Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2006

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:Agra_Itimad-ud-Daula_1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Tomb of Itimad-ud-Daula in Agra, 1628 Edit1. Corrected levels in the image center area

But Edit1 (means the second picture) is not nominated (and seems to be a little dark). Do you also support the orginal picture? Flicka --84.165.91.102 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's how it works. You nominate, people spot a problem, someone uploads an edit which he thinks fixes it, and the edit is on the table as well. --Dschwen 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:152043main s121e06199-L111.jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yonne river Armeau.jpg - not featured[edit]

3 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Citratcyclus.svg - not featured[edit]

  •  Info created by User Minutemen on de.wikipedia — uploaded by Gia.cossa — nominated by Erina
  •  Support SVG, therefore it's not a nomination for cuteness or emotional impact, but mainly for lots of good work (less than the ant, but still much) and great informational value. And it looks nice, too. Just one problem: I don't know whether it is correct, I don't know German, nor biochemistry. I'm nominating supposing that it is correct. Erina 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- actually I am sure "u.v.m." is no official German abbreviation. There is one that is close: u.v.a. (und viele andere = and many more) where there is NO blank in between the individual letters. -- Boereck 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are right. The online-version of the Duden [1] lists it WITH the blanks while my printed version "Der große Duden - 14th Edition" (sorry, I'm old school) has it without. I think the online-source is more recent but I usually prefer to rely on printed material so that is where I checked first. I grant you to be completely right in this case, though! -- Boereck 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Could someone translate it into english, so I could translate it into polish? Ss181292 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment orientation/justification on the labels around the centre of the yellow circle, notiable between 9-12 o'clock looks unbalance, compared to the rest of that sequence. Gnangarra 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- I think it is a good and very helpful illustration! I have not checked it yet because I cannot find my old biology notes but if I do, I will do so. For now you got my support! -- Boereck 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nützliches Bild im praktischen svg-Format, einzig Citronensäure sollte wie bei Citrat mit C geschrieben werden. Usefull picture, usefull file format. --Andel 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think in order to qualify for FP-status in the Commons no local languages (like German) should be used but an international one (English or Latin). I know, this is not an established rule, but I suggest we should make it up. (By the way, in spite of being German, the English word Cholesterol is used instead of the German Cholesterin.) Roger McLassus 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cholesterol is just as german. It actually is the smarter name, since cholesterol is a sterol. And by the way I completely disagree about the language ban you proposed. Latin? The german WP is the second largest, so expect lots of german media. FP status should be language independent anyways, if a picture is featured it'll only be additional motivation to translate it to other languages. --Dschwen 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I was misunderstood. Which language is used for naming a picture is of course irrelevant. But text-oriented graphics like this one are a different matter. Would you dare to vote if it were Chinese? Only few people participating here know German, but everyone knows English. (I admit, Latin was not so good an idea either.) Roger McLassus 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but I still disagree. In this discussion alone I see four people who know german. It seems like a no brainer that you should only vote if you comprehend the illustration, so, no, of course I wouldn't dare to vote on a chinese diagram. The point is as long as there are enough competent voters why shouldn't it be featured? This is a self regulating process, and I don't see a need to further regulate/restrict it. And let me elaborate on competent and comprehend, language is not the only barrier here, subject matter is as or even more important so ultimately every voter has to judge for herself/himself weather she or he is fit to judge the picture. Why should language skills be treated any different than let's say knowledge of biochemistry? --Dschwen 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose - The text is too small on the image description page. If I then click on the image to see it full size, it throws up an error box "Do you want to save this file. Name: Citratcyclus.svg. Type: Unknown File Type. Save. Cancel. Warning, some files can potentially harm your computer (etc.)". Well, I don't particularly want to save something that might harm my computer, but I would like to see it full size. As it is, it's useless. - MPF 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't do it to me even once of the eight times I opened the image. are you sure you did it right? why are you blaming the picture for it? I am sure all voters above would have complained if the image did not open. you better try it again. -- Boereck 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is as if someone who used lynx would oppose on all nominations because the pictures didn't show up... --Dschwen 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutour valley, Pyrenees - not featured[edit]

Lutour valley, Pyrenees.

