Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2009

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.


[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 13:42:36
Phaon iridipennis 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 15:58:40
Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees, 1944

Rama is right. I know that this image is very old, but there are better images of this age. -- Pro2 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better images of this event? Could you show them to me please? Yann (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) He said "better images of this age", not "better images of this event"
2) We would not feature sub-standard photographs for the only reason that they'd be the only ones of their event. That is Valued Image, not Featured Picture. Rama (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 18:35:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Not really. She was laying eggs before and he watched/observed that very carefully. Every once in a while they took a rest, mostly not together - but in a rare moment ... "click"   • Richard • [®] • 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, :-) That does sound like a tiny sensation with lots of value! Maedin\talk 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason? -- Pro2 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the many stitching errors. File:Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo male female errors.jpg --Fir0002 www 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not another case of the loving wrens? File:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a 3d rendering   • Richard • [®] • 22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 18:51:12
Fruit in Market 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 22:59:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 23:19:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 16:34:22
Clear vectorization of Gallblader illustration from Grey's Anatomy. Description in English, Polish, Germany and Latin

 Request I retuched this "overlap". I think, that transparent colors look good. But if you consider that should be change - isn't problem. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kashan to Qum heights.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 08:12:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 15:23:24
Coin of Venezuela (Fuerte 1919) 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Coin of Venezuela (Fuerte 1919)

That's the real size --The Photographer (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No WOW is ever a ridiculously subjective justification, since one image can be extremely useful. --The Photographer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is in the first paragraph of the guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a “wow factor”". Yes, "wow factor" is subjective, but featured pictures do need it. If you think it is valuable, maybe it should be nominated in valued images. But could you tell me please, how it is valuable, in what sort of article it could be used? (No sarcasm. I am asking because I have a collection of old coins myself and after seeing your nomination I wondered, if I should photograph some of the for wikipedia too, but I couldn't think of an article, where it could be used.)--Tired time (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best preserved is the currency for the time. At the moment I'm developing material for inclusion in a detailed article. Thank's --The Photographer (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 16:13:56
Aletsch Glacier with Pinus cembra 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 23:51:23
Larvae of Neurotoma flaviventris

Uhmm yes, frustration sometimes can have odd excesses   • Richard • [®] • 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 09:00:35
Category F5 tornado 

result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 12:42:55
Watersplash 

result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 17:12:27
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:17:36


result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali2.svg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:25:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

This "kitschy" border is an arabesque, an element of Islamic art.--Gothika (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ahh, it was already listed here too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 08:06:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:46:37
Passo Greina, Switzerland 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:53:12
The Abbey of St. Gall 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 16:09:17
Piazza Communale Poschiavo 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 21:33:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 02:30:23
Changdeok Place of Joseon Dynasty in Seoul, Korea 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 07:18:10
Paper Wasp (Mischocyttarus Flavitarsis) Head Closeup 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:11:19
Matterhorn from the train to the Gornergrat 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buckingham Palace, London - April 2009.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:24:27
Buckingham Palace 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 16:35:45
Squirrel scratching armpit 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 17:00:41
Marbled rock crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus). 

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 19:33:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:47:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 16:04:04

The old water tower in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BolivarReconsFlag - 22809(40).JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:30:27
Bolivar Peninsula Reconstruction

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted, underexposed and 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.

Lycaon (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flag-pole itself has been tilted from the excessively high winds of the area. That tilt was meant to be reduced. --DaFoos (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was for the horizon, the flag-pole is tilted 1.34° CW. So wind tilt is probably 2.39° CW. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:17:58
Sunset in Santorini 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sunset in Santorini

[edit]

Sunset in Santorini

  •  Support
  •  Oppose Sorry, but just adding some light isn't sufficient, it's overall too dark and, to me, simply not special enough. Also, the horizon ist not horizontal. -- H005 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 15:22:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 21:15:14
Smoldering charcoal briquettes in a barbecue grill 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set Candidate - Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 00:05:53

First off, I apologise for this formatting: It's hard to set up 10 plates simply and cleanly when they switch between landscape and portrait.

Right. These are the original illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, a sequel of sorts to "Jabberwocky". Full descriptions below. These have been the subject of at least some critical comment (see en:The Hunting of the Snark, for instance), since they were approved by Carroll, and he specified some aspects, such as the snark never being distinctly seen. This set is pretty much complete: I believe there may have also been a cover illustration, but I don't know if it was by Holiday, and mine lacks it. I'll try to pick that up at some later time.

With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to propose a sudden halt to a practice that Commons has routinely done for years. Durova (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for closing my own nom, but I was told it'd be alright, and I didn't want to cause the extra work for anyone else, so...

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 abstain =>  featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 07:27:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 08:38:59
Eerie landscape in the Ciucaş mountains, Prahova County, Romania.

Anonymous votes not allowed. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:07:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 14:12:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 18:12:22
Cherry tree blossom 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:03:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Read this, please.   • Richard • [®] • 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the PDF: an old but interesting key. I'm even less convinced now ;-). These flies are difficult, and the distinguishing features (face, hind femur/tibia) are not clearly visible on the picture. I think we need the opinion of a syrphid taxonomist here. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In progress   • Richard • [®] • 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as it is a very worthy image. Lycaon (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. M. hybridus could be excluded [5].   • Richard • [®] • 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:50:55
Vagrant darter 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Enallagma cyathigerum (by).jpg, featured

[edit]

Enallagma cyathigerum 

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2009 at 08:47:09
Sheepskin hats 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 07:16:29
Scout 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 00:00:34
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:28:21
Boulevard du Temple, by Louis Daguerre 

result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Paris 16 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:46:30
Wojciech Kilar 

result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canary Wharf Wide View 2, London - July 2009.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 14:56:25
Canary Wharf 360° view

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:47:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:50:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 01:49:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 02:53:03
Lotus seed head

Or fans of David Lynch   • Richard • [®] • 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 13:23:34
Keswick, Cumbria (England) 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 05:49:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 17:01:49
Drink-Up. Tel-Aviv, Israel. 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 20:36:06
A panorama of the river Amstel in the city's centre of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Visible are the famous Skinny Bridge and the theatre Carre. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Nycticorax violaceus at beach 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 09:53:04
Coreopsis Bud

Maybe the bud is closed only at night ?   • Richard • [®] • 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:16:43
Gentiana verna 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 16:39:16
The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage. 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cladoniaceae (Tierra del Fuego) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 07:37:06
Venus Flytrap flower - 20mm in diameter 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:22:20
a Melanargia galathea

