could display on the front page if quality was our main goal. -- Ram-Man 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of technical quality that we should be looking for. --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This photograph is so remenescent of an ultrasound of one my friend and her baby, an image that was the only one of those I ever saw that actually had the appearance of perhaps being something. I am sorry that the fin is not in the frame. Do these fishes and crustaceans and things tell you their names before they kiss your camera? -- carol (tomes) 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment, Carol. No he did not tell me his name, but he told me: "Enjoy me yourself. Do not be silly, do not nominate the image at FP". I should have listen. :=)--Mbz1 13:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason of the nomination is to introduce a new underwater organism to FP collection of the same bees and the same birds. IMO there's no nearly enough underwater images in FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a rhetoric question, but back to more serious note IMO commons ridicule itself by posting images of absolutely the same birds and bugs on its front page, not by posting "low quality" images of something rare (I do not mean my puffer fish) and something different.IMO it is much better to have at least one noisy image of a meteor than four great images of the same honey bee. It is encyclopedia! It is not sharp, high quality images photo exhibit.--Mbz1 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and this is why I vote for many of your nominations. If it were for the quality alone, I'm sorry to say that you wouldn't have got many supports from me (but fortunately, we are not on QIC here). There's a bottomline quality we shouldn't go under. Benh 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I am lost. Do you agree with me or with Lycaon or maybe you agre with me, but strongly agree with Lycaon? I believe Lycaon and me stated just the opposite opinions. You supported many of my nominations!? May I please ask you how many to be exect? I know about one of a turtle, which is passing just fine without your support and that one , which probabably because of its "low quality" is FP in few places. Thanks.--Mbz1 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK many not so many (but I was away for some times last months), but several of them I'm pretty much sure. I remember a picture whom subject was crepuscular rays. I agree with Lycaon for quality issues, but with you for diversity. Your pictures always depict original subject to me which I find great, and I wish I has same ideas/imagination/opportunities as you do. Benh 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benh, may I please ask you to drop me a personal message, when you are away next time?I'll try to nominate as many of my images as possible in that time ;=) --Mbz1 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Benh, I just was kidding (I always do). Please do oppose my images. I know that now you probably want to oppose my anemone jellyfish image very much. Please feel absolutely free to do it, no kidding I mean it. Thank you.--Mbz1 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was too ;) I saw your jellyfish nomination. I don't know what to do... :) and it's still the same dilema to me : good, beautiful subject, questionnable quality. Maybe after a night of yummy sleep. Benh 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One oppose vote has been cancelled as a follow-up on this checkuser request and following discussion and overall consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. --Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Revised result: 16 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lotus Nelumbo nucifera Seed Head 2500px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lotus Seed Head 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As AngMoKio and bad naming • Rohan T 17:38, 8 June 2008

Image:Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

you are a provokateur whose aim is only to oppose my pictures ! seen on your contribs. --Richard Bartz 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a whiner! This one clearly has nothing to do with you. -- 67.180.38.172 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a troll ! Richard Bartz 04:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously an alter ego of one of us! Shouldn't be very difficul to to find out (just for the surpise of knowing). Want a hint? -- Alvesgaspar 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has it something to do with prime numbers ? :-)) --Richard Bartz 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None that I know -- Alvesgaspar 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Descent_of_Phoenix_with_a_crater_in_the_background_taken_by_Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter.jpg, featured[edit]

Descent of Phoenix with a crater in the background 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset mirage 1232n.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mock mirage sunset Mock mirage sunset

  • I think he has a valid point though. I'm not sure I've ever seen a sunset/mirage photo of yours that is particularly sharp, and I don't just mean the sun itself, but anything in the frame. Its as if the camera just hasn't got a good focus lock on anything, or the shutter speed is too slow and it is blurred (although I doubt this is the case given it is a photo of the sun, albeit low in the sky. Its hard to tell exactly what causes the softness, but it is a bit of a problem for aesthetics. Diliff 13:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the question is how many sunset mirage images you have seen all together. Remember, when you opposed my very firs nomination at Wikipedia, I asked you to find a better one anywhere at the NET. You refuesed, but Pengo did. He found a "better" one (btw also taken by me). It was not any better, it was worse because the mirage was not nearly so complex. When one talks about the quality of sunset mirage image, the most important things is not overexposed the Sun. If by doing that one still could show the surroundings, the image becomes rare and great. May I please ask you what do you think about that APOD image taken by a famous Pekka Parviainen? It is one of the best (probably the best) image of complex mirage and beautiful green flash. Thanks.--Mbz1 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind adhering to a standard for indents? You always make it difficult to follow the flow when you choose an arbitrary indent to reply... Anyway, I don't know how many I've seen of yours, probably about 5 or 6 at a guess? From memory, I didn't refuse to, I just said that it wasn't the point, because it doesn't matter if there is a better one or not, the nominated one still has to adhere to minimum standards of image quality. I don't really understand why a photo of a mirage has to mean poor sharpness in the foreground... It isn't as though the foreground is far enough away to be affected by the amospheric conditions that create the mirage in the first place... As for that image, the phenomenon is interesting but the image itself isn't particularly good quality. In an ideal world, if you wanted to show the mirage better, you would have a lens/telescope long enough to capture it full-frame or near enough. Diliff 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diliff, I wound not mind to do anything for you (you know that), but I would mind taking the images of the sun with the scope and no filter. I would go blind, if I do. I'm sure you do not want me to go blind, do you? On the othe hand, if I'm to use a filter I would not be able to capture a green flash, if one appears. The thing is I'm mostly taking images of sunset mirages in order to capture a green flash. It is so rare and so beautiful that I would not like to miss any I could see. Besides I believe it is matter of taste about full-frame image. I really like, when I am able to capture the miraged sun in perspective, which also is rare. Diliff, I am absolutely sure that you and many other here would have done a better job (much better job) with the foreground of the mirage images. (I mean it. I do not consider myself to be a good photographer at all. I have 16 FP at Commons, but I'm not going to add myself to Commons:Meet our photographers. I really do not feel I belong there.) Yet the mirages are so interesting and so mysterious that IMO nothing really bad would happened, if until somebody else captures a better image of a mirage, FP collection would have one of mine. I'll be the first one to delist my image, when a better one become availabale, but IMO, when we're talking about mirages, a better image means not a sharp foreground and not a full frame, but rather more complex and more interesting mirage because the subject of the image is mirage. In an ideal world I wish FP reviewers would forget about litlle quality problems and simply wonder at an amazing and rare phenomena, but I guess it is too much to wish for. Thank you for taking your time to talk about the image.--Mbz1 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines for nominators state: "Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp". The only important object in my picture is the sun and the sun is as sharp as posible with the mirage.Everything else in my picture is not important, it is just to create the atmosphere, but I do not think anybody cares.--Mbz1 13:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1, not featured[edit]

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Triopha catalinae n.jpg, not featured[edit]

Clown nudibranch 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buchenwald survivor drinking from a bowl.jpg[edit]

Liberated Buchenwald survivor Edit 1 Edit 2

Original, not featured[edit]

Good points. I'll see what I can do. WilliamH 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would let the US-Army Logo in the image. It's part of the story of the image. --Kolossos 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Technical reasons: Bad colors. Bad composition (crop one of the two people). Non-technical reason: I want that feature imaged are nice. So it should be possible to start Commons at breakfast, and can eat farther. --Kolossos 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand - do you mean that all featured pictures shouldn't put you off your food? The thing is...not all beautiful images are valuable, and not all valuable images are beautiful. As far as I understand, this is a valuable image regarding a historical event, and I'm not exactly sure how many nice images were to be had at Buchenwald. WilliamH 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and I forgot: I don't like the person on the left. The image cuts his face in the middle of the nose. --Ikiwaner 09:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => /not featured. Richard Bartz 10:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2, not featured[edit]