From the trees, which all lean that amount CW - MPF 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metal movable type.jpg - featured[edit]

Note: This edit is not due for approval yet
13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower with water droplets 2.JPG - not featured[edit]

4 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uria Lomvia 1 9.jpg - not featured[edit]

Brünnich's Guillemot 

Day 7: 0 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Times Square New York At Dusk.jpg - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand Canyon South Rim at Sunrise.jpg - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tour Eiffel Special.jpg - not featured[edit]

300px

And the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing --Digon3 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dschwen - What are we seeing here? And overexposed, shaky, cut and tilted pic of the eifeltower?
  1. The overexposition is deliberately wanted. It's the only way you can capture the game of lights, which are alternately light up and off. (Shutter in B position).
  2. The shakiness is a consequence of shutter position. In that case I think it adds to the picture a soft, doughty character that gave the object (tower) an ethereal unreal "aura".
  3. The cut & tilted pic (?) The picture is tilted less than 5° and 90% present in the frame. Notice that even if taken uncut, by the particular exposure given, the bottom of the tower won't be seen because of the less number of lights, instead you'll obtain a picture with less area of the most interesting part: the top with the game of lights.
  4. The light design is copyrighted: this picture is a result of a particular shot technique, it shows something that your eyes can't never see because this effect is virtual and not specially designed in that manner.
  1. you failed to capture the game of lights, it's just a blurry mess.
  2. it doesn't add, and use a tripod, this is not a lomo club.
  3. 5° and 90% = tilted and cut
  4. particular shot technique? --Dschwen 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Digon3 - Very weird, very unclear. Not FPM, and the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing
  1. Very weird, very unclear: Weird is your opinion, I think you should gave an argument instead. The "unclear" effect is wanted.(see above)
  2. the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing: YES! and that's beautiful I think, this kind of light flaming object that lives in the dark...
    • Jacopo86 - for quality reasons, and also because light design is copyrighted (yes, sound silly...)
  1. for quality reasons: the quality is a consequence of the shutter position. (see above)
The "quality" is a consequence of camera-shake, bad framing, tilt, and your wish do capture alternating lightpatterns in a single image, which almost by definition won't result in a FP-worthy picture 99,9% of the time. It's a fun snapshot and I understand what you like about it, but it does not conform in any way to the guidelines given at the top of this page. Mstroeck 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. light design is copyrighted: the shot is taken on something that in the reality isn't shown, only with the overexposition you can see it. (see above)
  1. Art, pictures, paintings, statues, etc... are useful? They are a way of expression, they excite the mind... :).
  •  Comment This photograph probably cannot be put on Commons anyway: the lightning of the Eiffel Tower are considered to be works of art per se in French law, and there is a copright on these (and do not start, I did not write the law, it's just like that, period). Rama 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'am french and I've seen the Tour Eiffel by night before, and I can say this picture doesn't give a good idea the fantastic beauty of this building. It's just an easy special effect... About the copyright... it's right. If you want to shot a film in Paris with the tour Eiffel, you will have to pay 6000€ (i think)for one minute. But there is a reason, of course : the lights of the tour eiffel has been created by an artist. So there is a copyright as there is for a picture or a statue or whatever... So it's not a stupid law ! Even if we have a lot of stupid and useless laws in France (but it's the same in the US, no ? :) 
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mangusta.JPG - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marx_engels.png - not featured[edit]

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels working on the Communist Manifesto (Painting) 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helmeted guineafowl kruger.jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danaus plexippus croped.JPG - not featured[edit]

7 support, 8 oppose, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girl and cat.jpg - not featured[edit]