Yes, money ! :-Y   • Richard • [®] • 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 09:38:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 13:20:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the image with a wider crop. Tell me what you think.
result: 21 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 20:40:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Id has never been a FP criteria (though some think it is), this is not QIC --Tony Wills (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The id till genus is acceptable and we have numerous FPs id'd only till this level. Expecting a complete species id from a picture is impractical and impossible for the majority of the uncommon species. Re the low res on main subject, the whole image covers the subject. And as I mentioned, a larger version will be uploaded in max a month --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the rush in nominating this now? --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Dschwen. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Muhammad will upload a version with higher resolution I oppose this one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will upload the higher resolution over this one, and that too only if this one is featured. --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So should we make a deal here: you get a little FP sticker for all you pictures to make you happy, and in turn you upload full resolution for all your pics? Sorry, but this has a bitter aftertaste. --Dschwen (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't have much time later (presently on vacation). Once I know which of my pictures are the "best of the best", I can upload higher res of these only effectively using my time. FWIW, I think your tone could do with some practice. --Muhammad (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The licence issues don't belong here. The licence is valid and accepted on Commons and is not part of the FP criteria, so there really isn't any more to say on the matter here. As for the ID issues, we recently had an FP promotion for a completely unidentified cactus. It is not an FP requirement that there be a species ID—that's a QI rule. Now, with those two things out of the way, I support because it's an excellent image and satisfies all of the requirements. Maedin\talk 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - the crop is ok, because it shows that the interesting weaving is not throughout the entire web. Downtowngal (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - as Downtowngal. A lower crop would hide the seemingly ordinary outer web, which presently adds to the photo. 72.173.26.4 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(please login to vote --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply] 

result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christina Aguilera - Back to Basics Tour - Ain't No Other Man.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:28:29
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: it is below size requirements. 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.

→Diti the penguin — 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 19:45:15
Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo

  

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1, withdrawn

[edit]

Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo

 InfoI am not sure I understood your question " What's this for?" What is for? The image? It is for Commons and wikipedia. The position is very ttypical for a bird that is grooming his tail, and it was what he was doing. I wish I were able to turn my head as he does .--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 12:03:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, x neutral => withdrawn by nominator not featured.   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 12:00:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, x neutral => withdrawn by nominator not featured.   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36
Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 22:34:42
2 hot-air balloons

Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 00:34:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 17:17:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:57:01
An Egyptian paratrooper. 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 13:58:40
Juvenile Swainson's Hawk

I'd love to but "Save for Web & Devices" in Photoshop seems to remove the EXIF. Not sure if there's an option to disable it. --Calibas (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Err, why don't you use the usual "save as" diealogue then? -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way Photoshop translates jpegs into the actual image is different than the way web browsers translate the image. There's no standard way to read a jpeg file, so the brightness, contrast and color can vary. The "Save for Web & Devices" option writes the jpeg in a way that web browsers will "see" the image in relatively the same way Photoshop does. So "Save for Web & Devices" usually creates something that looks a lot more like the picture you see in Photoshop than "Save As" does. Compare the two, often they vary quite noticeably. --Calibas (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'save for web' also uses higher compression, resulting in poorer quality. I understand you are worried about how it looks in browsers, but our main concern should be in providing the highest possible quality. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's lower quality? The file size at maximum for "save for web..." is actually larger than "save as". I don't think a higher compression would have a larger file size. And even if I did lose a tiny bit of resolution, is not correct color and contrast an important part of image quality? --Calibas (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed my images look better on 'save as', but on closer inspection it was other settings that affected them ... In looking at the manual, the only difference is in Exif info being removed in 'save for web'. Both types allow you to embed the ICC color profile, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll do that from now on. --Calibas (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 14:27:58
Sepia drawing by Caspar David Friedrich 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 18:32:24
Interior of the Basilique of St Maximim la Sainte Baume, France. 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: Voters may not have been aware of the new version.  If it may change the outcome, please consider nominating again. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 23:26:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for your question, Downtowngal. More than 100 houses were destroyed by the lava flow in 1990 in Kalapana. The town used to have streets and gardens. They had their own church. They are there no more. The church was moved to a safer location. The streets and gardens were covered by lava. Some kids went to school, and came back to see their houses on fire. People tried to make a desperate bargain with Pele ,the goddess of fire. They threw bottles with wine to the approaching lava in hope Pele would have some pity on them. It did not help. There were many heartbreaking stories. One young family had volcano insurance. Their policy was canceled with no reason, few days before the lava was about to destroy their home. Their friends helped young couple to move the entire home to a different location. Today some people came back to Kalapana. There are few houses here and there. I do not think there is a beach there, but I am not sure about this. I've never approached any of the houses. It is a private property, and they do not like tourists to come around. I understand them very well. IMO this site is very, very special. I hope I answered your question, but if I did not, please feel free to ask me more. If I am still around by that time, I sure will respond .--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diti! Is this a comment or support? I am asking because you said "support" in the edit summary, but I see no support in the nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was a support, I forgot to use the template. :) →Diti the penguin — 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
really a clever plant there...it simply doesn't care about the wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I follow you. You said the image "isn't really sharp" under "easy conditions" . I said the condition were not easy because of the wind, and now, if I understood you right, you say that the plant "simply doesn't care about the wind", which to me means that you believe that the plant is sharp enough. You see, no matter what it is time to change your vote for "support" .--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know I just wondered why the plant isn't affected by the strong wind? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood this. I am asking what does it mean "the plant isn't affected by the strong wind". Do you believe that the plant is sharp enough?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately I don't think that the plant is sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is not sharp, how do you know that it is not sharp because of the wind?--Mbz1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said it is not sharp because of the wind, not me. I don't know why it is not sharp. I just wanted to say the plant doesn't look like as if there is a strong wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said anything was not sharp at the image. I said the conditions were not easy because of strong wind, and I proved strong wind with another image. On the other hand, when you say that conditions were easy, and the plant is not sharp, but not because of the wind, it is what is called "speculations" in the court of low, and speculations they are.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:23, 14 July 2009 (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) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Revised result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 02:27:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:24:28
Orange Spring Mound 

result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:37:50
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 02:58:47
Pyrocumulus clouds 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 007.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:00:43
Painting On the Terrasse by Renoir