  •  Info I gave it anotner try improving the colours. Noise is reduced too. The image still is Adobe RGB so when reviewing make shure that you have Firefox 3 with colour correction enabled or Photoshop. --Ikiwaner 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Does AdobeRGB make sense at all for this image? It doesn't seem to contain any colours from the extended gamut. At any rate, AdobeRGB images are unsuitable for Wikipedia & Co., because Mediawiki doesn't handle colour profiles. I think there should at least be an sRGB copy. --Stefan Vladuck 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Maybe by end of the year MediaWiki can handle colour profiles. And your arguments ar obsolete. Unless there is some convincing reason I leave things unchanged when retouching. --Ikiwaner 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the use of AdobeRGB for this image? All the colours of this image can be represented in sRGB. And sRGB displays correctly on current software. (Besides, considering the development rate of web browsers, it's going to take more like half a decade before at least the majority of browsers understands colour profiles.) --Stefan Vladuck 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Findling und Geröll.jpg[edit]

Granitfindling und eiszeitliches Geröll

Image:Iguana iguana male head.jpg, featured[edit]

adult iguana head 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 10:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Valued image seal.svg- not featured[edit]

The Valued Image seal. 

result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Go for some fish shots....jpg - not featured[edit]

Underwater image

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor quality and no species are identified Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - nomination closed - not featured. Richard Bartz 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anemonefishfiji.jpg - not featured[edit]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination withdrawn  - not featured. --Richard Bartz 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anthopleura sola is consuming Velella velella.jpg - not featured[edit]

Anthopleura sola is consuming Velella velella

  •  Info It is a rare shot of Tide pool action.Sea Anemone,Anthopleura sola is in process of consuming a By the wind sailor Velella velella w:jellyfish. By the wind sailor jellyfish are usually found hundreds of miles offshore, but every spring the wind brings them closer to shore and then California beaches are covered by bright blue jellyfishes. Sea anemones feast on them at that time.

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => Nomination withdrawn - not featured. --Richard Bartz 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tug boat going towards the UND Adriyatik.JPG - not featured[edit]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the 5th day - not featured. --Richard Bartz 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:When you notice the stripes2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Decollete of woman black and white

{{FPX|upscaled to reach size requirements}} Lycaon 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image or the breasts? :-)  Oppose Just not FP material to my mind. -- Korax1214 14:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn  - not featured  --MichaelMaggs 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siberian Iris Iris sibirica Top Side View Green 2000px.jpg - not featured[edit]

Siberian Iris

  •  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This image was modified from the original to remove the man-made background and add a real background of the leaves of same species. This is somewhat analogous to focus-bracketing. See the original nomination where it failed to reach a quorum of votes. -- Ram-Man 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that substitution of a background from a completely different scene is analoguous to focus-bracketing. They're completely different concepts! Substituion misrepresents the reality of the scene (I'm not judging this, just saying), whereas focus bracketing does not. Diliff 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand that the scene is different compared to focus bracketing, but it is similar in how the areas of focus are specifically chosen to get an effect that is impossible to achieve through the lens only. Focus bracketing misrepresents the scene (to a lesser extent) as well. This scene is very similar to what it would look like if focus bracketing would have actually been used on an iris connected to its host plant. It's very hard to get an iris shot without the leaves in the background. The failure of my other nominations to succeed is the reason that I created this image, because no one liked the leaves in the background. Always complaining about being too distracting. -- Ram-Man 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Oppose Nice image, but not FP. JukoFF 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I get that a lot. However, could you provide a rationale? High quality images of various species are extremely common FP candidates. For iris flowers, it is difficult to achieve proper focus because it requires high DoF which then renders the background very distracting. This image has both high flower DoF (f/11) and a pleasing background. It is better than most fake images that we feature in that the background is actually the same plant rather than a plain background (like the all white version). -- Ram-Man 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the composition doesn't convince me. I have severe difficulties understanding how the flower actually looks like. It might be better to take the picture from a different angle. --AngMoKio 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is that purple lining around the flower on the left an artefact from tweaking the background? It is quite conspicuous, even at low magnification. Lycaon 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - lovely flower and I like the original. Unfortunately the masking has not been kind to the subject. Where there are out-of-focus petals that originally had soft edges that looked natural there is now a cut-out effect. Much of the RHS, and other parts, of the flower now have unnatural hard edges.... next to soft petals - gives a sort of green-screen effect Peripitus 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the decisive result! -- Ram-Man 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn  - not featured  --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg - featured[edit]

Flower of a Sacred Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) at Adelaide Botanic Garden, South Australia 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Richard Bartz 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle - "Helga" - Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg[edit]

A Bald Eagle - ORIGINAL A Bald Eagle - EDIT1 A Bald Eagle - EDIT2

Original - not featured[edit]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit1 - not featured[edit]

  •  Info Fixed brightness/white balance (auto improve in iPhoto), image replaced on this page. The old image is here. — H92 (t · c · no) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — H92 (t · c · no) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Your edit lost even more detail of the overexposed feathers at the top of the head, and the cyan colour cast is still there. --Stefan Vladuck 10:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for feedback! ;) Hmm … (I’ve edited this page a little, now it’s easier to compare the images.) I don’t think its head is as white as #fff, I think it has a slight mix of gray–cyan originally. Anyway, I’m working on it now, I’ve managed to reduce the cyan on the white part. I’ve made the colors a little bit warmer. I really think this image has potential. The overexposure on the top of the head is a little difficult to fix. — H92 (t · c · no) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2, featured[edit]

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Richard Bartz 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rusty Railroad Bridge 3008px.jpg - not featured[edit]

Railroad Bridge

Agree, but a rusty railroad bridge perhaps has more unusual/unseen facets instead of this --Richard Bartz 16:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus Closeup 2400px.jpg - not featured[edit]

Rainbow Lorikeet 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morchella conica 1 beentree.jpg - featured[edit]

Morchella conica 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainbow and eruption of Halema`uma`u vent at Kilauea.jpg- not featured[edit]

Halemaumau Crater

  • This image is too dear for me to leave it here and that's why I  I withdraw my nomination Oh and btw the "low quality" image is going to be published in two magazins, one of which at the cover .--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination withdrawn - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hot springs of Pamukkale 1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Pamukkale

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, x neutral => nomination withdrawn - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Лебедь Саратов.JPG - not featured[edit]

Swan in Saratov City park

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: out of focus/blurry and of inadequate image quality, sorry Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--Richard Bartz 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Juvenile Bald Eagle.jpg - not featured[edit]

Juvenile Wild Bald Eagle

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: extremely noisy Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Honeybee on Calendula.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: wrongly identified Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tiger cub tired.JPG not featured[edit]

Tiger cub tired


Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: badly framed, noisy and out of focus. MER-C 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
 result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grasshopper June 2008-1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => rule of the 5th day - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gorges du Tarn Point Sublime.jpg - featured[edit]

