Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to vote on this page.
The voting is open until 17 March 2026 23:59:59 (UTC).
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2026 at 14:30:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by M.pvsk – uploaded by M.pvsk – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2026 at 22:39:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Russia
Info Gamov Lighthouse (1906): village and lighthouse, Primorsky Krai, Russia, Pacific Ocean coast. The cape Gamov is known for its high rocky shores, rugged coastline, numerous bays, and underwater rocks. For centuries, this made the area dangerous for shipping. As well as having plenty of value to the project, it's good quality and well composed. Created by Aleksandr Trakhan — uploaded by Aleksandr Trakhan — nominated by Niklitov — Niklitov (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The original work for the lighthouse collection. — Niklitov (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment This is one of those cases that would justify a geometric correction. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- So that the lighthouse doesn't lean up to the left, yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2026 at 18:39:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Jewel anemone (Corynactis viridis), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. It is found in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea and Its depth range extends from the lower shore to the sublittoral zone, to depths of about 80 metres (260 ft). This is a tiny anemone, the base can grow to a diameter of about 10 millimetres (0.39 in). Note: there are no FPs of the whole order Corallimorpharia on Commons, which contains 11 genera and 46 species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the composition looks messy to my eye, and it produces uneasiness to focus on the main subject. I get that the idea is to present the central group of jewel anemones, which is decently sharp and detailed given the conditions, but the large unsharp foreground in the bottom right corner as well as the big unsharp anemone in the background near the top right corner are distracting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support It's a good complex composition, not a "messy" composition. My eyes enjoy moving around the picture frame. And the various colors and textures are also interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be more precise, it's 'messy' considering the other FPs of related species or similar subjects (see this one) and other pictures of this species that I found on other websites (see here). Diego should be given credits for his effort to produce nice underwater pictures, and this is probably the most representative one of this species we now have, but it's simply not appealing as some other FPs of similar subjects and the pictures of the fish he's been recently nominating. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2026 at 16:40:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food : Processing, preparing and cooking
Info all by Kritzolina. This method of roasting fish on a stick ist a traditional dish in Bavaria called "Steckerlfisch". It is often served in beer gardens or at fairs. This picture was taken at the Auer Maidult, a traditional fair an open air market in Munich. -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong pattern and texture, sharp details, natural colors. High encyclopedic value illustrating traditional Bavarian street food. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 22:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radom. Good level of sharpness after the edit (crisp detail but not unnatural). JayCubby (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2026 at 14:47:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Artisans_(craftspeople)
Info Artisan coloring a lamp, Medina Marrakesh (Morocco). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Info Wish i had RAW, so some more working around JPEG. I think still my best shot for 2026 WLF. I might print it.
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good capture, I like the look of concentration on his face. I also really appreciate the light in this image. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I used to never shoot in RAW, but if a photo is taken at reasonable exposure levels to begin with it is not so critical. JayCubby (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Doesn't this camera support RAW? I didn't use to use RAW, but now only shoot in RAW (Canon's cRAW actually). So much more flexibility; particularly in raising shadows and reducing highlights. If I raise shadows in jpg I get a nasty halo. Here of course, the shadow will be intentional. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very authentic and well executed. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, the large pitch black area in the upper right corner distracts me. That's why I'm unlikely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll suggest a crop for your consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I can't see how to add a note, but I'd suggest cropping just to the right of the lamp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll suggest a crop for your consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Ikan Kekek if i crop, negative space is lost, subject become more to middle (not good) and also left-diagonal light-contrast would be lost. Now subject is standing on 1st third (vertical; Rule of thirds). I also tried your options, in anycase wont work. --Mile (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I don't agree that any of those things would be drawbacks, but we don't have to agree. I may oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment You may vote as you wish. But i think not much would support your "crop" opinion, if any. Anyway, 1st what i like, 2nd FP. No matter if it fail. --Mile (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I respect that. However, I will
Oppose because the black area is distracting and draws the eyes while impeding their movement around the rest of the picture frame. And just as you do what you like, regardless of whether that earns you votes for an FP or not, I would not be moved by whether others agree or disagree that a large area devoid of data harms the composition of this photo. I have my experience as a viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I respect that. However, I will
Oppose Sorry, but this is just a good photo, of average quality, of an artisan working. I don't understand the comment about authenticity. Could it be otherwise, or does the comment refers to something more exotic, that is, less European? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Alvesgaspar. By Authenticity I did not intend a geographic or cultural distinction. I meant the perceived sincerity of the moment: the artisan’s concentration, the unposed working environment, and the natural light. From my perspective, the image's technical imperfections are outweighed by its documentary and human qualities. Authenticity here refers to the credibility of the captured moment rather than its origin. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2026 at 23:38:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created by A.Classical-Futurist – uploaded by A.Classical-Futurist – nominated by A.Classical-Futurist -- A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose What's special? COM:QIC first? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Useful and accurate photo for sure, but it has cell phone artifacts and an unspecial composition. JayCubby (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Also a strange perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2026 at 11:34:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Bavaria
Info View of the weir and power plant on Egerweg in Neuhaus an der Eger, created by PantheraLeo1359531 – uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 – nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I really like the rhyme between the pedestrian bridge and the slanted lines in the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
SupportNice perspective. Even the clouds converge towards the house. --JackyM59 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support nice mood --XRay 💬 19:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Lots and lots of fun diagonals. JayCubby (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as per others above. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Few CA left to remove at the branches on the left side.--Ermell (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose CA on left side. --Mile (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The CAs as Ermell noted, could also have been caused by imprecise overlapping counter-masking. With such fine structures outside the focus, this is almost impossible to avoid; I am familiar with the problem myself. Unfortunately, I also find it somewhat distracting in terms of the overall impression. Basically, I think the composition is very good, although the lantern might be more interesting if it were a little closer to the center of the image. Incidentally, it also has typical masking or processing artifacts along the top of the cover. Given the dynamic range and tonal range, I would have guessed HDR, but the good impression is probably thanks to the sensor.
If possible, I would definitely repeat the image and produce a focus stack so that the shot is razor sharp from the toenail to ∞. Perhaps early in the morning at sunrise on a frosty day or in the evening at blue hour could be a great time. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for your detailed answer :). I will try to fix the CA issue within the next days --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Done CAs reduced :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed answer :). I will try to fix the CA issue within the next days --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2026 at 09:24:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info View of the harbor basin at the Rhine port in Karlsruhe. Created, uploaded and nominated by Syntaxys -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Abstain as author. While reviewing my archive, I stumbled across this photo from last fall that I had lost track of. With its beautiful light and reflections, I think it has the potential for a nomination. We currently have no FP in the main thematic category for this motif. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support In my eyes a beautiful composition where everything is right.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Famberhorst. That's quite a beautiful, restful photo of an industrial area. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Well-composed with harmonious light and reflections on the water surface. Despite the industrial setting, the image feels calm and balanced. Technically well-exposed, with pleasing colors and sharpness. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radom above. Some
chromatic aberration which could be gotten rid of. JayCubby (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review! Before uploading, I checked very carefully to see if I could find any CAs and didn't find any, at least in the 100% view. In the structures on the crane on the right side of the image, I noticed slight color shimmers at 400% view and reduced them. Additionally I also cloned out a few birds that were much too small. In Lightroom, I always remove CAs, at least with the default settings. Could you please mark your findings on the nomination page for me? Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- At 100% zoom, it's faint, to be fair. The edited version is much better now,
resolved JayCubby (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- At 100% zoom, it's faint, to be fair. The edited version is much better now,
- Thank you for your review! Before uploading, I checked very carefully to see if I could find any CAs and didn't find any, at least in the 100% view. In the structures on the crane on the right side of the image, I noticed slight color shimmers at 400% view and reduced them. Additionally I also cloned out a few birds that were much too small. In Lightroom, I always remove CAs, at least with the default settings. Could you please mark your findings on the nomination page for me? Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Yes, symmetry is a well-known component of beauty! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Since friend had one D300, i was always satisfied with colors/texture. Could say similar here. --Mile (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent and intresting shot of a subject that could so easily be boring, too busy or dull. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Wonderful – Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support But I think it would be even better if the entire crane and dolphin were reflected and a little less sky was shown instead. --Llez (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! I would have preferred that too, but it wasn't possible to take the photo that way. I was standing very close to the quay, but there was a landing stage directly to my right that I didn't want in the picture. I remember having to stretch out a lot so that I didn't have to tilt the camera. You can see that situation in this picture; my position was a little further to the left. A cropping of the sky would lead to a centered horizon which is IMO unfavorable. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 22:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2026 at 06:48:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Muscicapidae#Genus_:_Saxicola
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty bird, pleasant composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful image -- Umarxon III (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 23:40:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1940-1949
Info The older PNG file with fewer pixels is rated as an excellent image on the Hebrew Wikipedia. It was also a image of the day on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I think this is an excellent shot of a future First Lady and two Presidents of the United States of America. Uploaded by Ziv – nominated by Ziv -- זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)- @Ziv: What do you think of a retouched version? JayCubby (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: It looks good, but I won't be using the retouched version myself. The original file from the National Archives (NARA), not a retouched one, was used when it was promoted to become a excellent file in the Hebrew Wikipedia or used as the picture of the day on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I used the TIF version for the upload, because it has the higher resolution, and uploading as JPG basically only changed the file extension, as it is generally recommended to use the jpg file extension for photos and to use it in the language versions as well. The retouched version also lacks verifiable EXIF data. Besides, in my opinion, old photos are allowed to have minor flaws; not every white spot or scratch needs to be fixed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Understood, but we're accustomed to digitally restored photos on COM:FPC, and the EXIF is fine because the retouched version would be linked to the original. Would you be willing to offer the retouched version as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: of course, yes. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ziv. I'll look for that. Best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: of course, yes. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Understood, but we're accustomed to digitally restored photos on COM:FPC, and the EXIF is fine because the retouched version would be linked to the original. Would you be willing to offer the retouched version as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: It looks good, but I won't be using the retouched version myself. The original file from the National Archives (NARA), not a retouched one, was used when it was promoted to become a excellent file in the Hebrew Wikipedia or used as the picture of the day on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I used the TIF version for the upload, because it has the higher resolution, and uploading as JPG basically only changed the file extension, as it is generally recommended to use the jpg file extension for photos and to use it in the language versions as well. The retouched version also lacks verifiable EXIF data. Besides, in my opinion, old photos are allowed to have minor flaws; not every white spot or scratch needs to be fixed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 22:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 22:40:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionidae#Genus : Troides
Info The largest butterfly in Southeast Asia, with a wingspan of about 160mm, four times the wingspan of my other nomination. This female is about to lay an egg. No FPs of the genus which has 20 species. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice composition, good quality, I've tagged three hot pixels for removal. JayCubby (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very impressive closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)1st leg (from above) is strangely covered in halfshadow of leaf. Some not good editing around antennas. Annotations. You could cover that, just more work. --Mile (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose- Thanks both. Hot pixel removed and antennas retouched. Unfortunately uppermost leg (nothing strange...) was behind the edge of the leaf. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 22:40:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Lycaenidae#Genus : Cheritra
Info A wingspan of about 40mm. No FPs of the butterfly genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice capture, no stuck pixels (though there is some faint posterization/banding on the two pics you have up for FP at the moment). JayCubby (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment CA on end of tail.--Mile (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive level of detail, really interesting butterfly. I feel like you're outdoing yourself with some of your most recent nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Color banding means it's just a millimeter short of perfection.--Ermell (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I can support it now. Its much better shot than above one, at least all in focus. --Mile (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is a focus stack of a stationary butterfly. The other is a single shot of a swallowtail with fluttering wings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 21:52:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Haemulidae_(Grunts)
Info Adult Indian Ocean oriental sweetlips (Plectorhinchus vittatus), Anilao, Philippines. It inhabits shallow, coastal coral reefs, lagoons and seaward reefs at depths of 2 to 25 metres (6.6 to 82.0 ft) in the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean. This species attains a maximum total length of 72 centimetres (28 in). Note: there are no FPs of this species on Commons. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support. Colors could be less blue (like this?). Thanks for the flash info earlier. JayCubby (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with JayCubby. Yann (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby and Yann:
Done Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Much better, thank you. JayCubby (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby and Yann:
Support Beautiful fish with real character - look at that face! And a high-quality photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support + to JayCubby. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC) p.S. Also some crop above and maybe on right.
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 17:30:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Fungi#Others
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support That's such an impressive photograph of such an interesting subject that I'll overlook the distracting circles, especially the one just past and maybe slightly overlapping the lower left corner of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I hope, the circles will be removed, I think it is not difficult --Llez (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I removed the circles now -- FlocciNivis (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 11:46:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
Info Here is, for a change, a more consensual nomination. Other than the work of art itself, which is an impressive example of Michelangelo's genius, I like very much the warm light. Yes, it was real, please take a look at another shot of the same subject here. By the way, the time at the Exif file is wrong, this was taken at about 09:40 AM. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I prefer the other picture you link to. While this perspective offers a direct view of the face, it doesn’t look natural and the crop makes the composition busier. The front view has resulted in a much more harmonious composition, which is enriched with the other sculptures on the sides. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose in line with my comment immediately above. Moreover, there are overexposed patches primarily on the left arm as a result of the harsh light refraction, and there is posterisation in the area between the pedestal and the left leg. Sorry, but the other picture looks more compelling. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Good to me, but I don't like the left crop. Would you be willing to nominate the fuller view? It's much better, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment In ayncase i would do crop above as shown. --Mile (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Here is the alternative preferred by two of the reviewers. This is the lower part of the grave for Pope Julius II, by Michelangelo, where the sculpture of Moses is included. The whole structure, depicted here, is in the church of San Pietro in Vincole, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Despite his head look so much distorted. But much better than above. --Mile (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, this is a good quality picture of a work of art, but I fail to find something special enough for FP. --Benji 19:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I concur with Benji's evaluation. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 10:41:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info Woman in traditional Uzbek long adras dress (UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage), Po-i-Kalyan complex, Buhara. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Important documentary value, beautiful composition and very high technical quality --Kritzolina (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Quite an amazing dress and a beautiful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great. When supporting this at QIC, I thought about nominating it at FPC. --Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per anderen.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful --JackyM59 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- E bailey (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 09:33:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Tapiridae_(Tapirs)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not the best framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review but the South American tapir is a nocturnal and elusive animal that is rare to spot in the wild. This individual was spotted a bit before sunset while it was eating vegetation. It was only visible for a few seconds before leaving. To me this picture perfectly captured this rare subject in a beautiful and graceful posture with head up while being framed in it's beautiful natural environment that is also part of its diet. The subject was also luckily close enough to be able to capture it in very high resolution. Given all these elements this image is of clear FP level to my eyes -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Giles Laurent Юрий Д.К. 17:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The framing is quite nice I think, even without its elusivity accounted for. JayCubby (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Jay. Lots of insects flying around! I hope you didn't get bitten up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Some less sharpening might be welcome. --Mile (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong encyclopedic value: rare wildlife subject, natural habitat, clear behavioural context. Minor technical reservations are outweighed. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 09:22:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Altar piece at Langenlois parish church, Lower Austria. Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Obvious FP. Thanks for nominating it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Can you add details on the stitching in the description? e.g. "stiched from 3 side-by-side photos taken at 50 mm". --AVDLCZ (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 09:11:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info This 483 m long structure is one of the longest pedestrian suspension bridges in the world; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The framing is not the best, in particular the dark structure on the left and the too large aspect ratio. Also, the trees below the structure are blurry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Info The "dark structure on the left" is the Rappbode dam and its shadow. As the front of the dam is directed in norther direction, it is mostly in shadow, and the dam itself casts a shadow towards Titan RT. --Llez (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Unusual photo for you, focusing on the people in an elevated walkway. I presume this is a focus stack; isn't it normal to say so on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Info It is not a focus stack, it is a normal panorama with single photos. You can see the original RAW-files here --Llez (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's impressive. But still, it's several photos stitched together. Should that be mentioned? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Done I added "Panorama stitched of 8 photos" at the description paqge --Llez (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support For me a special photo of a special object.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 07:34:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Zosteropidae_(White-eyes)
Info No existing FP for this species. All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the FP "bird bar" has been raised quite high in recent years! The composition is very good, but the photo is relatively small and soft. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's ok if you don't find it good enough but treating all birds equally would be a mistake. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I would support original Юрий Д.К. 17:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Least concern" per w:Black-chinned yuhina, so I'd need a reason to support either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Himalayan birds are quite hard to photograph as per my experience. It's ok if you don't find reason to support it. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's a reason. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support OK, it's pretty good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's a reason. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Himalayan birds are quite hard to photograph as per my experience. It's ok if you don't find reason to support it. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Least concern" per w:Black-chinned yuhina, so I'd need a reason to support either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2026 at 06:16:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 06:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support An exceptionally strong graphic composition. The snow-covered surface becomes a near-monochrome canvas, with dark tire tracks forming a dynamic network of lines. The sweeping curves create an elegant visual rhythm, enhanced by the contrast between reduced color, clear geometry, and organic traces. Technically well executed, with excellent impact from the aerial perspective. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I really like aerial photographs. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Taken at a perfect moment, it not only shows the location, but also tells a lot about driving and parking. Additionally the image can be almost viewed as a kind of abstract art, with its clear lines and curves. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Reminds me of cable wiring :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support} Godd idea! Outstanding perspective on a trivial motif. --Milseburg (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good choice of perspective. --Aciarium (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- E bailey (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Kritzolina and Radomianin. Easily the best FPC candidate of the month (so far). – Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I like how this tells a bit of a story to what would usually be a boring car park scene, you can imagine the cars swerving into each spot, good image! – Extua (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per above. An aerial time-lapse video would be really cool, now that I think of it. I suppose this could be accomplished by taking off to the same altitude every few minutes? JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Loved it at QIC, love it here :-) A beautiful, almost abstract, view of something trivial (in countries with snow). --Benji 19:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I hesitated, because I'd like a wider crop on the right, but it's such an interesting idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 20:48:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info created and uploaded by Thiagomarcelcampi – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 20:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 20:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Strong support From another planet! Reminding me of File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg, as similarly it has some perspective issues but I was really missing this type of photography! Thank you for nominating! ★ 03:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I know from my own experience how difficult it is to take such photographs, so I have my doubts as to whether the image was created as shown here. But we do have a few other astro experts here in this group. The exact geodata would be very helpful for further evaluation. To me, the lighting conditions at this time of day (if correct) seem unusual, and the image has a few serious masking errors. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Did you mean the sky is from a different image? The sky we can see behind the trees is a different colour to the rest of the sky. But more important, how can you have that amazing sky on a sunny day with strong shadows in the foregroundǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, in my opinion, it is a composite of different images, perhaps the same subject taken at different times. As you say, the hard shadows in the rock formation do not fit in with the overall impression at all. Where would the light source causing this come from at night? If the geodata with the viewing direction were available and assuming the time of the shot is correct, it would be very easy to find out whether you can see this night sky there at that time of day. If the weather was clear. However, the exposure time matches the appearance of the night sky, as the stars are slightly elongated due to the Earth's rotation. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll await the answer to this question before judging the image. It's probably fine if it's a composite, but it has to be described accurately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, in my opinion, it is a composite of different images, perhaps the same subject taken at different times. As you say, the hard shadows in the rock formation do not fit in with the overall impression at all. Where would the light source causing this come from at night? If the geodata with the viewing direction were available and assuming the time of the shot is correct, it would be very easy to find out whether you can see this night sky there at that time of day. If the weather was clear. However, the exposure time matches the appearance of the night sky, as the stars are slightly elongated due to the Earth's rotation. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Magic image Юрий Д.К. 16:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Time 19:12? Photomontage like Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Church of light.jpg? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 20:48:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Infrared photography
Info created and uploaded by Thiagomarcelcampi – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 20:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 20:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- thank you very much heylenny! Thiago Campi (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Amazing – Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- thank you Julian! Thiago Campi (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)A very beautiful and decorative image, ideal for meditation. But in my opinion, the image is overly manipulated and has some editing errors; in some places, the tree looks as if it were a 3D image. I even think I stumbled across it a few weeks ago and didn't want to nominate it for that reason. From a purely technical point of view, the EXIF data does not match the image. In some places, the clouds are much too sharp for a 30-second exposure time, but this could of course be due to varying wind speeds. Nevertheless, 30 seconds with an open aperture and ISO 100 at midday in sunlight? Which ND filter was used for this? --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose- Hi Achim! Thank you for your contribution. I used an infrared filter that is much more darker then any ND filter available.
- The post processing of this kind of photo has just a few steps. A white balance correction and inversion of the red and blue channels to create the false colors on IR photography. It's the classic. Thiago Campi (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Well, that explains a lot. I also dabbled in IR photography for a while 20 years ago. But it didn't immediately occur to me that the picture was taken with welding goggles ;)
It would be very helpful if these important aspects of the shot were documented accordingly (description, categories), as that would save a lot of guesswork. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above and I also highly doubt the authenticity of these colours. Sorry. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- hi! The colors came from classic post processing of infrared captures. Thiago Campi (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Probably in BW would work better, also tilted. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose- hello Mile! Great point! I will try to reprocess this photo in BW. Thiago Campi (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not the best image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- In what way? You need to take into account that this is an infrared photograph Thiago Campi (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Surreal view, unusial image Юрий Д.К. 16:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment A lot of wow factor, but questions by Syntaxys should be answered. Yann (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- The uploader's last contribution is 31 January 2026. Perhaps they're not very active here, since they created their account during the Wiki Loves Earth 2025. heylenny (talk/edits) 17:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I had a little more time now and decided to use some math instead of guesswork this morning. At noon in bright sunshine at 25° south in Brazil, you can use the Sunny 16 rule (ISO 100, aperture f/16, shutter speed approx. 1/125 sec.). However, since the picture was taken at an aperture of f/4.5, we first have to convert this reference to the aperture used. From f/16 to f/4.5, there are approx. 3.7 f-stops more light. To compensate for this, the shutter speed without a filter would have to be much shorter: approx. 1/2000 second. Now let's compare the theoretical time (1/2000 sec.) with the actual time (30 sec.). The time difference is a factor of 60,000 (30x2000). Expressed in f-stops, this corresponds to about 16 stops. You can achieve this with an ND 64,000 filter, or you can screw an ND 1000 and an ND 64 filter together onto the camera. This at least clarifies the technical possibilities. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- again, it's infrared photography Thiago Campi (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I would support, but I'm holding back out of respect for the questions. Perhaps someone could email the photographer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! I was aware of the comments Thiago Campi (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support, but please add the fact that you used an infrared filter to the file description and add a category for infrared photography. Thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! I was aware of the comments Thiago Campi (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Thank you Thiago for explaining to us that it is a infrared photography. Nice to see this type of image, which is not common here on FPC. ★ 21:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice compo and spectacular appearance at first sight, but too unnatural, like a fantasy, and low quality, due to the filter. Oversaturated and distorted colors in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support We must judge infrared photographs differently, they constitute a different way to see and understand the world. IMHO we should be happy to get such an interesting example of infrared photography: it makes the difference visible, at the same time it’s an impressive minimalist composition. So everybody who despises our pixel peeping habit and wishes for really impressive images should be very happy about this one. To quote a venerable FPC master: “This is what a FP is about: magic!” – Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile Morin -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as IR photography. Yann (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support A deliberate break from naturalistic expectations: the infrared rendering transforms a sparse coastal scene into a study of tone, stillness, and negative space. The minimalist composition and mirror-like surface create a calm, cohesive visual statement rather than mere spectacle. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 17:23:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Sagittarius
Info 600mm shot of a flying Secretary bird, South Africa. Сreated by Kandukuru Nagarjun – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 17:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 17:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is a quite impressive shot, but the picture is too soft. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I only partially agree (may be in 10-20% if it can be expressed as a percentage, of course
). But good for 600mm shot and rare view imho makes this image FP. Юрий Д.К. 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I only partially agree (may be in 10-20% if it can be expressed as a percentage, of course
Support Sharp enough for a landing bird, to my mind, and has a wow factor to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 13:13:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info Shortly before sunset, the clouds suddenly revealed the Bernese four-thousand-meter peaks at a distance of about 140 km. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support An atmospheric and convincing capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support but I like thwe wider image even more. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice view. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I think I prefer this view to the wider view, in terms of composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 10:34:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Solanaceae
Info created & uploaded by Ermell – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Lots of wow, very good quality. And the fruits are delicious (when ripe) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar, how do they compare to the Cape gooseberry? JayCubby (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Well, I think that Physalis peruviana is really the only one I know, it is quite common in Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great light and composition, excellent focus stack --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Jules. (I forgot to vote earlier.) `JayCubby (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Julesvernex2. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful still life, excellent variety of colors and light, great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful composition, details, and color nuances --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Per others. --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 10:26:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Citrus fruits
Info created & uploaded by F. Riedelio – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Strong composition with clear visual balance. The bright orange slices dominate the scene, complemented by the warm wood textures, while the olives on the left create an effective tonal and compositional counterbalance. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. @F. Riedelio, what did you sprinkle on the orange slices other than pepper? Oregano? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I marinated the orange slices with olive oil, freshly ground black pepper, and thyme. F. Riedelio • 💬 14:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Per others. Beautiful composition. --Aciarium (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Per others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 08:00:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Giraffidae (Giraffes)
Info created by Payamfarahani – uploaded by Payamfarahani – nominated by Payamfarahani -- Payamfarahani (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Payamfarahani (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support, and I can't figure out why there are no votes yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I can't explain, but it looks unnatural to me. I don't know what's wrong. And there are no EXIF informations. The file name and description are insufficient. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I took another look at both images. My impression is that the lighting situation does not match the shadows cast by the objects. Especially in the second image, with the sun in this position and clear light, shouldn't there be a harder and longer shadow on the ground? Furthermore, I think that the effect of the hyperfocal distance is not consistent. But for that, you would need at least some information about the shooting configuration, and please note: this is only my personal perception, which is disturbed when looking at these images.
- Maybe @Payamfarahani can explain what we see. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Interesting about the shadows. I do hope we get a response. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I can't explain, but it looks unnatural to me. I don't know what's wrong. And there are no EXIF informations. The file name and description are insufficient. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A nice and correct picture, nothing more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 08:02:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Giraffidae (Giraffes)
Info created by Payamfarahani – uploaded by Payamfarahani – nominated by Payamfarahani -- Payamfarahani (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Payamfarahani (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I like the composition of the other photo, with the giraffe next to the tree, better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 02:30:57 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
Info Wat Pariwat is internationally renowned for its unusual and eclectic decorations. The temple features traditional Thai elements alongside modern pop culture icons. created by, uploaded by & nominated by, Don (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Don (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose First of all, I would reset the image to the original version, as this type of excessive post-processing does not correspond to the reality captured and, in my opinion, is not particularly well done. At the very least, a perspective correction would be important, and the image is tilted CCW. The image was also not taken optimally with an open aperture. Since there is usually no risk of such a subject running away, a razor-sharp shot would have been possible in this light with an aperture of 8 at 1/250 s, which would have brought out the full quality capabilities of this camera. I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient for a FP. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Fixed and reveretd, your right. Also made some other changes but I might go reshoot as you suggest next week.--Don (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, the temple is really beautiful and interesting. It would be a great advantage for Commons to get a better shot. A slightly wider angle and more space around the main subject would make the composition and post-processing easier. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Perspective/tilt should be fixed, beautiful building Юрий Д.К. 14:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Fixed--Don (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Question Are the pillars and walls not vertical? --Yann (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment:Yann, I used the center pillar to align the shot. I was rather close to the subject but will try to shoot again next week. Don (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but the pillars should be vertical everywhere. Yann (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Nice subject. The main thing that's bothering me is that the top crop is too close. I'd like a more contrasting sky, too. A mostly white temple against a blue sky could be good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2026 at 02:03:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info created by Alan Buckman in 1992 – uploaded and retouched by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support. This photo wasn't assigned an LCCN, so the file description is a bit sparse. -- JayCubby (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose In terms of image composition, I found at least two other photos in the category that are significantly more interesting. Why this one? --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I like the horizontal divisions, but what files do you prefer? JayCubby (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by centered compositions if they're not symmetrical. I think this one and this one have much more potential. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I tend to agree with this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by centered compositions if they're not symmetrical. I think this one and this one have much more potential. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I like the horizontal divisions, but what files do you prefer? JayCubby (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2026 at 13:19:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Species_:_Panthera_onca_(Jaguars)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support but the brown leaf-like object near the right edge is a but distracting and could be cropped out. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Done, new version uploaded with slight crop -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Strong support --Lmbuga (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great work! JayCubby (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support crop was good. Back/foreground not so much, not your choice, but good anyway. --Mile (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --E bailey (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - --Don (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice shot, exiting pose! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great shot! --Yann (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Yann. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful cat! Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2026 at 05:32:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Hippeastrum houseplant. The delicate beauty of the half opened flower bud. Focus stack of 20 photos}}
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support, but please clean up the hot pixels. JayCubby (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Done, False pixels removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful image composition and play of colors, a very well-done piece of work. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 06:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)- I find the crop too tight, specially on the right. Yann (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support a wider crop will create more negative space in the upper right and lower left corners than is necessary. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The close framing is a deliberate compositional choice that enhances both visual impact and educational value. It directs attention to the flower's structural details rather than surrounding negative space. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Impressive, but I agree with Alvesgaspar that a slightly more generous crop on the right side, the way the flower is leaning, would be an improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. We wanted to photograph the half-opened flower bud as large as possible in portrait format to clearly show the numerous details. But in perspective from the lower left corner as a viewpoint, to make the half-opened flower bud stand out well (POV). So, this was a deliberate choice. (I hope the translation comes across well.)--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- The translation comes across very well, thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. We wanted to photograph the half-opened flower bud as large as possible in portrait format to clearly show the numerous details. But in perspective from the lower left corner as a viewpoint, to make the half-opened flower bud stand out well (POV). So, this was a deliberate choice. (I hope the translation comes across well.)--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2026 at 23:14:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#North Macedonia
Info I don't think the tree branches near the edges are distracting as they subtly blend into the background, but it's possible to crop them out so that only the houses, the mosque and the mountains in the background are visible. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Nice postcard but with many blurry areas. No Exif data. --JackyM59 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment EXIF ? Smanji Highlights, malko Sharpening ? --Mile (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JackyM59 and PetarM: I've uploaded a sharper version with lower highlights. Thank you for the suggestions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Kiril Simeonovski Mnogu pak preosvetlena. Oštrina ne beše baš nešto. Jaz ti doprav, ama vo Adobe RGB, vidi dali ti je poubo ? Za mene OK. Namali EV na sonce. --Mile (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Благодарам. Мене ми изгледа добро. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support arna --Mile (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support. Petar, hvalá for the edit! JayCubby (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Diese Aufnahme und die verbesserte Nachbearbeitung finde ich noch am besten gelungen im Vergleich zu dem anderen Material in der Kategorie, auch wenn das verwendete Objektiv scheinbar deutliche Schwächen im Randbereich zeigt. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ich stimme zu. Die andere Fotos aus diesem Blickwinkel in der Kategorie sind mit einer deutlich schlechteren Qualität. Ich hatte ein kleines Dilemma ob dieses oder eine mit Drohne geschossene Alternative zu nominieren, aber das Licht, die Tiefe und die Bildkomposition mit den Bergen in der Hintegrund waren mehr als genug sich für dieses Foto zu entscheiden. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 06:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but the composition doesn't work for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I like the postcard of the village even if there is a sharpness problem on the outskirts --JackyM59 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Very interesting. Where one would expect to find a church steeple elsewhere, here there is a minaret. Das Bild seems somewhat distorted to me. Both sides lean slightly outwards. --Milseburg (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Milseburg: I've corrected the distortions and uploaded a new version. How does it look now? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are very fast. Better now.
Support Idyllic mountain landscape with a Muslim note. Milseburg (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are very fast. Better now.
- @Milseburg: I've corrected the distortions and uploaded a new version. How does it look now? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, it's pretty, but I miss something here to call it extraordinary Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)- Very
Weak support The compo is fine but a bit soft and blurry in places. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose You can't help the tree being on the left, but its blockage of part of the village spoils the composition for me. Perhaps a different angle might have worked for me for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco and Ikan, also a little soft. Sorry --Benji 19:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2026 at 16:42:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Russia
Info Russian Ministry of Defence in Moscow. Very controversial building, given the current situation, but I think it deserves FP. Taken in the afternoon to avoid harsh lighting. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 16:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support. A drone photo would be interesting, but I don't think that would end well... JayCubby (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support The image is very well done, and we don't seem to have any FP of this building at the moment. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- With regard to the subsequent discussions, I would like to mention that my positive assessment only concerns the image itself and not the meaning of the main motif. However, I can well understand that this nomination may be perceived by George Chernilevsky and other Ukrainians as a cynical provocation. This war has for sure caused a great amount of suffering.
- Incidentally, the Catholic Church did similar things until a few centuries ago. And yet we are still evaluating images of churches here. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Many thanks because you assess only the image. This nomination is not trolling or provocation. I took the photo in September but long time refused of the FP nomination because I predicted such long political discussions. I was surprised that no even single FP of this significant building so far on Commons. Юрий Д.К. 13:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good photo, but it's just a huge administrative building... --JackyM59 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not just administrative, it is military! Юрий Д.К. 12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I totally agree, sorry. The building is not reallya appealing and it's mostly in shadow. It could be a FP to me e.g. from a front POV, with night dusk/dawn lighting and/or with a nice reflexion on the water, just to give some ideas. Poco a poco (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above. You have much more better compo sites, 1st with zooming to details, or straigth thru the river (90 degrees). With better light of course. But might be problem with Police, building is protected area. Some even watching to you. Above i see Pancir. For insance that logo would be sure shot (anoted). --Mile (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure about the safety of front photo. Юрий Д.К. 12:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The Russian Ministry of Terrorism. Every day, they plan mass murders of Ukrainian civilians. Every day, Russia shells and bombs peaceful cities. Every day, Ukrainians bury children and women killed by Russian missiles. I don't think this can be rewarded in the current situation. -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)- Me, the building itself, the photo, and the camera, is not to blame for anything. I’ve nominated this photo because I believe that depicted building is one of the most notable not only in Russia, but also in the world, and it probably deserves FP. Юрий Д.К. 12:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to judge the image, as the building depicted, and what was presumably happening inside it at the time the photograph was taken, is directly related to a current, horrific war that I oppose. I consider the timing of the nomination unfortunate and premature. Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your comment. But I assess that even in many years (say 10, 20 or 50), this building will be associated with the war, for those affected by it. Юрий Д.К. 14:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but I hope that the people inside will no longer work about the next attacks when you take a new photo of this building soon. Milseburg (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your comment. But I assess that even in many years (say 10, 20 or 50), this building will be associated with the war, for those affected by it. Юрий Д.К. 14:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to judge the image, as the building depicted, and what was presumably happening inside it at the time the photograph was taken, is directly related to a current, horrific war that I oppose. I consider the timing of the nomination unfortunate and premature. Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Question If the photo became « Featured picture », could it become a « