Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2006

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


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


America noviter delineata; map of the Americas ca. 1640.

Voting ended on 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 7  Support, 0  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Voting ended on 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 12  Support, 2  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia menziesii

( Oppose framing -Quasipalm 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobh, County Cork, Ireland

 Comment added author, uploader and nominator Lycaon 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

description courte

Result: 0  Support, 7  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facade of the UNIQA-Tower in Vienna, Austria

Voting ended on 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

  •  Support I like it very much exactly because it is sort of puzzle. And there is aesthetic quality in the shape as well as in the overall blue tint. --wg 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Lycaon 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Info uploaded by User:Thermos created by Thermos - nominated by Thermos 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Gang im Mirador del Rio, Lanzarote

Result: 2  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cloudwall in Germany

Result: 1  Support, 7  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Relisting it, as the objections were mainly against the noise, which was reduced in filtered version. --Wikimol 20:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filtered version 1

[edit]

Filtered version 2

[edit]

Original version

[edit]
Result: 14  Support, 9  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. --Lycaon 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic view of the Sierra de Guadarrama (Spain)

Result: 0  Support, 2  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Park of Madrid (Spain)

Result: 0  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White faced Heron

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama picture of the Monumet Valley. This picture was already proposed for featured pixture but was reacted due to stiching mistakes which are corrected now

It would still be necessary to improve superposition assembly

Voting ended on 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 23  Support, 0  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Lop Nur 89.00E, 40.30N between Kuruktagh and Astintagh

Result: 2  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Eastern Pondhawk dragonfly, taken at Loxahatchee Preserve, 2006/06/17.

 SupportCary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Pennant dragonfly, taken at Loxahatchee Preserve, 2006/06/17.

Result: 1  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn Pano
Result: 3  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rose
Result: 2  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dragonfly stationed on an umbrella

--Luc Viatour 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to do better than the user User:Aka --Luc Viatour 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sprockets of a Derailleur gear

Sorry, why is the name of the manufacturer is important to the item. This is a Featured Picture candidate. Having a manufacturer name in such photo is free advertisement in my opinion, same product is manufactured by others. Cars are different, you don't need to read the name on the car to know the manufacturer, at least for most of people. There is a hidden massage in such a photo; Products labeled with SRAM are good. --Tarawneh 02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 12  Support, 2  Oppose and 3  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A view of Lower Antelope Canyon near the entrance

  • Comment. Look, if this isn't promoted that's fine with me - I didn't nominate it. But I do want to be clear about something. There is no existing FP of Lower Antelope Canyon. The existing FP was taken in Upper Antelope Canyon. They are two different places, kilometers apart. As far as I can tell, there are no other images from Lower Antelope Canyon here other than mine. -- moondigger 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's very important. It's the same kind of natural place, and not very far at all! I think there's no reason to have various FP of so similar places, if they haven't really different qualities or atmosphere. So...
  • What makes you think they're similar? Have you been there? The only similarity is that they're both slot canyons, and are both called "Antelope." Is there a rule stating Commons can only have one featured image of a slot canyon? -- moondigger 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I haven't been there; but I don't need to just for comparing two pictures. No, there's no rule about similar featured pictures, but must we accept a hundred sunshines or a hundred ochre slot canyons as FP? OK, it's only the second one but as I said it before, I think there are so many things to photograph and show in Commons, that too similar pictures, with a same atmosphere, and with a subject that will be always a good one, aren't exceptional enough to be all featured. I prefer chose only one, and I prefer the other one. It's not a rule, but it's my vision of FP. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 17  Support, 7  Oppose and 3  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of King Penguins

Voting ended on 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 12  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rain panorama
Result: 3  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm
  •  Info Nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
 Comment image size to 300px same as all noms Gnangarra 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse in France 1999 new version scan

new scan high resolution starting from the originals

Yes sorry,Solar_eclips_1999_4.jpg is used on 74 pages in 31 projects, difficult to change the name now --Luc Viatour 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 24  Support, 0  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

God makes Eve from Adam's body

Result: 3  Support, 3  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strandkörbe auf Norderney

check out: Beach Chair -- Boereck 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2  Support, 2  Oppose and 4  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama "Giftbude" at Norderney, Germany

Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
1998 floods in Swifts Creek
Same location but taken 8 years later


Combination


Result: 6  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pond covered with leaves.