Tarn Canyon, from the point sublime

  • This is why I've decided I'll include the FOV information for every panorama I'll make from now on. You don't always realize on landscape shots without "reference shapes". Benh 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand if it's no wow to you, but I don't get the "too small to see details" point... You don't expect to see such things as cars on the roads below (1km away), or insects on grass do you ? this is a 10Mpix picture downsampled from an already very sharp 40mpix pic, I can't believe it misses details, and it exceeds by far the size/resolution requirements. Benh 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't expect to see such things as cars on the roads below (1km away), or insects on grass at least not insects "of a bad macro photographer". It is enough I see some blurry people at the both sides of the image. I expect to see mach more details in interesting rock fprmations. Your choice of lens is strange. You should have used much bigger zoom than 17 mm you did and take few more frames to bring really nice details.--Sensl 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that picture is to show the whole canyon, not to focus on the details from the rocks (but I believe there are more than enough) ; 17mm was good IMO. I need 8 pictures at 17mm to get the 240° horizontal FOV ! how much would I have needed at bigger focal length ? What kind of details on the rocks are so interesting for you to see ? Benh 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern. But I downsample for two reasons : improve per pixel quality, and not letting other people using my work without any mention of me/commons/wikipedia. I've found out that this happens... This is the only way I have to protect a bit of some hard work, and how I want it to be used. I don't make any money out of it (just to be proud of myself), but I can't let people use pictures that way. Now if commons/Wikipedia ever need the high resolution, I'll give it, with no question. Now I'll let you think, how many people upload 10Mpix/max res pictures over here ? Benh 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • En regardant votre gallerie, je peut voir que plusieurs images ont été promues même si elles étaient "downsampled". Il semble donc y avoir un consensus pour accepter des images downsampled passé une certaine résolution. Mais j'aimerais mentionner que la protection de vos image se trouve dans la licence qui est attachée à l'image. Commons est une bibliothèque de médias libres et peut être utilisée par tous (en suivant les licences), comme wikipedia peut être reproduit par tous. Quelqu'un voulant reproduire une de vos image légalement se retrouve avec une image à plus basse résolution, puisque le downsample ne fait que réduire la qualité de l'image. Je suis coupable du même crime (downsample), mais maintenant que je sais que qu'il est préférable de mettre des images à leur résolution maximale, c'est la position que j'adopte. Je vous invite à regarder l'image que je suis en train de mettre en nomination pour être FP (Image). Remarquez que dans "autres versions" se trouve la même image downsampled. Cette dernière a l'air beaucoup plus claire quand vue à 100%, mais je n'ai fait que de réduire la qualité. -- S23678 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PanoramaParzanica.jpg- not featured[edit]

Panorama of Lake Iseo, Italy from Parzanica 

 result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination withdrawn - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Starved girl.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

 Comment I nominated this image not to be beautiful, but for being very strong.--Econt 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nasr ol Molk mosque inside colorful.jpg - not featured[edit]

Praying room of the Nasr Ol Molk Mosque (Qajar era) at Shiraz, Iran.

 Comment did you perhaps mean "tilted"? (Me, I'm forever making typos...) I'm  Neutral on this one. -- 217.171.129.77 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good thing I'm neutral, as I didn't realise I'd been logged-out. -- 217.171.129.77 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victoria Crater, Cape Verde-Mars.jpg - featured[edit]

Victoria Crater on Mars

  •  Info created by the Mars Opportunity rover - nominated by Anrie -- Anrie 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info -- This image taken by the panoramic camera on the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity shows the view of Victoria Crater from Cape Verde. Since reaching the crater on Sol 951 (September 27, 2006) Opportunity has been making its way around the rim in a clockwise direction. Victoria Crater is roughly 800 meters (one-half mile) wide - about five times wider than Endurance Crater, and 40 times as wide as Eagle crater. The south face of the 15 meter (50 foot) tall Cape St. Mary is visible in the left portion of this image. On the right is Duck Bay, and beyond that, the north face of the 15 meter (50 foot) tall stack of layered rocks called Cabo Frio can be seen on the inner crater wall. This mosaic was taken over the conjunction time period, from Sols 970 to 991 (October 16 - November 6, 2006). It was generated from Pancam's 753 nm, 535 nm, and 432 nm filters.
  •  Support- Anrie 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Sensl 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent, high quality, out of this world pano. Freedom to share 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Gonna overlook the stitching errors. --Calibas 07:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Aqwis 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs 08:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is a great picture: I'd put it as a large poster on my wall any time, but as FP it has now wow for me (too dark, too monochromatic for its size). Lycaon 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Crater on Mars 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Taüll - Sant Climent.jpg - not featured[edit]

Curch of Sant Client at Taüll 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue de Saint Raphaël 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Statue of St Raphael - Original Statue of St Raphael - Edit 1 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coenagrionidae2.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butterfly June 2008-3a.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anoplogaster cornuta.svg - not featured[edit]

Anoplogaster cornuta

When you discharge the SVG completely. You can it turns that transparency doesn't exist in the body. The transparency is alone an error in the jpg generated by mediawiki, The English version have the labels explains --200.71.162.1 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sukrip Khrong Mueang crew wai.jpg - not featured[edit]

The traditional Wai Mae Ya Nang performed by the crew of Royal Barges in Thailand. The barge depicted is Sukrip Khrong Mueang. 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kašperské Hory od Liščího vrchu.jpg - featured[edit]

Town of Kašperké Hory in mountainous landscape of southwestern Bohemia, Czech Republi 

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ventura Plaza - Cúcuta, Colombia.jpg - not featured[edit]

  •  Info "Ventura Plaza" Shopping Mall
  •  Info Cúcuta, Colombia
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lacking nomination info Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => no objection within 24 hours - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Moonlit Antarctic station

This is a featured picture on English Wikipedia, and it's so unusual I decided to nom it here as well. It depicts a research station in Antarctica, with the Aurora Australis visible in the sky. It was taken at night, by the natural light of the full moon, with a 25 second exposure. I had nothing to do with taking or uploading the image, but the uploader indicated that this version has been edited to remove noise and hot pixels visible in the original. The National Science Foundation is an agency of the U. S. Government, so I agree with the uploader that this is in fact a free image. 

result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mammothterracetrees.jpg, featured[edit]

Trees killed by the mineral-rich water at Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone, US 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes after voting period:

Image:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Iguazu Waterfalls

To me pictures from Hugin don't have artifacts you are talking about. If you ask hugin to calculate the optimal size before final rendering, it should get you the size where you won't see artifacts. Benh 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although your image size is 4800 x 3500 it doesn't have that much information in it. It is bigger than it really should be, not much different from stretching a small photo to big size. The artifact should disappear if the dimension is correct just like Benh said. --Lerdsuwa 03:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lerdsuwa, look at this, and tell me if there is no information. The downsampled image is even larger than other pictures where you voted in support. My image has not been stretched, so downsampling my image is not like stretching a small image because there will be a loss of information. Images on common can be used by anyone, and they may be edited for other purposes by someone who needs the maximum resolution he can get. Downsampling my image only for it to be a FP is not the way to go. If you don't like my image, that's fine, you can vote against it. But if it's because I have a too big resolution, it simply goes against the guidelines everyone is supposed to follow, and your vote should not be valid. -- S23678 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PancakeRocks MC.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes after voting period:

Image:Nectarine Fruit Development.jpg, featured[edit]

Nectarine fruit development 

result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMSPinafore.png, featured[edit]

H.M.S. Pinafore

So, lets say there is an extreme example of a photograph critic who was obsessed with artifacts, then png would be the best choice? What I learned that were the differences in the different formats and how they handled images, the thing that made jpeg so good for photographic use was the artifacts. Has this changed? -- carol (tomes) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JPG is optimised for photography of natural scenes and so on, not necessarily of artworks, particularly not chiariscuro ones. Adam Cuerden 17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chthamalus_stellatus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reflections 1090029.jpg, not featured[edit]

Optics, mirrors, reflections, infinity? 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EnterpriseBurningHellcat.jpg, not featured[edit]

F6F-3 crash lands on USS Enterprise 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plastic Protractor Polarized 05375.jpg, featured[edit]

Tension lines in plastic protractor seen under cross polarized light. 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schwarze Habichtsfliege Dioctria atricapilla.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saint Chely Tarn.jpg, featured[edit]

Saint-Chély-du-Tarn village, in the Tarn gorges 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flamingo 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Flamingo at Madrid's Zoo 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wan Chai.jpg, featured[edit]