  •  Info created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Olpl, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Huge size, great colors. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Gorgeous. -Calibas (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question The colours are great, but as I assume the picture does not look this way anymore, do we know that they ever looked so bright and saturated? -- H005 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't know the real painting. But I like this image for all the above reasons and also because we can see that the faces have several simultaneous expressions. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If this is to be a faithful reproduction of the real painting, then i believe the colors are unacceptably too vivid and saturated. Jeez, they are supposed to be sitting in a scenery of greenery, and now the overall yellowish-greenish hue of the painting has been so strongly removed that they are left against a pinkish-white background. I'm sorry to say that this, imho, makes no sense. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Maurilbert. Lycaon (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per my question above and until someone provides sufficient evidence that these colours depict the actual painting. -- H005 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Of course the colors don't represent the actual painting, any painting this old is going to be quite faded. This is probably a far more accurate reproduction of what it looked like right after Renoir painted it, than what is currently hanging up in the museum. We touch up old photographs all the time here, why not paintings? --Calibas (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With "actual painting" I did intentionally not exclude how it looked right after it had been painted. I just fear that if through image processing you e.g. simply make everything red that today is brown this might be far from what it looked back then. E.g. all the branches in the background look orange, not brown, I'm not convinced that Renoir made them look that way. -- H005 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any way to tell precisely what it's supposed to look like. The lighting and the camera are always going to alter the colors. If the whites look white I'd say it's close enough. If somebody wants to drop the saturation a touch I'll vote for that too, but this version looks fine to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Here, a knowledgeable contributor on wp:fr pointed me to the zoomable painting on the Art Institute of Chicago website. This should be assumed as reflecting best the way it looks today. It is far less yellowish than usually seen, yet far more subtle and muted in tones that the candidate. This contributor also mentionned that "Impressionists didn't paint in oils but in spirits and they would not varnish their paintings, so those don't become yellowish with age. Linseed oil and varnish cause yellowing." Thus, i'd guess that we are used to see old photographs of these paintings, and that the photographs yellowed way more than the actual paintings... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Also, here is the original version from the .torrent with a color card, converted to JPEG format but otherwise unmodified. The TIFF version is too large to upload to Commons, but if anyone wants it, just open the .torrent in any modern BitTorrent client and tell it to only download that file. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Seeing Ilmari Karonen file, I will nominate the other file. Yann (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 15:00:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red spotted newt 01.JPG, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 02:28:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henri Rousseau - The Luxembourg Gardens. Monument to Shopin.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 08:19:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 07:11:08


result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 17:55:54
Baker Beach

Done.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Great view and nice composition, particularly the reflection, but resolution too low IMHO, even if it just meets the 2 MB criterion, and the similarity between "horizon" and "horzontal" is no coincidence ... ;-) -- H005 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Baker Beach 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 17:59:29
Golden Retriever dog 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 21:12:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 20:32:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thanks. The texture/material is based on what? Some stars range in color from yellow to red. Please correct me, but I don't think the temperature/wavelength is known to astronomers on this scale. Besides it would likely change over time. bamse (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment bamse: See the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram for details. Temperature can be determined. See the Antares page for details. Planet texture maps are mostly from Celestia Motherlode and in the public domain (Earth was from a different site, but also PD). The textures for the stars are simulated, mostly based on textures from our Sun. Yes, the colours will change over time. I will update the image 10,000 years from now (if I remember). ;-) Thangalin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram from my high school, but that was not my question. Sorry for being so persistent. I have no doubt about the planet textures, since the details can be observed through telescopes or via space crafts. My problem is with the stars which are much further away. You say that you simulated their textures based on the texture from our sun. Can you tell a little more about the simulation part? Also, if I wanted to determine the temperature of "VV Cephei A", should I look at the yellow or the red parts of it? bamse (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded a few pictures from SOHO and created texture maps from them. The texture maps were applied at various opacities against the base colour of the sphere (derived through Wien's Law). To determine the temperature of VV Cephei A, look at its average colour, rather than its variances. Thangalin (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Do I understand correctly that the textures of the stars (except the one of our sun) are chosen for beauty rather than based on scientific grounds? If that is the case I would be glad if you added a note in the image description. In any case the description should state that the average color represents the temperature (through Wien's law). bamse (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Since we have no textures of distant stars, all the star textures are based on the Sun, for aesthetic purposes. It would be misleading to state the average colour represents the temperature for a few reasons. (1) Star temperatures are determined within a range. (2) Wien's Law works best with large stars, such as red giants. (3) The colours are likely close, but are not exact matches due to texture map opacity levels and procedural shaders. It would be simplest to state that star colours are estimated (and Saturn's rings are slightly larger in the picture than to scale). Thangalin (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blender 3D was used for the models, lighting, and rendering. The GIMP was used to assemble and label the six renders into a single image. Saturn's rings were difficult to get right (which is why the previous versions lacked them). I used Wolfram Alpha to calculate each sphere's base colour. Then simply calculate the relative sizes of spheres in terms of their representative solar radius (in other words: divide some numbers). Thangalin (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could u add this info to the description of the file? With links to where you got the textures or possibly adding the textures themselves to commons and linking to them? BTW. The shadows pose a problem in the image as they go somtimes to the right, left and center depending on their place. For consistency I'd propose using sky light so the shadows wouldn't be that sharp. The crop on the image 3 is also very tight. It would be best if this was widened.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shadows are consistent: the spotlight is always over the second-to-last sphere (to emphasize Saturn's transparent rings). Consequently, all shadows to the left of the second-to-last sphere point left and all shadows for the last sphere point right. Softening the shadows will blur the ring shadows, making it harder to discern the pattern of light passing through (take a close look at Uranus for the fine shading details). The crop on images 3 and 5 are too tight and will be resolved. (Betelgeuse should be further right for more space near its name.) Thangalin (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:55:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION

I hereby award you Richard this one-of-a-kind 100 FPs barnstar for your 100th FP--Mbz1 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 22:08:25


result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 11:47:22
Conductor Neeme Järvi 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (6).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 20:06:17
Syrphidae sp. on a flower. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 03:55:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (8).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:07:13
Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (2).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:09:08
Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photographers at Hawaii.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 02:43:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Of course it has as much value as many other images of the people and their activities. What value have those images [6], [7],[8],[9]? The nominated image might have more value because as I mentioned you could see the subject of their effort too, and because it shows to what extand people will go to take an image, and how hard is to stand at slippery rocks. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the image is "Photographers".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "subject of their effort". For a featured picture of photographers I would expect something more obvious; I had to look on 100% magnification to realize that the lady is not stoning a fish. --che 00:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about the subject of their effort only for fun :). Of course "the subject of their effort" cannot be FP , yet the image in whole could be FP IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sure could, as soon as you support the image :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - see my comment below at Agave americana R01.jpg. The FP guidelines IMO are biased, because high aesthetic quality is more difficult to achieve in pictures of people and buildings than it is in macros and landscapes. The images of people you point to have (much) higher aesthetic quality but arguably less usefulness than your image of photographers. But the guidelines are the guidelines. Downtowngal (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are new here, and do not know me well. You cannot imagine how hard I fought for the value of FP images. I used to oppose many images for "no value". I used to say that it is encyclopedia and not good quality image photo contest and so on, and so on. I lost my fight, and I do not oppose the images for that reason any more. There's no use. The nominated image has value IMO. As I said you actually could see the subject of the girls effort, and this could give you an idea of the habitat of the animals. You could also see how hard it is to enter the ocean at a typical beach on the Big island of Hawaii, where sandy beaches are big, big rarity, you could see the different colors of the ocean. On the other hand I cannot agree with some of your more or less the same oppose reasons. Please see my response here--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 04:48:21
Growing tip of giant kelp

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is of too low quality, particularly noise and unfortunate lighting 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) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 14:38:24
Fantasy of Flight 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fantasy of Flight

Cars etc. are not a good example, as these are not considered "art", but just things of everyday usage. This might be different here. At least the creators of the balloon call themselves "Künstler" (="artists"), and they are called artists in publications, so the balloon could be considered a pice of art, which unsually must not be reproduced on Commons. -- H005 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  •  Comment Perhaps it is justified as a public event with the clear wich to be represented in Media and Internet. I think we would get no problems here in Germany but I'm not absolutly shure about Austria. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 21:22:35
Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 23:55:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info The big Island of Hawaii is growing by an hour. All brand new land (sorry lava) that pours in the ocean, creating new shoreline, belongs to the state, but if a new lava gets atop of the old one, the prior owner still keeps his rights. The owners home was covered by lava in 1990. Now they try to sell their new/old lava. The steams at the background are volcanic plumes from at least two ocean entries of the lava. There is a helicopter nearby to show how big the thing is.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — It's nothing special. Nice photo but not really informative or educational at all. Acablue (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Informative" or "educational" is not a criterion here as far as I know. bamse (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If any picture here tells a story, this is the one. The picture shows lava desert, sign for sale and volcanic plume from new lava entering the ocean nearby. It it shows a helicopter to see the size of the plume. It is a great story for ones, who know how to read it. IMO the image is sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I love pictures that tell a story, and this one does it for me. As for sharpness, well, I tend to concentrate more on the composition and narrative of a picture more than absolute technical quality. Feel free to disagree, but in this case I think the sharpness is adequete. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:30:05
Guitarist and vocalist Tony Sly from No Use For A Name 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN)

I agree with Tom dl, but I doubt that with all those noise image has a chance, so I tried to denoise it a bit anyway. --Lošmi (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment – I think the best way to get noise out of this image is to downsize it. It is lare enough to allow a little resizing. According to the EXIF data it was shot with ISO 6400 (!!). For such a high ISO it has quite alot of detail though. Amazing what modern CMOS sensors are capable of. --Ernie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a really great shot made under difficult conditions --AngMoKio (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great shot and great job denoising it. The resolution is high enough that I don't see any problems with the sharpness. --Calibas (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent shot. -- H005 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice job on denoising, yet lots of CA most of all at the right arm. I do not like how the face came out. I am the first one to forgive those problems for the images that have big EV. IMO (and I underline IMO) this one does not. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment
@Lošmi: Thanks a lot for removing the noise, you did indeed a fantastic job. (I almost went nuts trying, because of the artificial fog wafting on stage adding to the usual noise)
@ Ernie: Yes, the photo was indeed shot at ISO 6400, which was the most reasonable balance between shutter speed and noise, because I needed to shoot hand-held out of a crowd of celebrating fans in front of the stage. Less than 1/160s at 400mm was at least for me impossible [Although I tried ;-)]
@Mbz1: Sorry, what does CA mean ? and EV ? By the way, I agree that the picture has some flaws in it and can live with it beeing rejected because of them. ;-)
--Curnen (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CA means w:Chromatic aberration, EV means enciclopedic value. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 22:51:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

This image is not a snapshot. This is a good image, which has some problems that made me to oppose. May I please suggest to you to be a little bit more polite in your comments? Remember you'te talking about somebody else work. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (Alvesgaspar!), I did't mean to step onto anyone's feet. I'm just trying to express my opinion on the image, and it's far, far away from being something special IMHO. And even being a good image is not enough for FP. For me it still looks like a snapshot (how do you know it's not one?), sorry again. --Afrank99 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:03:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Certainly the antennas doesn't look very vital but I may be wrong.   • Richard • [®] • 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:54:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 00:05:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • The "wow" comes from the sheer depth of the ice, as noted above. Freezing rain usually accumulates to less than a few tenths of an inch, and I estimate this is at least 1 1/2 inch thick. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:35:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:46:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

That's an argument against its misleading name, not the picture itself. -- H005 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and edited my oppose.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 10:42:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 11:39:35
Ripe and unripe blackberries on a bush 


result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 15:46:41
Carp smoking? 

result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 18:15:05
Male Checkered White 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 21:13:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 15:20:57
Agave americana

  •  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support nice, perfect quality and valued for Wiki. I like this --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I recognise that different things appeal to different people, and usually, if I'm not interested in the subject, I don't vote on an image. This picture, however, seems to me to be of a completely ordinary composition, with nothing setting it apart from any other picture of the same species. The subject of the picture is not particulary apparant, and blends into the background, making for a cluttered shot. The view of the plant is unremarkable, and reveals very little about it, and leads to a very shallow DOF. Kudos to the photographer for the high technical quality, but just not featured, for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nothing special, neither subject nor photographic quality. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Agree with George. Also, the photo shows the agave in the dry, sunny conditions it likes in the wild. You can see a baby plant emerging on the left side of the mother plant and younger plants nearby. A more aesthetic approach would not be as informative. Downtowngal (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment But FP ist primarily about aesthetics, for informative pictures we have COM:VI -- H005 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - Well, I am confused. The guidelines say "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special,..." Actually, these two sentences can be contradictory. What is very valuable may not be special (see simultaneous fireworks), and what is special is not always valuable (see smoking fish). Usually I make high aesthetic quality an absolute requirement. (You caught me here making an exception.) In practice that policy ends up limiting the kind of images that easily qualify for FP to landscapes, macros and existing high-quality artworks. Other kinds of images (buildings, some plants, objects) face a higher standard because they are not as intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. We even had a big debate about whether the extremely valuable 1838 photo should be FP! So I would appreciate some discussion on whether the guidelines should be revised, or a pointer to a previous discussion of this bias problem. Downtowngal (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meerkat in SF zoo f.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 01:10:59
Meerkat

  

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1, withdrawn

[edit]

Meerkat

  

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 05:50:56
Humayun's Tomb, a UNESCO World Heritage site, from the entrance, Delhi 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Harbour in Bonifacio 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 05:26:45
The gorge of river Erma, near Trun, Bulgaria 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 10:22:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 22:02:36
Virginia's Enchanting Woodlands 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:49:01
Solar Cell 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver tree Leucadendron argenteum bark details.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 23:31:07
Bark of Silver tree

I nominated the image because it looks as the tree has a face - two eyes, a nose and a mouth. So I thought it was cool.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw it in thumbnail size I actually thought it is the backside of an elephant :) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 2:41:31


  •  Info created by Flickr user jez- uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Ktr101 -- Ktr101 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment-I uploaded this two days ago, but forgot to list it. Please forgive me changing the dates to fix this.
  •  Support as nominator Ktr101 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You should tilt it to give a vertical result, as it is sometimes used by reviewers as a reason for opposing. →Diti the penguin — 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Many ghosting/stitching problems. For example see the palm trees in the bottom. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Quite spectacular as a thumbnail, but I was a little disappointed that the clarity in the top half of the building does not meet expectations - was the wind blowing the cranes? I am curious - does the building really have that curve? The top is perfectly perpendicular, but the bottom leans to the left. Given that Dubai is a city built on sand, it is probably going the way of the Tower of Pisa, but they are building the top to a true vertical. Nice picture - will be of particular historical interest if the building tips over! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2009 (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: the image contains disturbing ghosting 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) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jetty at candidasa.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 10:32:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

otrs covers it. I got the higher res which aren't available on Flickr anyway.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount batur and lake.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 10:34:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

otrs covers it. I got the higher res which aren't available on Flickr anyway.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question Why do you state flickr as the source if it's not from Flickr, but Flickr jast has a downsized copy? Do you have a licence for the higher res pic then? -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been sent via OTRS. Which means the author of the image consented to the higher res version on Commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 21:40:33
Wind Point Lighthouse

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the higher resolution of the same image is featured already. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (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, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lycaena virgaureae.JPG, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 21:33:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7  Delist , 0  Keep, 0  Neutral => delisted. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 15:55:35
Western tent caterpillars

And besides it is already FP material on English Wikipedia. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Maedin. The original image was added to the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original

[edit]

Western tent caterpillars 

Result: 
Top image: 3  Support, 3  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. 
Original: 7  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Syrphidae sp. in fly.

If he's got it down to the family, that's pretty dang good for a photographer. Not all of us are biologists and expecting photographers to identify every species is just going to result in misidentification. If it doesn't already. --Calibas (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course being a biologist has nothing to do with getting an id for an organism. It is about being able to obtain useful information, and that is what wikimedia is all about, isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4  Support, 3  Oppose, 1  Neutral => not featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 22:21:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 03:57:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 8  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Diptera sp. (by).jpg, not promoted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:12:34
Diptera in a petunia flower. 

Result: 6  Support, 5  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg, not promoted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:14:40
Syrphidae sp. copulation 

Result: 2  Support, 2  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 22:30:45
Alps in Bregenzerwald 

Result: 24  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. JovanCormac (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (3).jpg, featured

[edit]

Syrphidae in a flower. 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 17:23:19
Mauna Loa

I am not sure I follow your comment/question. Are you against featuring lava images in general? Are you against featuring images that were taken from a helicopter in general? Have you noticed by any chance that the image shows a fissure vent, not only the different lava flows? Have you read the articles the image is linked to? Were you able to learn something new from that reading? The original image did not show the horizon either. The camera was pointed mostly down. I cropped the image the way I believe was better to see the lava and the vents. The size of the cropped image is more than 2 times bigger than the required size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's simple; I don't see any wow in this picture. Honestly I'd be for having this image promoted as VI or QI, but not as a FP. I know that lava is rare, that helicopter are rare (althought it's relative to where you actually are for both) but still there is nothing special in it to my eyes. I know some (commons) guy that is in Iceland right now with a good camera, are we going to make his pictures of geyser/volcano FP too, supposing he used an helicopter? Esby (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I please ask you to be a little bit more specific?
  1. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any lava images at all?
  2. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images taken from a helicopter at all?
  3. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any cropped images?
  4. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images that do not show a horizon? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Although I might maybe hang this pic on my wall as I like the colours and the structure, I really miss sth to get a feeling for the size of that structure and also a horizon would be helpful to get a general feeling for that landscape. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - As AngMoKio: no sense of scale or orientation. The abstract structure is not special enough imo to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentHonestly IMO all those talks about horizon, scale and orientation sound funny to say the least. It is impossible to have a scale and/or to show the horizon in this kind of image. The similar image is not easy to find on the NET. I did a search on Flickr and Google and did not find any. The image has big EV. Many features of this image do not even need a scale to be encyclopedic. For example different colors of the lava. Well, there is nothing new in those opposes. I learned a long time ago that quite a few reviewers here will rather promote number tenth European honey bee or few images of the same bird taken in the same zoo than a really unique, one-of-a-kind image, but, no worries, next time I will ask my husband to jump down to create a scale just for few shots, you know, and I will ask the pilot to fly as close to the mountain as possible in order to take an image that will show both the lava and the horizon. If the helicopter will crash, it will not go down in vain. Just think what a great scale it will create for all other photographers, who will happen to fly by :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:49:01
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:58:24
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 10:19:06
Brooklyn Bridge 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:50:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 19:16:31
Indian Peafowl 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 21:49:10
Rainbow Falls 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 08:42:23


result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:01:26
Juvenile male Gallotia galloti in Teide National Park 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:31:27
E-3 Sentry Planform 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:34:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Well, before you knew that I am a bad photographer. Now you know that I am a bad speller too. Oh well... :)
I don't think you are a bad photographer. Personally, I prefer to look at your images (and those of Tomas Castelazo), which are not perfect technically but make me think. But the FP criteria require something special, which I understand to be an immediate visceral aesthetic response. Downtowngal (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do understand that, if two gorillas, sitting so close to each other, and the color of one of them is OK, it means that the color of the second one is probably OK also, which means that the color of female gorilla is natural? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This vote by a person, who takes lots of images of the birds in captivity, and does not even mention this fact in the nominations really surprised me, and IMO it is better to have a single image of gorillas as FP than two images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO few minutes appart. BTW your "too ordinary scene" reminded me a story my co-worker has told me. She took her 3-years old to ZOO. The boy was not amazed by anything and kept saying "boring, boring, boring..." At last my co-worker cried :"What do you want? You want animals to dance for you?!" That story is about 3-years old, AngMoKio :) And what in your opinion would not be "too ordinary scene", if I may ask? AngMoKio, I take your votes personally.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I say to this: First of all taking votes personally is always a bad choice. I only vote for or against your pictures, it has nothing to do with you (although you attack me personally now) - you know exactly that I also voted pro for some of your pics. I tried several times to put things straight btw us on your talkpage. I learned now that this makes no sense and I won't do this anymore - it simply leads nowhere. Concerning the pic (and this what it all should be about): The composition is too ordinary - the pic might very well work as a QI or VI but imho not as FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a "bad choice" , but it is how I feel, and I'd rather say it clear and loud. BTW you still did not answer my question. What composition in your opinion would not be too ordinary? It is not so often a baby gorilla is born in a zoo. This fact alone already is making the image somehow special IMO. The image was taken the way that a viewer will never guess that it was taken in a ZOO. Isn't that interesting that a baby is so small that he is almost hidden behind the grass? Isn't that interesting that he has his finger in his mouth as human kids often do? Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time, IMO it is much better to feature "too ordinary scene" of a single image of gorillas than two the same images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that constantly mention my pics of birds (which have nothing to do with this topic here) makes it obvious to me, that it is not about the pic for you but some kind of personal fight. So it makes actually no sense to discuss things here. This pic simply doesn't convince me - fact! You have several pics that do convince and for which I voted pro. Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time: Don't take my votes personal! --AngMoKio (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you are going to be fooled to justify yourself and get psychologized for an oppose vote. Polls consist of many votes and I don't understand why some votes get boiled thoroughly. Maybe ... after Hans it's you ;-) It seems that there must be permanently a bad guy (or more) around who will be teased so long as he/they say something very direct ... and in the end Milla leaves Commons and you will get a sore conscience ... This kind of working atmosphere is very counterproductive IMO.   • Richard • [®] • 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment..sorry, saw it a bit late. I agree it can't be productive if people don't dare to oppose any more. I think I was always fair with my votes and always gave an explanation. ...but for some reason I seem to be one of the bad guys in Milas eyes. I regret that thus tried several times to put things straight between her and me. Unfortunately I was not successful. But I don't feel responsible for the fact that she left commmons, and I hope this is true - my few "fights" with her were not that severe. She had several others that might be more likely the reason for her leaving. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-5 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Libellula quadrimaculata 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 01:52:46
Frog Front Water

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is blurry, noisy, out of focus and has very low contrast. 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.

- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 17:57:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Sorry, I only nominated this picture for its quality, I did not know that the image had other version, if the version more yellow is the accurate I nominate this version. Sorry but my English is not very good. Ivan03 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Largely for historical significance. The colour difference seems like different white-balance settings or light used to digitise the picture. I looked for an alternative copy on the internet, but did not quickly locate one. But Wallbuilders has the text of the Declaration [12], and a useful on-line library of historical documents; and the original document does look rather yellow, showing its age. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:41:43
European honey bee (Apis mellifera) on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris). 

Result: 8  Support, 5  Oppose, 1  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:44:43
Chrysomya albiceps on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris). 

Result: 5  Support, 6  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 21:18:54
Argynnis aglaja 

Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose, 2  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:08:17
Two Sisters on the Terrasse 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:34:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:43:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 18:46:57
Local railway in Valencia 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 20:46:09
A little valley (direction Lungiarü) in the Naturpark Puez-Geisler/Odle, in South Tyrol (Italy). 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitri Torterat - C-160 Transall passing by (French Bastille Day 2009).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 23:19:28
C-160 Transall.jpg 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:52:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:53:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 05:00:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by Johannes Vingboons - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova and Ynhockey. Restored from File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg by Durova. See also courtesy copy at File:Hispaniola_Vinckeboons4_courtesy_copy.jpg for viewers with slow connection speeds. -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Nautical chart of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, circa 1639.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - There is a dramatic difference between the original and the restored version in what the colouring is concerned. I wonder if this kind of correction is the right thing to do with old manuscript maps. Is the medium paper or vellum?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Library of Congress staff have confirmed the scanner was miscalibrated; the coloration on the unrestored version is affected by the miscalibration. Durova (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing discolourations, stains folds and cuts is what a restoration is about. The Venus of Milo is yellow because of the varnish and as such different from how it looked when the painting was fresh. Your argument is an old one and imho a clean crisp look provides the best illustration. GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing dirt and varnish physically so that the original colours are restored is a common and accepted practise. Doing it digitally is a totally different thing because we only can guess what the original looked like at the time it was made. In this particular case I find the background tone too bluish even if the medium is paper, as I suppose. An old argument is not necessarily irrelevant or wrong. A clean and crisp look provides the best detail but may be considered unacceptable in historical terms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you are saying, basically, is that restoration includes elements of esthetic discretion. People who do restorations have been discussing that a long time (it's graphic art after all). If you'd like to discuss that in more depth at another venue, and try your hand at it, then by all means let's take it to talk somewhere. Durova (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Manuscript old charts are often considered as works of art. And exactely as with other paintings, I don't think that aethetic discretion in the restoring process is acceptable in these cases. In some libraries and museums, when we order a high definition digital copy of an old map, it comes with a color target which was photographed together with the original so we can reproduce its exact colours. Stretching the concept of digital restoring as to consider it as a form of art is hardly acceptable when the object is an historical document. Maybe the best place to discuss the issue is here, where the images are being evaluated. In this particular case I would consider to support the image if the colours were faithfully reproduced from the original, which doesn't appear to be the case. As I have stressed before, we at FPC evaluate the merits of images not of the restoring process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see any "wow" here. --Calibas (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Per my comments above, as the original colouring appears to have been strongly manipulated in the restoring process. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable in a historical manuscript chart. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great. Yann (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm not sure some people realize the technical complexity of both making the original image, and the restoration by Durova and myself. If this doesn't have the "wow factor", then I don't know what does. —Ynhockey (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - don't find Alvesgaspar's argument convincing - during restoration, it's usual to change the aged paper back to white. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Alvesgaspar. --Estrilda (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's a reasonable choice: It's on paper, and the technology to make reasonably white paper is not a particularly recent innovation. At worst, the colours might be slightly off the original, but well within the original artistic intent. Other versions can be made to reflect other aesthetics. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Are we judging the restoration process or the result. I thought this is just FPC we look at the result as an image. I thought the discussion about Featured restorers came to the conclusion that FPC is not for judging the restorers skill or process? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - Precisely. But because this is an old manuscript chart (which were usually decorated by artists), it is expected the image to reproduce faithfully the colours of original. Exactely as if it were Leonardo's Mona Lisa or Picasso's Guernica. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Topless blonde sunbathing at the beach.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 15:16:36
Chevrolet Apache 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 07:04:04
Period 256 rocket gun animation 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 08:20:52
drawing of Achaemenid Soldier on wall in Iran division of Louvre 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Anisoptera (4) (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Anisoptera is going out of his exuvia. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 12:25:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Citron-1 (by).jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:11:50
Gonepteryx rhamni 

Result: 17  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => promoted. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-3 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:10:29
Libellula quadrimaculata 

Result: 2  Support, 0  Oppose, 1  Neutral => no quorum. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-1 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:08:52
Libellule à quatre taches 

Result: 3  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => no quorum. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-2 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:07:34
Libellula quadrimaculata 

Result: 2  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => no quorum. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 14:45:10
Xanthippus corallipes

* Support --Calibas (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why would you want to rock to be in focus? You'll notice the grasshopper is the subject of the photo, not the rock. And if you're implying I purposely blurred parts of the photo, I didn't. --Calibas (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, you misunderstood me. I'm not implying you actually blurred the rock. Of course you didn't. The rock is just so out of focus that it appears as if it has been blurred out. The blur also covers the tip of the leg facing the viewer, and is quite uneven (there is a spot on the left side of the rock as well as a triangle beneath the grasshopper that is sharp). For these reasons, I believe this shouldn't become a FP. Maybe it can be edited a little (I think it would actually look better with an evenly distributed blur on the rock). -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 10  Support, 4  Oppose, 0  Neutral => promoted. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 11:52:47
A couple engaged in mammary intercourse.

Do we ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While this picture is certainly more neutral than the previous one, I believe it could (and should) still be somewhat more clinical. I agree though that we should feature sex ed images if possible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I'm with Richard (I mean, with what I suppose it is his opinion...). Love and sex are to be celebrated freely and intensively: through practise, not illustrations. That is part of my western culture but I accept, of course, a more oriental approach to the matter (though not fashionable any more...). Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I think the image is a very good illustration of mammary intercourse. I do not think it should be more clinical as JovanComac suggest, nor do I agree with Alves, that sexual practises should not be celebrated as illustrations. It should be natural and educational, which I believe it is - sort of - maybe the breasts of the female are "more outstanding" than average, which could lead to more ordinary "equipped" girls seeing the image get some feeling of insufficiency. The reason I do not support is because the image quality simply does not quite have the finesse, aesthetic qualities and detail level (the wow) I would like to see in such a drawing. To get an idea, see, e.g., File:Anime Girl.svg for comparison, which has an erotic theme (yes I know this image has an sexual educational purpose, but I hope you understand). I could recommend nominating the image as a Valued image candidate within the scope "mammary intercourse" though. --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I agree with Slaunger. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose VI. —kallerna™ 09:33, 22 July 2009 (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: the resolution is too low. 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.

G.A.S 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. G.A.S  05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neon.JPG, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 19:35:43
Misleading image of a sample of neon!

It's misleading because it says "Neon", NOT "Neon sign". As the tube is definatly not filled with neon, it is definately misleading! 18.251.7.152 06:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Fixed description and categories. The subject is a "Neon sign", not the element Neon, the original voters were talking about "Neon signs" and "Neon lights", whether they understood that all "Neon signs" do not contain Neon gas is probably irrelevant. This is commons, not en:wp, a delisting proposal on the basis of image qualilty would be more appropriate.  :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is still overexposed. It is possible to make it better. A quickly taken photo for example here. This is also a neon sign, but filled with known gas: pure helium. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4  Delist , 3  Keep, 0  Neutral => not delisted. JovanCormac (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 02:18:43
Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock. 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 10:46:55
NASA Mars Rover

04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:35:05
girl headcarrying goods 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:57:05
Chamois 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 00:13:31
USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm 

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-mos (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Libellula quadrimaculata

  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that insect images like this have added value from the multiple viewpoints. With one single viewpoint, you may have a "pretty picture" in terms of something which looks nice to hang on the wall. This multiple of 4 viewpoints has added educational value, and is one step towards providing a 3-d image within the limitations of this medium. The one change I would suggest to this version would be to swap the left images top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top purely to reduce the discontinuity of the background colours. Merci beacoup, notre ami, pour un image tres informatif. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zepper - Episyrphus balteatus pair.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 09:25:28
Episyrphus balteatus hoverflies

  •  Comment I attempted to improve the image. Reduced noise selectively in the background and darkened the blown highlights in the blossom. I also added some fake structure taken from an image of a cloudy sky. Since I hate to spend longer in front of the screen editing than taking pictures itself, my image editing skills a on a beginners level, so someone might want to try her/himself. I will provide the RAW file in that case - contact me. --Curnen (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good but not excellent. For me it looks to plain -> compared to this nice picture the composition is very weak (looks randomly mixed). In addition the technical realization isn't top notch (much too harsh flash and blurry) , so if there was at least a nice composition or a shining feature I hadn't opposed, sorry. Btw. f/22 ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Ok, I am not really surprised I couldn't impress the top-notch macro photographer here ;-). The composition was pretty much limited by the actions of the flies and the very limited dept of field my lens have. If you tell me, how you apparently manage to freeze an insect on a specific location, light it properly and photograph it with these insane details and dept of field, I am very eager to improve. I also like to know why the f/22 attracted your attention ? To less, to much ? --Curnen (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthias, f/22 is much 2 much. Your lens is working on the limit with that setting. Have a look at the MTF (resolution) Chart (it's the 3rd chart from top) where you can see that beyond of f/16 the performance is going trash-ways :-). If you used a different lens than the one on the chart the results are rather similar. With the crooked setting that you used (to force the cam) there are only photons of your flashlight visible that's why the background appears black - I know it's a midnight rendezvouz ;-) With 1/200 you don't need much flashlight, probably even none. To get more DOF raise the distance between lens and subject. Double distance * 400-800 ISO * f/14-16 * 1/200 would have created a much nicer, sharper and natural looking result.   • Richard • [®] • 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your explanation. My logic until now was: Closer is better, because more pixels, more details. --Curnen (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't wrong but depends on what you like to do.   • Richard • [®] • 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry to also spoil the party a bit (it will most likely get featured anyway)....but the bar for macro is really high. It is a nice catch but the quality lacks a bit. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not spoiling a party. I like the honest feedback here, much better that this Flickr "Wow, Nice pic" stuff. I simply will keep on trying and sometimes annoy you with another nomination of one of my photos ;-) --Curnen (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i browsed through your pics and I am sure your number of FPs will increase soon. I really regret that your concert pic didn't make it. Rock on! :) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Ok, next time I will shink my pictures to two Megapixels exactly and noise will be no problem. Background ? Actually I don't see much of a background at all, but maybe I am not imaginative enough ;-) --Curnen (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 18:07:39
The gardens and house of Forde Abbey