Short description

I'm the father of the boy and the photo is three years ago. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has he read http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/es/deed.en ? ;-) YolanC 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 9  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Voting ended on 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 7  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 4  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 9  Support, 3  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly.. why anyone would pay $135 million dollars for an "unattractive" painting is very strange :-) Gryffindor 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different people have different perceptions, likes and dislikes. I don't see why I should be forced to like it, just because a different (and grotesquely rich) person does - MPF 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 9  Support, 7  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4  Support, 7  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 2  Support, 8  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anvil clouds

Comment I've uploaded a restitched image --Fir0002 www 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited version
Anvil clouds

Voting ended on 03:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 9  Support, 0  Oppose and 0  Neutral => edited version featured. -- Lycaon 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sunset
  •  Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
  •  Support --Fir0002 www 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Chrizz 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support very beautiful, I quickly will study technique HDR! --Luc Viatour 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The point of FP's is to encourage people to take more photos/do more pictures. Although this shot is beautiful and not very informative, it would still go under valuable in this context. It just says to people - look, if a sixteen-year old can do this, so can you! It encourages them to take their camera and do something amazing, something that anyone seeing it will vote for it as an FP. Everyone is capable of that. They just do not know it. Now, finally, for the resolution, it is a tough one. It is too low to show that many details. Yet we must not forget - Fir0002 wrote on his userpage he does not have the right facilities to upload such high resolution pictures. Once he does, we just put in a new and delist the old one. This is my view of how Wikimedia Commons works, therefore I have nothing else to say other than declare my support for this fantastic photograph. Freedom to share 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I beleive that what we see in this picture is far from what it was in reality. This picture is an improper combination of several shots. Olegivvit 09:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tested the HDR in my office (this morning). It is right techic nothing to lose image, but nothing is invented!

Exemple:over-exposed,under-exposed,HDR (really as in truth) --Luc Viatour 11:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

over-exposed under-exposed HDR (really as in truth)
  • Fir0002, could you give here one of the shots composed to make this image (with medium exposition)?
OK, have a look at Image:Sunset hdr normal exposure.jpg --Fir0002 www 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Now I can explain my point of view better. We have here two fragments of normal and composed images. What we see in the center of the first one? Deep sky. What is in the center of the other one? Black cloud! Is it real? No. The same thing is for all other black thin clouds on the background of blue sky. In addition, usual clouds look like pained with black. There is no such a problem with the normal image. Exactly those features make the composed picture special, at the same time they are artificial.
Normal Composed
Result: 8  Support, 1  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NectarinesNectarines
Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose and 5  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 9  Support, 7  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 08:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Caspar David Friedrich - Wanderer above the sea of fog.jpg

Pyrrhosoma nymphula

Picture of the day for Saint Valentine's Day (on February 14)?

:-) --Luc Viatour 19:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 20  Support, 0  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG - Direct SVG download. Direct PNG download (3.7 MB).

 Info Nomination of PNG version too, but the file is too big to be thumbnailed by MediaWiki, just click on the link.  Pabix  06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Why didn't you change the framing? The left and right sides are unuseful, and reduce the quality of the thumbnail. If it's changed, I will support your great work. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, SVG enables you to define the page contours. So the thumbnail seems to be cropped. In fact, when you open the file it is complete. I put the entire image into the PNG file in order not to lose anything (region's contours, it could be used again for other cards for instance).  Pabix  06:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice work! FiP 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Yet to see an oppose that will be listened to, come promotion time. Well done. James F. (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --- gildemax 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some suggestions to improve the file?  Pabix  10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As I'm graduated in cartography and had to make different kinds of maps using professional software, let me make some comments about the finishing touch that makes the difference between a good map and an excellent, or for my part featured, map.
    Vectors that show lines or arcs that are connected in the real world should also be connected in the map: see for example the lines between Chantilly-Gouvieux - Orry-La-Ville-Coye, Vincennes - Fontenay-sous-Bois, Brétigny - Marolles-en-Hurepoix and numerous other examples. Not only does that look not finished, it also might be confusing about the connectivity of the railroads there. It is also generally agreed that, if a label is to be placed above another object that has a same kind of color (same darkness for example), that it should be "masked" (a small white space around the characters) to increase readability. This has not happened for example with Nogent Les-Perreux, where the 't' is practically not readable. Lines that indicate municipalities are also not always connected as they should be: for example near aéroport C.de Gaulle. Before I'd vote support, and I'm sure other cartographers would agree with me, all these inaccuracies should be resolved. Nice work nonetheless, it just isn't finished. Tbc 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I updated SVG version. Will update PNG soon.  Pabix  22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Sigfrid 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some suggestions to improve the file?  Pabix  10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Urban 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some suggestions to improve the file?  Pabix  10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --> Untidy lines (like those around Achères Grand Cormier for example). However, keep up the good work. Snowwayout 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ Done  Pabix  15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

 Neutral --> Good clean up job. Snowwayout 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7  Support, 9  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or here ;) The filename isn't perfect, you're right, but precisions are given in the description. --Jod-let 12:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I have write too quickly! --Luc Viatour 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is an empty moult. This is not a cigale. I knew that..., and explained it (cf description (ok, I will add a translation ;)...--Jod-let 09:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i misunderstood your reply. norro 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 10:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 1  Support, 7  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting ended on 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 3  Support, 3  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two lovely resting pigs

Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Dragonfly (Anax imperator), female laying eggs

it is not a background but the place of the laying the dragonfly lays in water! It is one magic moment! --Luc Viatour 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I didn't notice that. It makes me consider the image differently, but I still find the water a bit too present (or should I say, a bit too much of the color of the subject!). changed my vote to neutralCyrilB 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was standing quite deep in the water chasing this big dragonfly when suddenly the lady posed nicely and laid her eggs Tbc 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Result: 0  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

description courte

Result: 1  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version

Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The original image is in Adobe RGB space. Wikimedia software does not handle such images correctly. When properly converted to sRGB, colors are more vivid. --Wikimol 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - focus. (eg her right hand is out of focus, while the wall behind it is sharp) --Wikimol 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC) changing to  Neutral, given the explained difficulty of shooting the subject. However, the focus issue is still there, and in principle could be solved. As the subject is static, it can be shooted with any time, which means theoretically unlimited aperture, which means theoreticaly unlimited depth of focus. (Or, two images with differen focus can be combined, or...). --Wikimol 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hate to defend an image, but I do want to comment. This is a very dark sixteen century church. Pic taken with existing very low light and a telephoto. This church has seen an independence war, a foreign invasion, two religious wars, a revolution and who knows what else. So add it all together, it is a miracle in itself that the statue remains. This pic was taken under adverse conditions, so add years, degradation and low light, etc., the colors just are not there...--Tomascastelazo 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I propose a correction of the image, perhaps more chance? --Luc Viatour 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to just save it in sRGB, and strongly opppose the edit. The photographer was there, we were not. Aside from realism, given the history of the church, the warm christmas colors are IMO not apropriate for the message of the image.
I can do the conversion to sRGB, but I'm affraid the resaving would not be lossless... Tomascastelazo, if you shoot to raw, could you please export the image in sRGB profile? The same problem seems to be with many of your images. See sRGB, Adobe RGB and RGB color space for more disscussion of the topic. --Wikimol 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I truly appreciate the comments... these are comments that lead to better images. On the color space... well, so many points of view. I follow camera manufacturer recommendations and shoot in Adobe RGB, and have more or less calibrated my processes to print in that space, but I also understand that some programs do not handle it well, for wiki I will do a save as in sRGB... no problem. On the edit itself, I have no problem with the resulting interpretation. In fact, I like it. It is a warmer image. But lets not forget that the camera itself has a color bias, the light coming in was not white light, the reflecting light was definitely not light. So the true color is out to lunch someplace. The image has to be interpreted in some color.... no rules there, just a cualitative judgement call. On the DOF, well, I usually leave something out of focus, by design, to guide the view to critical areas of the image. In this case, I focused in the eyes, which in faces, most of the time is the most important, and let DOF fall off from there. DOF falls one third in front, two in back, hence sharp background. Some people like it, some do not. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn´t. Again, thanks for the comments. --Tomascastelazo 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomas, just a quick comment about color space. You should use the right color space for the purpose at hand. The camera manufacturer recommends Adobe RGB because it is a wider color space than sRGB, and it's always better to start with a wide color space, and tailor the results to whatever purpose you wish to employ later. For web use, you should convert the image to the sRGB color space, since most web browsers can't understand color space tags and will display your work in the sRGB color space no matter what. When you display an Adobe RGB image in a web browser that can't understand the colorspace tag, the colors are not accurate. So keep your originals in the AdobeRGB color space, but the JPG files you upload to commons should be converted to sRGB. -- moondigger 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3  Support, 1  Oppose and 1  Neutral less than 5 pro-votes => not featured. -- Lycaon 10:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not featured

 Info created, uploaded and nominated by /\/\π

Image:Triskel1.png (image on left)

[edit]

 Info green-blue version

Image:Triskel2.png (image on center)

[edit]

 Info cyan-dark green version

Image:Triskel3.png (image on right)

[edit]

 Info grained black version

All of them

[edit]
it's the digital reconstruction of an original triskel with that shape. i worked on multiple textures to choose which one mostly matches with the shape. /\/\π 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but can you cite the source of this original trsikel? Is it of historical value or otherwise known? norro 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a Celtic triskel. Triskel was perhaps the most important and sacred symbol in Celtic religion, and was depicted using many different shapes in Celtic art. this shape is one of them. this is its historical value; unfortunately I can't find the source of the image at the moment... --/\/\π 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral - i dont know about the historical or cultural background of this triskel but in my opinion your three versions are all a bit too colorful - maybe a more neutral version would be better and wouldn't distract from the shape (which seems to be the main point here).--AngMoKio 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the historical / cultural value of the symbol, see my sentence just above. for the colors, well, I may agree with your opinion... the colors are fictionals, since the original triskel was colorless. i could prepare another version using less "artistic" colors..... :-P --/\/\π 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --> I dont see the reasoning behind the choice of colours/texture/patterns. Also, why so many candidates? Why not select the best image and nominate it? Snowwayout 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, I actually don't know which of the 3 images is the best one. I thought the community would choose one (or more) through multiple nomination.. that's all. if I committed a mistake... sorry!! :-) --/\/\π 12:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which cropped version? - MPF 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is the cropped version - the uncropped is linked in this pics summary--AngMoKio 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 11  Support, 0  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 11:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coccinella septempunctata

Edit by Tomascastelazo. Not a candidate yet

Voting ended on 18:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 17  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

description courte

Result: 2  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening sky (about 8 pm, near Denmark, in summer) shot from a plane.

I agree with you. It is a great picture, but the quality is not convincing. I'd support it without the noise. MGo 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, but for the oposite reason: I love the texture of the picture, but to enjoy it, you have to see it on full screen. I find the thumbnail (or the whole image) too dark. CyrilB 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your commentaries ! I've seen a lot of votes where people had just wroten Opposite or Pro, and nothing else... It's pleasant :) Mutatis mutandis 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a Ryanair plane, with a bad, bad, bad camera, so quality isn't there (noise)... Dark, I can do nothing, taking the plane from Toulouse to Denmark just to shot one photo is a little expensive, even with Ryanair :) Mutatis mutandis 11:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 11:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 14  Support, 1  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 11:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly mist, but at least a lack of contrast on the mountains. CyrilB 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows a typical landscape of southern Swiss Alps (imho this is the informative value of the picture). Anyway, an encyclopedic value isn't necessary as we're at Commons and not at Wikipedia. --MRB 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 11:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned it, and can upload the original scan (which I did some amateur fix-up on to create this version) if someone wants to create a better version. Leave me a note on my userpage, if so--Ragesoss 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4  Support, 0  Oppose and 1  Neutral less than 5 supporting votes => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Although the quality is far from perfect, the subject is really interesting.CyrilB 22:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support the second version even more! a bit of cropping could bring the subject in a better position though, but this is not a big issueCyrilB 09:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - so weird - MPF 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I kind of like it, but unfortunately the resolution is something like half the guideline for FP. However, perhaps a bigger file can be provided. In addition, I would prefer not to have right side of picture cut off. Also, if some "breathing space" around the subject could be provided, that would be better. And finally, it appears that there are burned highlights, which should be corrected. the preceding unsigned comment is by Thermos (talk • 

contribs)

Result: version 1 -> 14  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful without a comment. --84.177.126.86 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Result: 1  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 4  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 4  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a siki deer, its an axis deer!

Voting ended on 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 1  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 22:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 13  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 16  Support, 3  Oppose and 1  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Apis mellifera

Edit by Tomascastelazo. I propose this crop --Tomascastelazo 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --> the edit by Tomascastelazo. Snowwayout 07:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: original -> 9  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 9  Support, 8  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 1  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Antillean Iguana
Not a zoo shot. This animal was photographed in the wild at Coulibistrie on Dominica, W.I. last month. They are not that easily approached as it was over 30°C in the shadow that day, and reptiles tend to be very active with warm weather. BTW, do they have this species—endemic to a few islands in the Caraibs—in Zoo's? — Lycaon 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good that you point that out (although this species seems to be kept and bred in zoo's). It is nicely done and the resolution is very good but I'm sorry, it still looks like a zoo shot to me. Tbc 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, three zoo's have them and the first captive breeding of I. delicatissima occurred on 20 May 1997, [2] -- Lycaon 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended on 19:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 16  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended at 05:14 on 21 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 13  Support, 8  Oppose and 2  Neutral =>. not featured. -- Lycaon 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 8  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lower Peirce Reservoir, Singapore, at sunset - 20051225.jpg

enhanced image, not for election
Result: 9  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A subpixel of a TFT display.

  •  Info created by Marvin Raaijmakers - Marvin Raaijmakers
  •  Support please log in to vote Lycaon 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose We need a higher resolution, and some antialiasing. From an encyclopedic point of view, some more information could be added on how to orientate the liquid cristals (but I'm not a specialist, though). Maybe you should put the source code on the image page to keep them together CyrilB 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The resolution is no problem, because we can render de image again with POV-Ray and also use the antialiasing option.
      • I tried to compile the source code with a much higher resolution and antialiasing, only to find that the final image has too much brightness (and that I had to add the captions by hand). Furthermore, I'm not convinced about the educational aspect of the image: there is nothing to show how the cristals are oriented, and I'm not sure the position of the cristals on the picture is possible in the real world. CyrilB 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --WarX 11:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC) pixmap, not vector, unusable for non-english wikis[reply]
  •  Oppose -- I'd probably support a vector version with thinner lines. gren 06:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0  Support, 3  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The only information I can possibly supply are those already available at the description of the image. It is an old, arched, stone bridge, lost in the forests of a region you have never heard of. Unfortunately the notion that something unknown cannot be considered valuable, is beyond my comprehension. The picture is indeed slightly out of focus, since this was a difficult shot, in a dark place with a Minolta X700, manual focus. Thank you for your comments. Adamantios 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The picture is a little bit blurry and the slightly overexposed stones in the foreground a bit distracting, but the composition is perfect. norro 08:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the trees on the right are a black mass that IMO destroys the balance of the picture. I'd like to see more of this bridge and less of the trees. The image also lacks sharpness CyrilB 13:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - blurred, too dark (inevitable in the situation, unfortunately) - MPF 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created by AM - uploaded by AM - nominated by AM
The photo was taken 1985 in the National Archeologic Museum in Athens with a Yashica FXD SLR and Zeiss Tessar 50mm on Kodachrome 100 slide film, Tripods were not allowed.
There is a window on top of the left wall near the corner. I just tried to make it disappear behind the statue. And without a tripod I had to hold my breath to release with 1/30 sec. -- AM 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
This is the problem of judging an image: our comments go to the result, not to the means to get it. I can tell the image is very good for the conditions you describe, but I'm afraid I wouldn't consider it as one of "the finest images on commons". CyrilB 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I could have sharpened it. But I like the texture of the bronze. All the other pics of this statue don't show it. -- AM 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing boats at Lake Yuriria, Mexico
Result: 4  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created by Mark Ross - uploaded by Casliber - nominated by Snottygobble
  •  Support as nominator. Banksia rosserae was only recently discovered and named, and until very recently no-one had ever seen it in flower, and no-one even knew when it flowered. The species occurs only in a few small populations in an unpopulated and arid area of Western Australia, and the exact locations are kept secret for conservation reasons. For these reasons, there were, until today, no photographs of the Banksia rosserae inflorescence anywhere on the web, under any licence at all; and there was virtually no prospect of a Wikimedian successfully seeking out such a photograph. The fact that Commons now has the first such image is great for Commons, and it makes a huge impact on the species' Wikipedia article. Oh yeah, and the photo looks nice too.--Snottygobble 12:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Convinced by those arguments but I just regret the resolution, it is very poor.  Pabix  15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — given the difficulty of obtain the picture, and the status that now beholds Wikimedia - Commons this should be FP. Gnangarra 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Rarity is one thing but minimal quality is another... Here the image doesn't reach the resolution treshold. Other aspects can't even be judged. Commons FP is foremost about nice (qualitative) pictures. Encyclopedic value is secondary, sorry. On wikipedia FP I'ld support. Lycaon 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for the unique rarity value, despite the low res. Query: should the pic be rotated 180°? it looks like it is hanging down, maybe that's correct, maybe it should be the other way up - MPF 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is one of the few Banksia species with pendulous flower spikes. Snottygobble 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very interesting, of course, and great encyclopedic value. It's great to have such pictures on Commons. But resolution (480×388) is very, very low... --Jod-let 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If it is the only picture available, it is the best there is. If the plant is rare indeed (and it seems to be) It is the only window we have to appreciate it. The Wiki criteria is encyclopedic value, and in this case, despite the low res, it has it. Rarity in this case, overides comfortable considerations of prettier or less demanding images. --Tomascastelazo 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Elionne 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --> Sadly the resolution is very very low. Snowwayout 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Urban 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If the subject is rare, this should be a featured image on Wikipedia. But I think the resolution is too low for any use except web page, so it is not suited to commons. CyrilB 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose resolution --che 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ayacop 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Plage de gallets sur les 7 îles