  •  Info created by Joaquim Gaspar— uploaded by Alvesgaspar — nominated by Alvesgaspar 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Alvesgaspar 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Did the girl's parents give permission ? Lycaon 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lycaon 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice and cute, but... it's a bit noisy on dark parts, has jpeg artifacts too evidents and that white thing on the left (a switch?) is disturbing. Francisco M. Marzoa 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Neither nice nor cute. Very boring home snapshot. - MPF 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Indon 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Ss181292 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) - another this is my pet photo. No value, low quality, bad composition, boring. Please read and understand Guidelines for nominators above before your next nomination.[reply]
    •  Comment No need to be arrogant. The history of Art (and of Photography, in particular) is full of themes as banal as this one. Also, and as you should know, "beauty" is essentially a question of taste, in its various components: theme, composition, colours, excitment... To call attention to the "guidelines" because you think the photo is boring is ungraceful Alvesgaspar 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Commons is not a collection of art. This is not a collection of personal photos also. I call to guidelines because you apparently dont understand what is the purpose of FPC (this page). Ss181292 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again you are extrapolating wildly (and seem confused) about what Commons is. Surely, it is also a collection of art as well as of personal photos (whatever a personal photo might be), including the “this is my pet” type. Please understand that I’m not defending the merits of my picture (you are right, it is not a very good one), only the right to have bad taste, to participate in FPC and (even so) to be treated with courtesy. Of course, you also have the right to be blatant, although I suspect that is not the normal way with Wikipedia.Alvesgaspar 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment This site (FPC) was created for finding such pictures from all pictures on Commons that are somewhat special. I think everybody should understand that after reading the title (newcomers to). If not, we have delivered some guidelines. Now we vote; everybody reveals what they are thinking about the picture; in form of short informations like: bad composition, low resolution or high value. It has nothing about offending or being arrogant - it is common and convenient way (no need to write a lot and read a lot, cause everybody understands). The fact are that Commons is not the place for every picture or every piece of art, but for that that has some value (in many ways); and Featured picture is such picture from Commons (so it is already valuable) that is special. I wouldn't be writing this if you hadn't said that you have been offended or mistreated. Mistake was on your site. If you are guest somewhere, you shouldn't complain on rules Vulpecula 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose also considerably leaning to the left Roger McLassus 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral got carried away... Lycaon 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you got carried away by oppose votes and didnt want to stick with your guns? --Fir0002 www 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nope. by the cute face, still don't want to oppose (stick, guns etc..) ;-) Lycaon 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male kodiak bear face.JPG - not featured[edit]

2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Petrified Forest National Park Wood.jpg - not featured[edit]

3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dolichotis patagonum head.JPG - not featured[edit]

1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eating Male Papio hamadryas.JPG - not featured[edit]

4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vatican StPaul Statue.jpg - featured[edit]

->The composition is meant to be like that. I placed St Pauls head 1/3 from the left border and Jesus unsharp in the background, representing somehow a constant presence. Well that it is cut in half is also part of the composition as i wanted to focus the view on the face. Also the clouds are important as they make the photo somehow more heavenly..you see i had many thoughts about that photo, btw i am not that religious as you might think now :-) --AngMoKio 09:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain that please?--AngMoKio 13:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just an awful pun . . . vatican, vatican't - MPF 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - composition Lycaon 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack lycaon.--Fanghong 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, do you happen to have a picture of the same subject but with a different composition? maybe one where the statue is complete. I believe that would hit better with the crowds, as the main reason for opposition is a weird composition. I'd certainly support a "body shot" of the statue; like most people here I feel the composition is a bit weird.--Roadmr 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - it works for me, the focus is on the statue's eyes and the hand which bid the visitors to come closer and confess their sins;)the sky and the background underline the contrast between tiny people and huge statues just as it is was intended by the designers of the church and the square --eirissa 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support What the hell heaven?! It's near perfect. Composition is not good, but excelent. It seems like that hippy with the cross on the right were alive and blessing that Gandalf!!! And I must say that I'm a kind of those whose thinks that the only church that illuminates is that one which burns, so I'm not easily excited with religious subjects. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ack Francisco M. Marzoa and the cloud is a good diagonal line through the picture Simonizer 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose With the subject that can be taken millions of times, lighting can be improved much more than this. Lighting is too strong and creates harsh shadow. Indon 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your monitor is calibrated. In my oppinion the contrast is not harsh at all. The light is also good and a cloud like that you dont have all the time --AngMoKio 12:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My monitor is well-calibrated, don't worry. And it is not the contrast that is harsh, but the shadow. The contrast is quite okay - I hope you understand the difference between contrast and lighting. Lighting is too strong as it was taken in a day light, the most uninteresting moment to take a picture. Look at the face, you'll see harsh shadow. Cloud? It's a dull textureless cloud, and sure you can wait for more interesting cloud. Indon 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tired brown bear 050701 01.JPG - not featured[edit]

nominated picture 

Day 7: 0 support, 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Los Angeles Pollution.jpg - featured[edit]

15 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Van Gogh Final View - Window by Attic Room Deathbed.jpg

Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg - not featured[edit]

Bass demandez 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marx_drawing.jpg - not featured[edit]

Karl Marx, drawing 

4 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BirdNBoatHelsinki.jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sa lacewing.jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Senescence.JPG - featured[edit]

9 support, 2 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 12:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg - featured[edit]