  • A few clouds, but it was actually a hot and sunny day. I managed to get a touch of sunburn, anyway! I just hope that weather returns soon, it's been raining every day for the past week now, :-( Maedin\talk 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 19:25:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 16:30:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Smiling heads caryatids 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 20:35:36
Kissamos (Crete, Greece): seascape with garbage bins 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Tour de la Miotte (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Miotte tower, near Belfort, in France 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 02:18:26


result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 17:09:46
Whipcord Cobra Lily 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 22:33:44
Desarrollo de la placenta humana 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 17:13:32
English: Gezicht op Nieuw Amsterdam by Johannes Vingboons (1664), an early picture of Nieuw Amsterdam made in the year when it was conquered by the English under Richard Nicolls. Français : Gezicht op Nieuw Amsterdam par Johannes Vingboons (1664), une représentation de la Nouvelle-Amsterdam dressée en 1664, année de la conquête anglaise menée par le colonel Richard Nicolls. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 22:59:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 07:15:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 08:10:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

 result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 11:26:49
People on Times Square 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 18:21:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Neutral Downtowngal is probably right. After thinking thoroughly about it, I am now pretty much convinced, that the image is composed. Otherwise I don't know, how these totally black, extremely sharp, completely noise free shadows should be explainable. Also I can't believe the size of the sun in relation to the foreground, also the dept of field is quite high considering the 200mm telephoto lens at f8. Either way hats off for the photographer or digital artist, but before I don't know for sure, I prefer not supporting it. --Curnen (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Noise reduction on the shadows or they were originally so dark it wasn't needed, the sun appears so large in relation because of perspective distortion from a 200mm lens, and the dof isn't that large, the mountains in the background aren't in focus. It's fully possible to get a picture to look like this with very little or no editing. --Calibas (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 18:20:42
Father and son 

result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 20:40:08
Bruges (Belgium): Smedenpoort 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Anisoptera (2) (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 20:53:00
Head of anisoptera sp. on my finger. 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 01:07:40
Leucanthemum x superbum 'Becky' 

Result: 2  Support, 2  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 20:38:36
Kissamos (Crete, Greece): seascape with shed 

Result: 2  Support, 2  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 04:36:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Well I agree that it is important to maintain it's original shape if we for example use it as an example of artist work, but if we use it to illustrate the subject of the image, then maybe the sky is space consuming and does not add anything so... It's something like here. Well I am not so sure, maybe you are right. Anyway, no wow--Tired time (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about lack of 'wow' is an odd one: this is the only time in history that the United States Capitol has been burned; the Library of Congress calls it one of the most important and stirring images of the early republic. To the best of my knowledge it is the only surviving depiction of this event. Durova (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 10:13:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Citadelle de Belfort (by) (16).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 21:22:36
Illuminated underground 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 21:36:13
Leucorrhinia dubia copula 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 22:47:05
Trachycephalus resinifictrix 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 02:21:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 02:38:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The harbour in Kingstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, in about 1895 - Option 2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 08:08:48
Kingstown (now Dunleary), Ireland

 Support -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 10:36:55
Operation Crossroads Baker test 

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 03:13:36
Vocalist Corey Taylor

  •  Info I understand that the image resolution is lower than the guideline amount, but those are only guidelines and I think this is an astonishing image otherwise. Created by José Goulão - uploaded by Rezter - nominated by Rezter -- Rezter (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Rezter (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While this picture is certainly nice and atmospheric, I do not think this compensates for the low resolution. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Did you try to get a higher resolution from the author? The pic is really great but a higher resolution will be necessary I guess. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't requested one no. I assumed that he deliberately chose to upload the image at that resolution because it was what he was comfortable releasing under a free license. Granted that is just me assuming and I could have requested, I still don't think the resolution should be that big of an issue. Rezter (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I wouldn't assume this. He's got a lot of photos there and he probably doesn't want huge upload times. Also, releasing all of your photos at a high resolution is quite different from releasing only one. I think you would find him accommodating. A lot of Flickr members that mark their Flickr photos as "All rights reserved" are still happy to release an image or two, if you express an interest and explain what it could mean for him as a photographer. It requires some effort, I know, but in this instance I think it would be worth it. If he says no, oh well, no harm done, :-) Let me know if you don't do it though, and I will. Maedin\talk 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment It is for sure worth asking. The reason for this specific size simply is, that the guy has no Flickr pro account. The image size that can be downloaded from a free flickr account is limited to "large" to reduce the load on the servers. If he would upgrade to a pro account, the original image size (probably much larger) would become available for download. But of course he has it on his hard drive, so why not asking ? It will probably not be a problem to mail you the original file. --Curnen (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just browsed through the flickr-account of that guy. Wow...it is difficult to find a concert pic I wouldn't support. I think it is really worth asking him if he wants to share some of them with us commons-people :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment per the picture description on Flickr, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Portugal License." That would make it ineligible for Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 03:25:52
The oldest known photograph in the world. It is a photograph of a 17th century Flemish engraving, showing a man leading a horse. It was made by the French inventor Nicéphore Niépce in 1825, with an heliography technical process. The Bibliothèque nationale de France bought it 450,000 € in 2002, deeming it as a "national treasure". 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 22:18:13
Lycaon pictus 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative, not featured

White Balance Altered 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 22:07:20
Lycaon pictus running 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate with adjusted white balance, not featured

Adjusted 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VRF Centrifuge - GPN-2000-001814.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:44:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2009&oldid=560418397"