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created by (User:Gmaxwell) - uploaded by User:Gmaxwell - nominated by Omegatron
  •  SupportOmegatron 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Less than half the minimum resolution. User:Gmaxwell has much higher resolution versions of these pictures, which he's indicated he'll consider uploading once certain Mediawiki problems are sorted out (if they ever are). I'd definitely support a higher res version though. GeeJo (t)(c) • 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What problems? — Omegatron 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that he's unhappy with the way images are thumbnailed both on teh image description page and in articles. You'll have to talk to him for specifics though. GeeJo (t)(c) • 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to  Support now that a higher res version is available. GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Urban 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - the pic is great but why is the resolution so low?! It is done with a EOS 5D...it should be no problem to get a higher resolution. Or is it a crop? --AngMoKio 06:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for the resolution. This image is superb! CyrilB 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Could do with less compression, though. --Wikipeder 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no particular desire to see my work featured. Especially if doing so would require me to upload a higher resolution version which Mediawiki will mangle and leave me embarrassed by the poor way my work is represented... for no good reason. I plan on submitting a patch to improve the image page thumbnails this weekend, but until then I will not be uploading anything larger than 800x600. The great irony of this is that below the Flickr ferrofluid image who's poor overall quality inspired me to create new images is likely going to be featured.... but if you upsample my image to the same size it still looks sharper, less noisy, and more clear. So, vote whichever way you like.. but the opposition based on a silly hard limit just discourages me from continued contribution in the future. --Gmaxwell 12:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what's wrong with Mediawiki's thumbnails? — Omegatron 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have elsewhere, on enwiki [3] (see the image) as well as on commons (village pump someplace)... we are the only large image posting site on the net that I can find that doesn't postdownsample sharpen. Worse, we compress all images (including image pages images) with a quality level that produces obvious artifacts in almost all images. The juxtaposition of artifacts and over smooth downsampling produces images which look out of focus. .. I'd previously been disappointed to find my images on other sites (I've had featured images on four third party sites! :) ) where in every case they took the artifacted image page thumbnail rather tan the original image... but the last straw was when I showed a non-wikipedia friend some of my newer uploads and on seeing the image page of Image:Reston,_Virginia_-_Lake_Anne_plaza.jpg he commented "too bad the building on the left is out of focus".
    In any case, I've written a patch against SVN head which uses --quality 95 for thumbnails 800x600 or larger (i.e. image pages) and applies 1px * 30% USM to images downsampled 2:1 or more. I can't find any cases where this causes artifacts or otherwise reduces quality (I'd like to apply a bit more USM, but I don't want to risk artifacts). I will have time this weekend to finish testing the patch, submit it, and make an argument to Brion.
    You might think the quality loss isn't significant, and I wouldn't agree.. but even if it was insignificant: I work hard to make images which are of high quality at every step, from the start when I solicit ideas from article editors, to when I process the output for upload. So even though I don't control downstream use, it is an embarrassment when the pictures *I* upload look less good than they should because of software behavior.--Gmaxwell 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Andel 10:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose

Voting ended at 02:41 on 28 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

I understand the frustration, but we're not judging thumbnails. The images in commons are not specically to be manipulated by the wikimedia software. I hope you get the patch merged or change your position, because the image is quite good. --Artefacto 23:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- withdrawn --Artefacto 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>> The statue is not only the main subject, it's the whole scenario, courtyard, light, and shadow from the right falling exactly to the statue's fundament -- Calauer 11:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 6  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Gaube (Pyrenees)

Result: 2  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting ended at 18:40 on 29 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

Result: 4  Support, 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 5  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3  Support, 4  Oppose and 0  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300px

Result: withdrawn -> copyright issues => not featured. -- Lycaon 13:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

description courte

Variation: Without outlines
Variation: Heavier outlines
10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry! I'm honestly more interested in hearing people's criticisms of the photo than "getting a FP." Thanks for the pointers. Starwiz 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry then. Useful tips, please give more. I thought a very high-quality, sharp focused and detailed image of a subject so common could be "featured", misunderstanding with "high quality"... --Jollyroger 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think is that there shouldn't be the curb and shadow at the top. Which could mean you'd have to find another location on the tracks. gren 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beach of Cathedral Cove, New Zealand

1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss, not grass! - MPF 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
my point stands :p --Artefacto 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cory
  • Title:
English: Children having a nap of afternoon.
日本語: おひるねのじかん。
5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macroglossum Stellatarum.JPG

13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danaus chrysippus Paar

2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Aliman5040 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aliman5040
1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aliman5040
1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info created by Alejandra Zapata - uploaded and nominated by Aliman5040

 Support Its such a magical photograph with an illusion of brilliant 'stepping stones' like lily pads to a land of enchantement. 'Christmas' How apposite is that title. Its perfect....makes me want to go there. Anjela White

6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecoq Garden under the snow (Clermont-Ferrand, France)

0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puy de Dôme Antenna

2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auvergne Volcanoes (South View from Puy de Dôme)

2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapelle Saint-Antoine (Cantal, France)

4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Building called Spodek (soucer) in the center of city Katowice

1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmetterlings Glückstreffer

Comment
its very hard 4 me to find the right Species Name, but its a really quickly Snapshot, ok i will try to check the Name!!
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urweiler (Location: JN39OL) -Andreas.Didion 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This image has been renamed to Image:Parthenos_sylvia_philippensis.jpg. See its new listing at Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Parthenos sylvia philippensis.jpg. — Erin (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edible Frog (Rana kl. esculenta)

  •  Comment Thanks for all comments. No, my aim was to illustrate the frog as part of his wetland-system: swamp with broken birches. --XN 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water tower of Langeoog (german island) together with memorial of Lale andersen

1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

[edit]
Unfortunatelly i dont know about the exact species. But i would be grateful if someone could add the correct information --AngMoKio 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

i also have a cropped version of this photo. I pondered long and was not sure which one is better. i somehow like both. Please move votes here if you prefer the other--AngMoKio 10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured (cropped version) Roger McLassus 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the truck


The photograph shows with such clarity the lifeline cord in blue as it runs against a rusty backdrop. I love it! Anjela White

2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

nomination format adjusted by Gnangarra

The location is a church in Ireland. Anjela White MPF 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for seeing my vision! Anjela White

4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- Nice one. Too bad for the resolution but it's still good. please log in to vote Lycaon 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you probably did not read the summary: A typical maltese boat called luzzu (some times also dhajsa), photo taken in Marsaxlokk (the photo has been been uploaded 2004 just one months I worked in wiki - should I rename it, damned?
Yes (I read the summary), and Yes (you might rename it). Lycaon 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

corrected info -- Lycaon 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a picture of a grave and agreed it may not be thee most Earth shattering picture to judge but there is such a thing as sensitivity and no, it is Not 'only' a grave- this is part of history and part of someone's life. If a relative of yours or your child were to be drowned in an act of terrorism and her body washed ashore and a whole city saw to giving her a final resting place.....think if it would 'only be a grave to you. This picture has some historical significance and interest for those who questioned what happened to the passengers of the ill-fated Lusitania when the German's sank her. Anjela White

Sorry, all sensitivity aside, we are judging pictures here, not touching stories of human tragedy. And as a picture this doesn't cut it for me. Furthermore I could imagine pictures with a lot more historical significance than this snapshot, like original photos, drawings, newspaper snippets. --Dschwen 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 'bone of contention' was not with you Dschwenand I'd agree its cut off. Requiescat in Pace. Anjela White

Thank you...Anjela White

2 support,6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dans la Tadrart

11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]