It was created and uploaded by Diliff, it says so in the links to section. --Digon3 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely sorry about that. I came across the picture on norro's user page, and I somehow assumed it was uploaded by him, so I just checked the licensing which said "I, the author of...". Sorry again and thanks for pointing out. -- Kprateek88 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Agassiz statue.jpg - featured[edit]

Sorry, to my knowledge there is no better resolution version available. When this was disseminated by the Dept. of the Interior on CD-ROM it was considered high resolution for the time (1992). This is a slightly cropped and jpegged version lifted straight from the original CD. -Quartermaster 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG - featured[edit]

Morning Fog at the Golden Gate Bridge 

18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CrowHeadClosed.jpg[edit]

  •  Info A crow (Corvus Cornix) in a park closed to Helsinki, Finland. Created, uploaded and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa

original version (left) - not featured[edit]

2006 (UTC)

  •  Comment About the perversion it was a just a joke. About the picture its not a "random" crop, the subject its not the crow but the head-of-the-crow. Come on! Have you never take a picture of an interesting part of an animal? (or man... or woman...) Francisco M. Marzoa 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - featured[edit]

10 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 12:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kreuzspinne front Sep06.jpg[edit]

  •  Info European garden spider with prey. created, uploaded and nominated by Dschwen
  •  Comment. Like any other macro shot it has a limited depth of field. I focussed on the jaws and body, and despite parts of the legs having a fairly soft focus I think the picture provides sufficient detail (check full size).

original version (left) - not featured[edit]

  1. I dont't like dark blue
  2. I think a different apperture would have been better
  3. Dead pixels
The latter is surely fixable, but the rest strikes me as purely subjective and/or uninformed. Sorry! --Dschwen 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I am wrong and you've made the best picture possible with your camera in this situaton, then you've done a commendable job, which I underestimated because I was "uninformed". But even this assumption would not enhance this picture's quality. It would still not reach FP-quality (in my subjective view, admittedly, but, alas, I have no other. Nor has anyone else.) Roger McLassus 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The problem is not the colour of the background but its effect on the constrast of the image. Also, some parts of the spider are not focused. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! Thank you, that's a comment which ich a lot more usefull for me. The bg looke fine to me on the screens I used (en:FPC has a paragraph on that). But I can see how the edit enhances the contrast. I can't do anything abt. focus at least not with my camera, and I seriously doubt that anyone here can create macro shots with significantly higher DOF. --Dschwen 09:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With this (difficult)angle and light you don't have enough depth-of-field!... --Alvesgaspar 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 
5 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 0 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loket vid järnvägsolyckan i Getå 1918.jpg - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kapellbrücke Bridge in the dust.JPG - not featured[edit]

3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abschlussdeich Blickrichtung Nord.jpg - not featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg[edit]

nominated picture Roger's version

original version (left) - not featured[edit]

7 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - not featured[edit]

2 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dunes-noires.jpg - not featured[edit]

Les traces de sable noir dans les dunes de la Tadrart 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PalmyraPanoramaZoom.jpg - not featured[edit]

forgot that --Digon3 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mały Jeziorak i Młyn Elektryczny.jpg - not featured[edit]

Would Bad be better? Poor is not entirely subjective, and is not insulting to the picture or the person. --Digon3 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is electric mill (from XIX) on the left there is Jeziorak Lake and Boulevard (alley) of John Paul II Marcin n® ☼ 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HeptadecagonConstructionAni.gif - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:sa mustard.jpg - not featured[edit]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tree frog Fern Forest.jpg - featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14 support, 2 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1954 sounding rocket image of a tropical cyclone.jpg - not featrued[edit]

3 support, 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BB-Bea.jpg - not featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polarlicht.jpg - featured[edit]

Northern lights at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska Northern lights at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska

Original version (left) - not featured[edit]

8 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified version (right) - featured[edit]

15 support, 7 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KinderdijkMolens01.jpg - featured[edit]

Original version (left) - qualified[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → qualified
other version scores better → not featured Roger McLassus 06:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version (right) - featured[edit]

6 support, 1 oppose → qualified
higher score-ratio → featured Roger McLassus 06:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Konkatedra w Prabutach.jpg - not featured[edit]

2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reading glasses.jpg - not featured[edit]

4 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thrashers_player.jpg - not featured[edit]

Player of the Atlanta Thrashers 

1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F--18.jpg - featured[edit]

Version 1 Version 2 Version 3

Version 1 (left) - not featured[edit]

  • You can change your angle of view, leaving more space in front of the jet and still you gain the smoke and the background. I'm still opposing it, sorry. Indon 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Indon, that is precisely the merit of this photograph. Good composition, good diagonal, good sense of movement. And yes, the plane is taking off, the smoke is an integral part of the moment, etc., etc. I do not like the theme itself, thus I will not support it, but it is a good photograph.--Tomascastelazo 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still it does not work for me. I've seen many images like this with much better composition. This picture looks good only because of sunset silhouette, nothing more. Indon 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Blind14 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → qualified
(featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 08:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
not featured Roger McLassus 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (center) - not featured[edit]

4 support, 0 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 3 (right) - featured[edit]

  • Strong  Support I really don't care about the encyclopedic value.It's a cool picture,and this version improves all of my minor dislikings.Who cares if it's "frozen in time" who cares if it has no "encyclopedic value" not like that matters really.This is an excellent image in my mind and deserves to be featured. SOADLuver 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → qualified
featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
featured Roger McLassus 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koh Samui Lipa Noi2.jpg - not delisted[edit]

Original nomination

  • Its a sunset, its low res, got some problems with the picture(artifacts?, grainy?). Unless it is special in some way I don't know about or its one of a kind I dont see why it should be a FP. --Digon3 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I see no reason to delist (Incedentally, have we adopted a policy for delisting?) Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If this where to be put up for nomination today it would never make FP. Requirements have change since 2004 and being a pretty sunset (there wasnt hundreds of sunset pictures being nominated), was the only reason it was featured. It may have been good then, but not now. While it has a good foreground and background, everything else (General quality, Resolution, Value) is bad. Like it says in the guidelines, "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most of such pictures are not different in the essence from others". There is nothing special about this picture. --Digon3 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, I believe that requirements for delisting be substantially more stringent than listing. This clearly was considered by some to be a featured picture (with no opposition), regardless of our requirements. Furthermore, some sunset pictures are striking. We don't have a policy prohibiting sunsets. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying it should be delisted just because it is a sunset, Im saying it should be delisted because of everything else (General quality, Resolution, Value, technical quality). Over time, featured picture standards change. --Digon3 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 delist, 7 keep → not delisted Roger McLassus 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg - not featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg - featured[edit]

11 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 08:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 1.jpg - featured[edit]

Nope. When you make a silhouette of an object, it has to have a strong backlight. It would be a nice shilouette if the backlight has rich color, as in the sunset. In this picture, the backlight is not colorful, IMO. BTW, how about if you tweak the saturation and levels of this picture? Maybe the backlight color will appear. Indon 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's clearer. I disagree that the picture wasn't 'taken properly' - it portrays the scene near enough exactly as it appeared to the naked eye. Tweaking the saturation etc. would be falsifying the scene - it wasn't 'colourful' but I don't think that's a prerequisite for an effective photograph. I could have waited for the sun to set completely and got a rich orange glow but that would have been a totally different scene and wasn't what I wanted to capture in this panorama. --Yummifruitbat 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 08:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg - featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg - not featured[edit]

3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg - featured[edit]

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Port of Kobe02s4100.jpg - not featured[edit]

3 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Círio.jpg - not featured[edit]

300px|Short description 

1 support (nominator), 6 oppose, picture deleted → not featured Roger McLassus 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lincoln-Memorial WashingtonDC.jpg - not featured[edit]

Lincoln Memorial Washington

  •  Info created by Paul Frederickson - uploaded by Paul Frederickson - nominated by Paul Frederickson --Pauliefred 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Pauliefred 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the composition, but the sky is noisy and some purple artifacts are visible. -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - tourist snapshot - MPF 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose IMO it looks too random. --Erina 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that mean? It seems pretty purposeful to me (i.e. taking a picture of the memorial). Dori | Talk 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is obvious to me that the author of this image expended a lot of work on it, so it is with great reluctance that I withhold my support of this image. It would appear that the numerous tourist were cloned out of the image, a little of that would have been acceptable, but the end result is that the image has a number of artifacts which make it an unfair representation of reality. (Look carefully at the steps of the monument and the repeating pattern in the grass.). I admit that getting a clean picture of this building will be a challenge. --Gmaxwell 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Thanks for pointing it out Gmaxwell, although I feel very different about it. A lot of work might have been put into the image, but it was not for good. The picture felt odd at first glance, without any people there is no sense of scale and I didn't even recognize the image at first. Heavy photo manipulation like this should be strongly discouraged in my opinion. After all commons mission is foremost a repository for an encyclopedia. And as such it has a certain obligation to the truth and reality, which supersedes aesthetic fancies. Apart from that the clone job is not too great anyways with all the visible artifacts --Dschwen 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Worried little girl.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pilot Brindisi 0.jpg - not featured[edit]