A panorama of Wan Chai, Hong Kong

  •  Info created by base64 - uploaded by base64 - nominated by base64 -- βαςεLXIV™ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This image was stitched from 14 segment × 3 exposure by Canon EOS 400D with Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM at 70mm focal length. It was downsampled from 21.1 megapixels to 8 megapixels. The weather on that day wasn't perfect, but it is adequate to show Wan Chai District. The lower part of the image cannot be taken due to trees and terrain blocking the way. Any edits are welcomed as I am not an expert in Photoshop. Thank you!
  •  Support -- βαςεLXIV™ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral -- One of the better night panos (I don't like night views) but support withheld only because of a remaining stitching error (34.0% from left, 5.2% from bottom). Lycaon 11:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to fix it right away. --βαςεLXIV™ 11:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I live in Hong Kong; I can tell that photo-taking right in that location has to face a scenetic difficulty: there is a hill blocking the view in front. That location geotagged is the most suitable location for shooting Wan Chai.--dbslikacheung 04:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there could be some difficulties in taking any photo, but who said that an image of Wan Chai should be represented in FP? IMO it is a quality image, but FP should have also something else, like a good composition, for example, which the nominated image is missing IMO.--Mbz1 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me thank your comment first. Firstly, I'm now trying to fix the stitching errors, it is mainly due to inadequate control points in a few segments. Secondly, I believe the excessive red neon reflection is not caused by HDR processing, but because I made too much highlight recovery(told you I'm not an expert in photoshop :-) ), and I'll try to improve on it. Thirdly, I shot the segments in horizontal sequence. I'm sorry that I couldn't figure out what problem in the could you were refering to. If you are regarding the colour of cloud, I can tell that its normal.
I hope these may satisfy your requirement, thank you. --βαςεLXIV™ 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I set the HDR compression to "0" in order to preserve the most detail for post-processing. Then I converted from 32bit TIFF to 16bit TIFF, and adjusted the curves for better contrast. At last, I converted to 8bit JPEG. --βαςεLXIV™ 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support before going to holiday ;) Benh (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I did an in-place upload, here are the modifications:
1. Fixed the Stitching error
2. Fixed the red channel clipping (red neon reflections)
3. Improved contrast (more realistic)
The re-stitch did not change the image a lot, the resolution is the same. --βαςεLXIV™ 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Atlanta Lightning Strike.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1abluemountainspano1.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Megalong Valley in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales Australia. This was taken on the back steps of the Hydro Majestic Hotel on the Great Western Highway. 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, rule of the fifth day => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Biblioteca Duomo Siena Apr 2008.jpg[edit]

Piccolomini Library ceiling

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Biblioteca Duomo Siena-2 Apr 2008.jpg[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Upper and Lower Yosemite Falls with reflection.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description

 I withdraw my nomination

Alternative 1[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination

Image:Croc Farm.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Comment The focal point of the image (the man's head inside the croc's mouth) is too far down in the frame. The croc's chin and the man's left hand are cut off. There's no reason for all that background above the action. – flamurai 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very strong picture, just by looking at it we want to tell the man to get out of there! However, I oppose because of the bad crop (as per flamurai), but I would have supported a better crop for sure. --S23678 (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of a bad crop and framing Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Freedom to share (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, FPX => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bobcat2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator - not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moto cullera.JPG, not featured[edit]

water motorcycle in the Cullera beach, city of the Valencian Community

 Comment, You're right, details itself isn't specified in the guidelines. However, composition refers to "the arrangement of the elements within the image" (from the guidelines). Would you support a FPX about proportion ("the relation of size of objects in picture")? Anything to support the idea that the seadoo is way too small. --S23678 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

You can only remove an FPX template by adding a supporting vote. Lycaon (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

No. I can also remove a FPX template if it's used against its purpose and intended use. This is and will be a wiki. --norro 22:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, FPX => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orionid milky way venus zodiacal light.jpg, not featured[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentHere's the image, which is way below 2 mega pixels size and with the quality well below average. I know that most of you would think that Commons would ridicule itself, if the image like this is promoted and posted to the Main page. These of you, who know me long enough, know that my opinion is just the opposite: I think the Commons would ridicule itself, if no image of a meteor appears at the main page. I know that I am in a desperate minority here. That's OK. Before one of you would add FPX template, may I please ask you at least to go to zodiacal light article and read it. It is interesting IMO.
    I'd also like to talk about mitigating circumstances of taking images of meteors. As you understand long exposure is no help here. Meteors flash over the sky and gone in the same moment.So I used the highest ISO possible to capture one. The above image was taken in RAW format, but it is so noisy, that I decided to downsample it. It still shows everything it should show: Milky Way, Venus Zodiacal light and meteor. Some images could only win, if they are downsampled IMO. Here are few images of meteors from APOD to compare:[1];[2].
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small and also blurry. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

After reading zodiacal light ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

 Comment May I please ask you,everybody, to tell me if you knew about Zodiacal light before you saw this nomination? Just "yes" or "no". It would be very interesting for me and it will not take lots of your time. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did on your user talk page. --norro 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Norro.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (weak) The sight is simply marvelous and since its the only such image used in the article, I disregard the size. Muhammad 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While I'm thinking about this one, here's another version. --S23678 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After a little search on google on meteors and zodiacal lights, and I quiclky found some images: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Although all these images are copyrighted and none would qualify, in my opinion as a FP because they are too small, it's giving me a little idea of an image quality we could expect from astronomical pictures. This picture fails FP in my opinion because of blurry stars, size, overexposed zodiacal light and distracting element in the bottom right corner. It is the best picture on commons about those 2 phenomenons, but it's still below the standard criterias. And yes, I looked at both french and english articles on zodiacal light. --S23678 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the very nice pictures you refer to illustrates all four features (Venus, Milky Wau, meteor and Zodiacal light) in perspective and together as my image does, but who cares? Stars in my image are not blurry. It calls star trails, you know because the Earth is turning and the shutter was opened for some time, but who cares? The fireballs and meteors at the images you refer to were produced by different, more active meteor showers Perseid and Leonids, but who cares? One cannot see neither Milky Way nor Zodiacal light from the Northern Hemisphere during Leonids, but who cares?Zodiacal light are not overexposed, but who cares? You know there are opposes and opposes. Some are OK and some hurt. That's why I'd better  now before one more of these opposes.Thank you very much, Muhammad. Your support was very, very important for me. Thank you, Norro and Leo Johannes.
  • I will not argue on your statements as we clearly have different POV and it would lead nowhere. But I'll confirm to you that my decision was long thought. Yourself admitted some defaults on your picture. As a voter, I need to take a decision in the end: are the good sides beating the bad sides? And I took a decision based on that question as much as you took a decision when you decided to nominated your picture. Now, you seem to find my comment hard, but how can't I state many arguments to support my choice, since you stated a whole bunch of arguments in favour of your picture in the introduction (only 1 argument from me would have been countered as "not enough" since your picture is a special case)? Finally, when you nominate a picture here, you must accept that people will not have the same opinions than you. You can discuss their choice, especially if some are debatable, but in the end, if my opinions are considered out of the track, the rest of the voters can counter it. If you expect no opposition to some of your pictures, I'm not the one to blame. I'm sorry if my comments hurted you, I have no desire to do so, but I'll keep using my right to vote. --S23678 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sopelana hondartza.jpg[edit]

Panoramic of Arrietara or Sopelana beach, in Biscay, Basque Country

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: extremely noisy, has a warped horizon and blown sky. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Helsinki Cathedral seen from the see.jpg[edit]

Helsinki Cathedral seen from the see

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp -- Korax1214 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Nasr ol Molk mosque vault ceiling 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ceramic tiles ceiling decorating a vault at the Nasr ol Molk mosque in Shiraz, Iran, Qajar era. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:PetrifiedWood.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Araneus diadematus (aka).jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bees Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Short description

  •  Comment I think even size should be an issue for older FPs, but within limits. A top quality 1024x768 photo should IMO still be kept anno 2008, but I doubt it will suffice anno 2010. Likewise I think 800x600 should be delisted nowadays regardless of quality. There has to be a limit somwhere. Lycaon (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IBM Thinkpad R51.jpg, delisted[edit]

IBM Thinkpad 

result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunset.jpg, delisted[edit]

Machu Picchu Sunset 

result: 8 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. --naerii 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sandiego skyline at night.JPG, delisted[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Francisco Ferry Building (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

The San Francisco Ferry Building

  •  Info everything by JaGa - The Ferry Building is a terminal for ferries on the San Francisco Bay and an upscale shopping center located on The Embarcadero in San Francisco, California. The Bay Bridge can be seen in the background. -- JaGa 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- JaGa 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion, tilt. – flamurai 01:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Rectilinear isn't the only projection type out there, you know. On a picture this size a pure rectilinear will cause distortion on the edges. But if people think that would be better, I could try a restitch. --JaGa 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends how you define distortion. If you want to look at things in terms of equidistance, rectilinear projections will be distorted no matter what. But to the human eye, rectilinear is undestorted and the prefered projection for photographs with straight lines that look unnatural with a curvilinear projection IMO. Thegreenj 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A big part of the problem is that the tilt makes the distortion seem worse since it makes the wings of the building asymmetrical. The curve on the left side is more severe than the right. – flamurai 02:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Well, I can certainly restitch. I was attempting to mitigate the distortion in the corners, but if it detracts from the overall perception I'll change it. BUT, before I go to the trouble - would anyone actually vote for this thing if it were ram-rod straight? --JaGa 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd try rectilinear too. and it's almost free, so... :)Benh 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd like to say something here. I think flamu's use of the 24-Hour Template of Shame was overly harsh. Yes, the building has a roughly 0.1 degree tilt. And yes, my attempt to mitigate distortion around the edges has been unpopular. But considering the use of "barrel distortion" to describe a stitched panorama, I'm thinking a few seconds' glance at the thumbnail was all that went into the decision. My guess is he glanced at the picture, didn't recognize my name (and we all know how important authorship is in FP), jumped to the conclusion this was just some tourist snapshot, and slapped it with the template. Considering that the Template of Shame basically announces, "wow, this picture is so obviously bad it should be removed as quickly as possible" I think an editor should use more discretion before labeling someone else's work with this humiliating tag. --JaGa (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings, but I thought the purpose of the template was to avoid the humiliation of a string of oppose votes. Maybe this was borderline. I admit I don't recognize your user name. As far as the photo goes, how it was made is not that relevant. FP is not to reward technical excellence... that's QI. When I'm rating, I don't think, "well, that's a nice job for a stitched panorama of a building", I think, "it's not aesthetically pleasing and it's making me slightly dizzy". I did not just glance at the thumbnail. I looked at the full size image, looked for comparable images in the FP gallery plus the web and flickr, and then tried to find other shots of long buildings to see if the distortion was normal. But it's not. Sorry if I used the wrong term, as IANAP, but that's what the result looks like. Image:MuseeDOrsay.jpg, Image:Image-Schloss Nymphenburg Munich CC.jpg, and Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg set the standard for FPs of buildings like this, and this doesn't meet that standard. But anyway, it's been over 35 hours, and the template hasn't been removed... so was it really too harsh? – flamurai 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So any work of lesser quality than photographers like Sanchezn, Richard Bartz, and Diliff (your examples) are Template of Shame-worthy? C'mon dude, you completely overstepped the spirit of that template. That template should only be used for the very worst posts, and my picture isn't THAT bad. I'll never be as good as the photographers you cited. I know that. But my not achieving their level doesn't justify your attitude. And it certainly makes me not want to ever post here again. I'm just saying, use a little discretion before you decide to speak for the entire forum next time. --JaGa (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it should have went. You Oppose for tilt and "barrel distortion". Other editors chime in. I hurry off and fix the errors, and post a second edit, and a proper round of voting starts on that new edit. That way I at least have a chance to fix the picture. You should aim for that in the future, not the nuclear option. --JaGa (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this a little too harsh. When your work is being critiqued, take it for what it is and nothing else: a reaction to one photo, not your skill as a photographer. Regarding my "attitude": I used to get pissed off at the person who critiqued me, thinking I was better than them, they didn't know what they were talking about, they were an asshole... but the harsher someone feels they can be in a critique, the more useful it is. Just take the information, parse it, and use what you can to improve. Instead of that, you immediately came back with a snarky comment ("rectilinear isn't the only project type out there, you know"), which is just a waste of energy. I used the template because I thought the image had no chance of succeeding... simple as that. You still have a chance to fix the photo. The template doesn't change that. – flamurai 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to admit I'm sensitive. That template speaks for the entire group, and should only be used in extreme and obvious cases. Using the template on my image implies that it belongs to that "extremely and obviously bad" category, and I resent it. Simple as that. But are you willing to admit you may have jumped the gun with the template? I see no advantage of using the template instead of the way I described in the "this is how it should have went" section above. Your Oppose didn't bother me (except your terminology did make me doubt your knowledge, I'll admit that); the template was an insult and a complication, because now I don't know if I should add a new edit to the existing image, or withdraw and submit a new one. A lot of submitters would feel the same way. You could have delivered your criticism without the template, and more editors would have commented as well, so what was gained? I'll I'm asking is that you admit you might have overdone it, and that it might be better to exercise restraint in the use of the template. --JaGa (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's in the "extremely and obviously bad" category, but that it has an "extreme and obvious flaw" that would prevent it from passing. I'll be more judicious with my use of the template on subjective issues in the future. (p.s., if you crop it tighter at the bottom the distortion is less obvious since it takes away the extreme curve of the sidewalk and palm trees) – flamurai 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is creating a lot of argument for a little problem. By WP:IAR I say fufill the author's wishes and let it run the course; it's not worth the discussion for something this trivial. Thegreenj (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Citizen-Einstein.jpg, not featured[edit]

Citizen Einstein 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Diving emperor penguin.jpg, featured[edit]

result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Over Machu Picchu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Before Machu Picchu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:White House lawn.jpg, featured[edit]

Gardens of the White House in Washington, D.C.

And it appears that I voted at the same instant as Richard! :) -- Korax1214 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crab Carpilius convexus.jpg, featured[edit]

crab

  • Well, we both (the crab and me) are absolutely convinced that it would have been better, if FP had an image of a crab taken underwater, in the wild and in his natural habitat than two images of absolutely the same bird taken probably in a zoo,if for nothing else at least for a diversity you know. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only judge pictures by what I see on it - no matter about the species and if we have it as FP already or not. And this picture has (for me) no wow. My oppose is not some kind of revenge or sth....so I don't really know why you bring up that eagle topic again. I am also really not keen on starting a personal fight with you... --AngMoKio (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is quite unique and not because of the subject, but because Lycaon was the first one to support it! I do not care,if the nomination is to pass or to fail (of course I wish it to pass), but in any case I would preserve it as a very rare and very dear to me phenomena. Thank you, Hans!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating the mentioned 'wow' effect is a challenge in itself. --Kimse (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many details were lost during removal of CA.
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Nude recumbent woman (black and white).jpg

Image:Eglise Sainte Marie de Bassoues.JPG[edit]

Eglise Sainte Marie de Bassoues (Gers)


Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poorly framed (subject cut off) and distorted. MER-C 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Hot Springs of Pamukkale Turkey.jpg, featured[edit]

Pamukkale Pamukkale

For comparison, how it really looks alike.
  • Cannot agree with your oppose reason. Pamukkale is a beautiful place and all views are interesting. Higher view would have been better in order to show the pools, but worse in order to show limestone details as it is clearly seen from the image, which is offered for the comparaison. Thanks.--Mbz1 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • to see the limestone better. You want to oppose the image because of the sky? Please feel free. At least it is a better reason than "does not show the pools." Thanks.--Mbz1 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I want to support. But the sky is so dark I wondered if that pic wasn't overprocessed. Benh 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been. I'm a bad photographer and even worse with photo shops.--Mbz1 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the 5th and promoting vote :). I'm not very good either at processing pic, but would you mind giving me the original ? I'd like to see what I can do. Benh 06:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OOps, sorry for missing the link. I'll be away for 2 weeks from tonight... I'll give it a try when I come back. Benh (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Simonizer (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Disney Concert Hall by Carol Highsmith.jpg[edit]

Short description

 in favor of noise reduced version. – flamurai 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduced version, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RedDaylily.jpg, featured[edit]

A flower from the genus Hemerocallis. This species is commonly called Little Business. 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morelasci.jpg, featured[edit]

Morel asci

  • Hmm.. you might have a point about repeatability. I haven't seen very many of this kind of pictures on FPC or on Commons at all (mostly small ones), so I was under the impression that they weren't very easy, especially not high-resolution ones. If it's true that extremely expensive equipment is necessary to get higher resolution pictures (that are reasonably sharp), should we really wait for someone with that kind of equipment to "repeat" this picture? Is that likely to happen, ever? --Aqwis (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that those cameras are expensive (about €5000) for a Peltier cooled camera, but these are often found in labs, paid for by the institute (as in my lab). They have resolutions of up to 12Mpx (Axiocam HR, which is of course considerably more expensive). Suitable microscopes also range from €10,000 upwards. Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue in Minute Man National Historical Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Statue in Minute Man National Historical Park 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ATLSwanHouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

I originally thought it was an HDR photo, and that the "unnatural" shadows were an effect of that. However, I still think the shadows look a bit odd despite not being "unnatural" - this is probably caused by the lighting used. Not every building looks as good at night as it does at day, and I think this is a good example of that. In any case, I feel that the high levels of noise in the shadows alone is reason enough to oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The picture itself is good, but the subject is dull: all concrete gray, no contrast, no colors, no wow. May be better during the day, with the vegetation color. --S23678 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Narzisse.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Narzisse.jpg, Edit2, not featured[edit]

Wild daffodil 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Narzisse.jpg, Edit1, not featured[edit]

Wild daffodil 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. -- Laitche (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pontic Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Pontic Mountains, Turkey

  •  Comment I want to make sure there is no understanding problem. Only you knows if your vote was made in accordance with the guidelines. I made a supposition with the facts that I had, but I never asked you to remove your vote. If you did not followed the guidelines, thank you for withdrawing your vote. However, if you did followed the guidelines and your vote was based on it, you have the right to keep your vote and encouraged to do so. --S23678 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 18 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurt Am Main zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1887.jpg, featured[edit]

Frankfurt on the Main, around 1600 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roche.gif, not featured[edit]

Short description Short description

  •  Comment Surely the above is actually a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule? Should I ever create a fractal worth sharing, I'll upload it as a GIF so as to preserve the Fractint metadata. -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't stop the ROCK 
result: 8 support, 22 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 24 oppose, 0 neutral => vote never ends. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Including the awesome supports, awesome opposes, rockons & other misc odd votes. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset clouds and crepuscular rays over pacific.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sunset at Pacific Sunset at Pacific Sunset at Pacific 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by User:Flamurai, featured[edit]

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dutch F-16 performing in Kecskemet corr1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Dutch F-16 performing 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iphiclides podalirius, featured[edit]

Iphiclides podalirius

 Info image actually uploaded by nominator -- I've been unable to find User:Username's contributions :-) Korax1214 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ThaluraniaGlaucopis200805DarioSanches.jpg[edit]

It's a very fine picture of an brazilian humming-bird

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Thalurania glaucopis

Image:Fledging Bald Eagle.jpg[edit]

Newly Fledged Juvenile Bald Eagle

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and too noisy Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Fixed! Except the clipped wing feathers on the left side. Keep in mind this is a wild raptor, not a rescue bird in a sanctuary. Being able to get so close, particularly at this tender young age, is extremely challenging! PS: am I allowed to remove the big yellow objection box? --KetaDesign
  •  Oppose low resolution cannot be solved by upsampling --Romwriter (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy I sure don't know what you mean by 'low resolution'. When I look at it in full size it's perfectly clear, right down to the twinkling eyeball and the curled toes. Perhaps I'm missing something in the technical aspect? --KetaDesign
    • The image as you originally uploaded it is 1700x1411 (1.9Mpx, just under the 2Mpx required for all but very exceptional images); the current version is painfully obviously just the original resampled to the larger size in a futile attempt to disguise this. Unfortunately this is an anisotropic process; one cannot add detail by upsampling, one can only remove detail by downsampling. And when I look at the larger image in full size it's even more unsharp than the one I recently FPXed for that reason. -- Korax1214 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I knew you were going to say something like that, but waited until you actually did so you would prove you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. What I did was go back to the original scan (which is 108MB) and edit it all over again. OK? Smartie.

If anyone actually wants to be helpful about this, a large size, unedited version is here Image:Babybaldeagle-05sep6.jpg . I would appreciate any tips on how to render it properly, because I know it's high res enough and I have a lot of awesome eagle photos I'd like to share.-- KetaDesign (talk)

        •  Comment this is supposed to be a vote, not a mini-war, but I'd just like to point out that barbed comments such as the above don't help one's cause one bit. For the record, I'd like to point out that I actually did look at the full-size image, and saw for myself that it's horribly unsharp, so the allegation that I "have no idea what [I am] talking about" is unwarranted. -- Korax1214 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment Right, because telling me my "futile attempt" at something which I in fact did not try to do is not a barbed comment.-- KetaDesign (talk)
            •  Comment It's clear that you need to read the Rules at the top of this page before you attempt another FPC nom (it's you who chose to misinterpret my technical comments on the picture quality as a personal attack); also look up "hypocrite" in a dictionary while you're at it. This is the second time you've resorted to an ad hominem instead of arguing your case properly, which just reinforces my conviction that you haven't actually got a case. Speaking of which, this nom is overdue for closure (it's been more than 24 hours since the FPX, and nobody but the nominator has contested it), so someone kindly do so. -- Korax1214 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Comment My very first comment above after my re-edited image was still being opposed asked for help, as the NORMAL people below were kind enough to offer. Your conviction, or lack thereof, is rather irrelevant.-- KetaDesign (talk)
  •  Oppose per all above. -- Korax1214 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The same picture with better technical quality would have been very nice (I like the composition), but the removal of the noise by changing the background is quite obvious (that's my guess on the edit that was done on the picture) on the feathers at the end of the wings, and it's visible on the entire body at 100% zoom (for a 1.9 mpx picture, details must be observed at 100% zoom). As well, a lot of details have been lost by removing the noise from the bird; the full resolution is sharper. --S23678 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've made an edit here: Image:Fledging_Bald_Eagle_edit1.jpg, but it's even worse...--Base64 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Thanks for trying! I think I might have to rescan these; the images are good quality and close up, it's just the noise from the scan that's bothering everyone.-- KetaDesign (talk)

Image:CC Ventura Plaza.jpg[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and has no geolocation Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:PuigMayorAvión2.jpg[edit]

The mountain Puig Mayor, in Majorca (Baleares, Spain), from a plane.

Geolocation done, thanks. Kadellar (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low contrast and weak composition. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Crapload (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Halemaumau vent 04-08-1 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Halemaumau vent Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Halemaumau vent Sulfur dioxide emissions from the Halemaumau vent

  • It is my very favorite reason to oppose images of unique and rare phenomena. Well, I'm glad that me and you have just the opposite opinions of what is and what is not "wow". Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see from Halemaumau Crater, this has been going on since March, so, rare, maybe (I am not volcano expert), but rare enough to disregard normal guidelines for FP pictures, no, not for a thing that has been going on for 3 months. The wow factor is not just the rareness of the event, but also the feeling you have when you look at the image. I look at alternative 1 and it looks bad, like a powerfull thing, like something's gonna happen. But I look at the 2 others, and it's no different to my eye than clouds of steam from a papermill. That is my "no wow". --S23678 (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the article, I assume you noticed that this is the the first explosive eruption of Halemaumau Crater since 1924. I do not ask you to disregard normal guidelines for FP pictures. IMO the image meets all the guidelines for FP pictures. I just said that I am very glad it was and is a huge "wow" for me. Your opinion is different and that's OK. As with all my nominations my main goal is to share information and knoledge, make people to read the articles, as you did and learn something new. Maybe you could answer not to me, but to yourself this question: "if I did not see Alternative 1, would I still have opposed the two others for "no wow"?" If the answer for this question is "yes", I have nothing to add, if the answer to this question is "no" than I do not think your oppose vote is a valid one.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Simonizer (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1, not featured[edit]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2, not featured[edit]

For Lycaon with love :=) I really mean it, dear Hans. Here's a good reason to oppose: "not enough details."
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male and female Muscovy Ducks 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

(BTW, are you sure this is grooming? Normally I see them do this when the male wants to mate and grabs a female by the head.)
  • Thank you for your question, Ianare. I am sure it was grooming. I watched them for quite some time and a male never tried to mate, but performed grooming all the time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Backtowel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Drying her bottom in the morning

I see someone has corrected the bum positioning (pun intended this time) by moving the nom. -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Innsbruckandalps.jpg, not featured[edit]

Innsbruck

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 13:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Great Egret strikes for a Fish n.jpg, not featured[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun pillar in San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Sun pillar Sun pillar

 Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. Seeing the atmospheric optic phenomena in general and sun pillar in particular deppends on where you live. Because in order for sun pillar to form there should be ice crystalls of a particular shape in the atmosphere, it is much more common to see them far North, in Alaska, for example. They also could be observed in snowy mountains. In San Francisco I see sun pillars 3-4 times per year (and I observe almost all sunsets). Capturing them on film deppends on many things - brightness of the pillar, the presense of the sun and so on. Sun pillars are observed only at sunsets and sunrises and sometime 15-30 minutes after sunset or before sunrise. At my image the sun was still up and of course taking image of a pillar against the sun is not easy. At the same time as I said many times before I do not consider myself to be a good photographer. I am a so-so photographer, but, when I see an atmospheric optic phenomena I take pictures and do my best to share them with as many people as possible because I'd like, if somebody would see something like this himself, he would know what he's looking at.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 , not featured[edit]

 Comment I would like to know why there doesn't seem to be any category for widescreen wallpapers which are non-FP, as there is for 4:3 non-FP wallpapers. Blatant aspect discrimination. :-) -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the category to the image. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please notice the image was not nominated because of the colorus. The image was nominated to illustrate Sun pillar- an interesting, litlle known atmospheric phenomena. Sun pillar is produced by the reflection of light from ice crystals. The sun pillar is the subject of the image and it is as sharp as it could be.I see no noise in the image except from the waves crashing ashore. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Hans, phenomenons are usually small and rare.Theta's why they are phenomenons. Let's take for example you supporting my images. It is so rare and such a small percentage (1.64%) compare to you opposing my images that it has all the rights to be called phenomenon. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Pity I can't vote a second time. :( I think this would make a good widescreen desktop wallpaper (its low contrast is actually helpful in this respect) even if it's not quite FP material; but as noted above, as far as I've been able to discover there's no category for widescreen wallpapers generally (as there is for 4:3 wallpapers), there's only one for featured widescreen wallpapers. So to remain categorised as wallpaper, this image needs to win its FP vote. -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paeonia Detail SK.jpg, featured[edit]

Detail of a peony

?? -- \mathbf{C} 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Madsen Niko Maurer 2008 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Niko Maurer, bass player of the German band Madsen 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M1 Abrams-TUSK.svg, featured[edit]

Schematic diagram of a tank. or Language neutral version.

  • But there is no shadow on the ground under the front of the tank, and we should see the far track through the near track as much as we see the inside of the far track right now (did I lost someone?). I will support if it's corrected, as the rest looks pretty good for me. --S23678 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The international version is now updated to reflect the post-en:WP FPC version.
  •  Question The file names are legacy and not accurate for the diagram. Is it possible to change them to Tank_schematic_diagram.svg and Tank_schematic_diagram_num.svg respectively?
  •  QuestionThe categorisation is also shoddy or non-existent (as with many of my images). I tried CommonSense but got "Fatal error: Call to a member function selectField() on a non-object in /home/daniel/MediaWiki-live/phase3/includes/ExternalStoreDB.php on line 107". Suggestions? Dhatfield (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support right, for lingual neutrality. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be right? --Aqwis (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely assume that. Dhatfield (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Sorry for teh confusion, I've fixed it. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. (language neutral version) Simonizer (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chichen-Itza-Castillo-Seen-From-East.JPG, not featured[edit]

El Castillo, Chichen Itza. 

result: Witdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marine da nang.jpg, not featured[edit]

Marine portrait, Vietnam War Marine Corps in Viet Nam 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Formentor.jpg[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and of bad composition in the top right corner. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Freedom to share (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oops, sorry, I didn't realise it was so small. Kadellar (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg, featured[edit]

Panorama of Hong Kong Night Skyline

  •  Info created by base64 - uploaded by base64 - nominated by base64 -- βαςεLXIV™ 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There are 46 segments in this image, each segments are from 3 exposures (+2 , 0 , -2 EV) exposure fusioned by TuFuse (making it 138 images in total). The images were taken with Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM @ 70mm. The horizontal field of view is about 100 degree, and it is a Cylindrical Projection.
  •  Info The weather on that day was as follows: Visibility - 25 km, Clouds - Few at 2500 feet.
  •  Info The current FP is here
  •  Support The hill on the lower-right corner may give a more 3D-feel of the image, and a feel of looking down the mountain, but blocked some minor residential buildings. -- βαςεLXIV™ 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice, i like it. Know Nothing (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing! Wow! An orgy of colors! Best picture I've seen in a long time. However, don't hesitate to upload at the highest resolution possible, from 46x10 mpx down to 9 mpx, there a large loss of information from the downsampling. --S23678 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, segments overlap each other (1/2 horizontally, 1/3 vertically). Moreover, some flaws will be visible in the water (due to moving bright ships) when full resolution is uploaded. I think this resolution is enough for internet. --βαςεLXIV™ 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question It is great image! Still I wonder, if you believe we should have two FP images of the same place taken from the same place or in your opinion the current FP should get delisted? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current FP should be delisted. Two images are completely different, not just the camera location. I have seen your arguments in here . In Wikipedia, only one FP of same subject should be present because ONE is enough for the articles. In Commons, its a "a repository of free content images". 2 FP could be present as it is taken by different person, different camera, different time (mine is around 8:00PM). Again, this is my personal opinion only. --βαςεLXIV™
  •  Support Amazing picture! Personally I prefer the colour of this FP but I like your picture with more visibility of sky. The subject of two pictures are different in time. That FP is HK in Dec 2007 and yours is HK in Jun 2008, you may find sight changes at some buildings, too. Finally I would like to know how much time you spent on phototaking and stitching. Baycrest(Talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the peak 3 times. The first time, clouds were everywhere. I monitored the visibility from HKO and cloud levels from Hong Kong Airport ATIS everday. Take a look at this. The second time, I went by private vehicle, unfortunately, there was a landslide. The third time, I went by Peak Tram from Central, spent 4 hours in total(including finding the best spot, wait until the sun drops, calculating Field of View and Overlapping, finding the best exposure...). For post processing, saved as TIFF from RAW, Merged 138 TIFF to 46, added 10 straight lines(control point) for every segments(46). Also, asked CarolSpears to clone some moving objects. And this image is the final product. --βαςεLXIV™ 01:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explanation. Baycrest(Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
depends on how you define "very similar". Two images were taken at different location, time, season, weather condition, subject(more visibility/with fog). Like tower bridge at twilight and tower bridge at night. Also, mbz1 already asked this question. --Base64 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seen, thank you. --S23678 (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Simonizer (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (Non-HDR), not featured[edit]

Non-HDR Panorama of Hong Kong Night Skyline 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other versions has more support votes) Simonizer (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male Calypte anna in GGP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Calypte anna Calypte anna

  • Agree. Both pictures are much better quality and both humming birds from these pictures Magnificent Hummingbird and Sparkling Violetear are almost 2 times bigger than Calypte anna. So I do not think it is valid to offer the images of different species for the comparison. Besides IMO an image cannot be opposed because other images of different species are better.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Recently a picture by Mdf of a Trogon was rejected because the branch was big. People said it was not one of Mdf's best photos. From my perspective, the photo was of a rarely seen tropical bird that normally lives hundreds of feet up in the canopy. That particular shot was taken at 1000mm, and had a sharpness almost impossible to achieve at that focal length. So, I thought that particular photo was an amazing achievement, and one of Mdf's best. But the photo was not evaluated on those external considerations. I am not saying that is right or wrong, just pointing it out. Tomfriedel (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have never rejected an image of a rare bird because of this, but I know how it works here. Of course my subject is very common and has some quality problems.I've nominated it because IMO it is the best image at Commons of Calypte anna and I believe the FP will benefit from the diversity. In other words IMO it is better to have FP image of a different specie with some quality problems than two great images of the same bird.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 edited by User:Lycaon, not featured[edit]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Évenos Ruins.JPG, not featured[edit]

A view of part of the castle ruins in Évenos, France 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Molecular Modeling.png, featured[edit]

Molecular model

  • Why SVG? This raster is generated by 3D rendering - if changes are needed, they should be made to the source POV and it should be re-rendered. Converting the image to vector each time would not make it better. Dhatfield (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, it's "my call". It's well executed, and better than auto renders, but what makes this stand out enough to justify it being featured as one of the best images on Commons? – flamurai 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lycaon (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) As flamurai. We can hardly feature all of the hundreds of thousands of molecules that happen to be rendered (quite prettily) by some software. And if you must feature one, then why not something complicated (e.g. tetrodotoxin) or well-known (e.g. chlorophyll) instead of a simple dipeptide? Lycaon (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this was not an automated render. This, this, this, this and this are automated renders. They are, to put it politely, ugly. As for subject matter, Commons does not allow upload of any 3D file formats so this is all I have to work with. Dhatfield (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you enlighten us on the rendering process? Software? Source? Lycaon (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Happily. Source: I got the source POV-ray (.pov) file from Ed Boas after seeing his image at WP:en FPC. The POV file was generated by molecular modeling software and this image was intended as a demonstration of the forces and interactions that are modeled. Presumably, that is why Ed chose a simple model. All of my works are marked as derivatives of the image he uploaded (which, technically, they are not), but I got the molecular skeleton from Ed - I don't know the attribution protocol in this case. Rendering process: A POV file is a text file analogous to a three dimensional SVG file that describes the camera and all objects & lights in the scene in 3D coordinates. However a 3D scene is significantly more complex than a vector image because 3D rendering uses the process of ray-tracing where objects can only be seen by their interaction with light that subsequently enters the camera. The scene is actually computed in reverse with 'vision rays' emanating from the camera - hence ray tracing. It's like photography in a vacuum. Objects have associated colour, texture (intensity and bump maps of any level of complexity), reflectance & shadow properties and can interact with lights by diffuse, specular, ambient and phong components. Lights have colour, brightness, orientation, axial and radial falloff, and their own parameters for how they interact with objects and create highlights and cast shadows. Edits: The original contained a construction error for the hydrophobic region which I fixed, I added an extra light to get the dual highlight (otherwise a point light source interacting with a sphere creates an unattractive and fake looking perfectly circular highlight) and shifted them off-center to the left, added another for top-right illumination, tuned the reflectance parameters of each object and changed the solid texture and shadow parameters. Editing was done in text and was not trivial. Software: I used POV-ray 3.61 (www.povray.org) a free, but tragically not libre program to render the scene. Overall: Is this the best that Commons has to offer in molecular models? I'm fairly sure it is. Of the first 250 of 1616 hits for 'molecule' and all 141 hits for 'molecular model' this and this are the only ones that come close and they don't come very close. As though we need more examples, here's another unrelated example of how to take a fantastic source and completely duff the render. Dhatfield (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Florida navel orange 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

A navel orange from Florida. 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crepuscular rays with reflection in GGP.jpg, featured[edit]

Crepuscular rays and their reflection 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wilno - Pałac prezydencki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Backyard of the Presidential Palace in Vilnius (Lithuania) 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sacsayhuamán Décembre 2006 - Vue Panoramique - Pleine résolution.jpg, featured[edit]

Ruines de Sacsayhuamán 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1, not featured[edit]

Sacsayhuamán

  •  Info Downsampled (10 mpx) version of previous picture. Sharper at 100% zoom, but the same effect is achieved with a 50% zoom of the full sized picture.
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Calibas (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Dtarazona (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose downsampling destroys data. – flamurai 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Did you shoot these with DSC V-1? If yes, you might need 2-3 rows instead of one row. Full resolution * 0.25 is the best for DC, resolution <> detail. Also, you already had an argument in here. ALL producers make the Camera's resolution high by Aliasing the image before it is saved to JPEG. The purpose of downsample is: 1.Reduce Noise/Grain 2.Make the image look sharper ... Let me give you one more example, the FP Image:Saint Chely Tarn.jpg has 19 megapixels, the author downsampled from full res to 30%. That could be calulated: (2592*3888)*30%/6 = 503884.8(resolution per 1/6 individual segment). The entire image has 14 segments, WHEN excluding the overlaps, there are 40 parts of 1/6. 40(parts)*503884.8(best res per 1/6 part)=20.1 , similar to the UPLOADED 19.6 megapix. AFTER Croping, it's perfectly logical. --Base64 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've used my old DSC-V1, and the picture is taken at the maximum zoom of 4x, so the picture is at it's maximum possible resolution. I totally agree that a oversampled picture of a very big mosaic reduces noise/grain and makes the image sharper, I'd be a fool to think otherwise. But that downsampling results in a loss of information. Commons being a deposit of free images, someone can take my full resolution image and modify/rotate/downsample it with a higher quality in the end than if he was working with the already downsampled version. For example, if someone would like to do a wallpaper with the left edge of the picture (Cusco and Sacsayhuamán) for a screen like mine (1680x1050), he would downsample from my full resolution version (1050<2068 vertical pixels), but would have to zoom on my downsampled picture (1050>1032 vertical pixels). I admit that I've posted these 2 different resolutions to make a point, since my last FPC had 4 of the 5 oppose votes because of lack of details at 100% zoom on a 4800 x 3500 full resolution picture. And I hope this vote will support the guideline's point on maximum resolution, and future un-downsampled FPC will be able to refer to this vote for support. --S23678 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Your statement is unclear... what is going on in the foreground? Clarify your reason please. --S23678 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment This comment was inserted by MathbfC, not by me. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The need for further explanation of a vote, while there is nothing to stop anyone from continuing to ask; I personally am more interested in the answering of a similar question which was asked at the nomination of Paeonia Detail and that image is much closer to the closing of the evaluation time than this one is (I think). -- carol (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment (sorry, English is my second language). Can you re-write please saying what is the similar question at this FPC, and what is the relation with my FPC. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more interesting query into the meaning of a review can be found at that other nomination. Simply due to the fact that that image is older in the process, that question seems more important to be answered. I feel assured that the whole nomination page can be viewed by everyone nominating, reviewing and making opinions here, perhaps this is not the case? -- carol (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Black-Crowned-Night-Heron.jpg, featured[edit]

Black-Crowned Night Heron

Existing FP 1
Existing FP 2
 Question Please clarify, what is "CS3"? (Remember that acronyms/initialisms may not always be clear, or mean the same thing, to different people). I too would like to know how to edit an image in such a way as to preserve EXIF data (by saving it separately, and writing it back into the image after editing?) -- Korax1214 (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He meant Photoshop CS3. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so? --AngMoKio (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel qualified to vote on the image but thought it might be relevant or interesting information. Dhatfield (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caliphrodae head.jpg, featured[edit]

Fly's Head

??? --Aqwis (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 25 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kloster Banz Pano001.jpg, featured[edit]

Banz Abbey

No, comments can be in any language as befits the multi-lingual status of Commons. Anyone who does't understand has easy access to online translators. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the submitter speaks the same language! ;-) FINALE!!! OLE OLE OLE! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my english is unfortunately bad. In addition the submitter speaks german. So I put the comment in german. But I try to say it in english: The picture is pretty good but there are too many things (especially the glider) drawing off the attention from the building.--Ukuthenga (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2008&oldid=139910101"