Pilot leavin ship 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aranjuez PalacioReal PlazaToros.jpg - not featured[edit]

View of the Royal Palace and the Bullring of Aranjuez (Spain) 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aranjuez PalacioDesdePuenteBarcas.jpg - not featured[edit]

Royal Palace of Aranjuez (Spain) with river Tagus seen from the Boats' Bridge 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aranjuez JardinParterre FachadaOrientalPalacio.jpg - not featured[edit]

Eastern façade of the Royal Palace from the Parterre's Garden of Aranjuez (Spain) 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elloracaves.jpg - not featured[edit]

Ellora caves in Mahrashtra India are one of the finest examples of rock cut architecture. The kailasha temple features rich tectures and intricate carving in stone. 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil.jpg[edit]

 

left picture[edit]

 Comment Its the panorama that was featured here, not this one. So this is still not a Featured Picture, thats why there are no tags. The panorama version was POTD. --Digon3 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: picture is not featured and therefore cannot be delisted
Roger McLassus 08:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right picture[edit]

Day 7: 0 delist, 3 keep → kept Roger McLassus 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Luzern Kapellbruecke.jpg - not featured[edit]

Chapel bridge Lucerne

I understand that not everybody takes the (small) weaving tourists as a subtle irony and I thank you for the detailed comments. But the image is not soft focus. You can see that the resolution is even below one pixel if you have a look at the bridge pylons. --Ikiwaner 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, check the tower. It takes 5px to completely transition from shadow to sky. So I'd say the Image can be downsampled by about a factor of 3. Some people go great lengths and take mosaic pictures and downsample to get perfectly sharp pictures (check Image:Amsterdam_Canals_-_July_2006.jpg or Image:Radcliffe_Camera,_Oxford_-_Oct_2006.jpg for good examples). This one does indeed have a soft focus. Anyway, I wouldn't object a picture solely on this point, but it contributes to my oppose. --Dschwen 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 0 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twins.jpg - featured[edit]

7 support, 2 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 07:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bird on Wire.jpg - not featured[edit]

Bird on wire, in Dolomiti / Italy 

4 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palladio-La-Rotonda.jpg - not featured[edit]

La Rotonda by Palladio

Noise reducted, not a candidate per se
3 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChingaMeteorite.jpg - not featured[edit]

* Support --Digon3 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Luzern old part of town.JPG - featured[edit]

What is an ISO and exif? --Digon3 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISO, exif. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good question, why Nikon does not write the ISO down. But as far as I can remember I used the ISO Automatic for that picture. Maybe that is the reason. Simonizer 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My D70 neither writes ISO down. A humble advice: Avoid automatic ISO, use the lowest ISO available (200 in my D70, I think its the same on the D50) and adjust aperture and/or exposition time. Higher ISO# = Higher Noise. There are only a few situations where a high ISO may be needed: subject moving very fast, very low light, inside buildings where tripod and flash are forbidden, ... but this is not the case. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I will change that. Simonizer 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image-Jezioro Mały Jeziorak w Iławie3.svg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Map of Small Jeziorak Lake and center of Iława (Featured on Polisch Wikipedia) created by Marcin n® ☼ - uploaded by Marcin n - nominated by Marcin n® ☼ --MARCIN N 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MARCIN N 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What are the units in the distance scale? What is the principal scale of the map? Where is North? Not all the cartographic symbols used in the representation are identified in the legend. The image seems too small to be useful as a real map. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - lettering too small to read comfortably at full size. - MPF 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - Yet another unfounded comment, since with SVG, full size is not defined. Please read article about en:SVG! ♦ Pabix ℹ 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - "Please read article about SVG" - read it, and don't understand about 98% of it. One thing it does say, is that "The use of SVG on the web is in its infancy" . . . in other words, you can't expect most people to be able to resize it, because their computers are too old to have it on. If I try clicking on the pic to see it full size, I just get a warning about an unknown file type, that may harm my computer. I'm not willing to take this risk. - MPF 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - We know the format is scalable. But how to make the image bigger in this context, to facilitate the evaluation? And how to scale it to adequate size in other Wikipedia projects? I tried to download and convert the image with CorelDraw and failed. -- Alvesgaspar 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There're several tools wich may help you. If you use Firefox you may try this extension so you can pan an zoom SVGs directly from the navigator. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Opera navigator fully supports SVG, otherwise, and you can edit the image in software like Inskscape. ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 15:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I need "Guidelines for evaluating SVGs" Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A static map like this one shouldn’t be scalable: if you reduce the scale, the lettering and other cartographic symbols might become illegible and the image crowded; if you enlarge it, you are suggesting a precision (and accuracy) that the map doesn’t have. Note that topographic maps of the same region, but with different scales, have different detail and symbology (different levels of “generalization”, as cartographers say). For this particular map I suggest the following improvements: (i) make it non-scalable; (ii) state the scale of the map; (iii) indicate the direction of North; (iv) draw and graduate one parallel and one meridian (or suggest them) so that we know where in Earth this place is; (v) improve the legend so that all symbols used in the map are explained (railroads, road tags, etc.); (vi) make the neatline (the exterior line that frames the map) more sober. Good work! -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There is something important I forgot to say: the map is beatiful and nicely done. But beauty is not enough, in this case, to being really useful and reach FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose not all symbols are explained in the legend, no arrow that indicates north, no distance units used in scalebar. This map just does not satify some basic cartographic requisites. Tbc 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indicates north there is on the down in Legend. What symbols aren't explained in the legend? Marcin n® ☼ 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The railroad and the footpath nearby the water (if it is a footpath) for example. Now I took a second look a few other things struck me: first, the roads are digitized as polygons and not as line elements (there are indeed some arguments why in some situations thsi is preferred, but not for the purpose of this map). For example: the road Narutowicza, Mickiewicza, the railroad, ... gets wider and smaller. It would surprise me if the roads really do this, it looks more like sloppiness to me (just like the footpath that leaves the grass on the right). Also the polygons are not "snapped" to one another (look at the orange building/grass contact zone in the lower right), that will create small meaningless polygons that will be clearly visible at full zoom (definately in svg). Please do not interpret these comments the wrong way, they are meant to be constructive. The map is good, but really should not be a featured one. Tbc 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg - featured[edit]

Pelican
It's an Australian Pelican --Fir0002 www 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 08:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Origami-crane.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

of course I meant low ISO :-) --Ikiwaner 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StAngelo Bridge Rome.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

9 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The drought.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description

Original version - not featured[edit]

4 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd version - not featured[edit]

2 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ruta Nacional A006 (Argentina).jpg - not featured[edit]

Unpaved road on Mendoza, Argentina, near Argentina-Chile border

Unpaved road on Mendoza, Argentina, near Argentina-Chile border

original version - not featured[edit]

2 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second version - not featured[edit]

I changed the picture so the right mirror of the car is not seen anymore and the sky color is more natural (the first version is overexposed, as noted by Francisco M. Marzoa). 

3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poecile-atricapilla-005.jpg - not featured[edit]

A black capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gerstetten.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seagul Brighton-eating.jpg - not featured[edit]

Herring gull eating bread from human hand

* Support --84.67.1.155 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous votes don't count...--Digon3 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 0 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron.jpg - not featured[edit]

Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron holding the poster of "Aliens" 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chateau Frontenac 02728.jpg

Image:Streichholz.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 21:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
template {{I love}} is currently banned on FPC - template changed. Ss181292 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 09:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg - featured[edit]

Blue Jay

Inderdaad! Tbc 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
template {{I love}} is currently banned on FPC - template replaced. Ss181292 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
anonymous votes are not counted - Alvesgaspar 12:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Photographer.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

banned template replaced Roger McLassus 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Global tropical cyclone tracks-edit2.jpg - featured[edit]

Cumulative tracks of all tropical cyclones from 1985 to 2005

banned template replaced Lycaon 12:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wien_Donau_Vienna_Danube.jpg - not featured[edit]

Kurzbeschreibung

anonymous votes don't count... - Alvesgaspar 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colegiocesarchavezmural.jpg[edit]

Colegio Cesar Chavez

Withdrawn: [3]. ZooFari 02:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/October_2006&oldid=136629406"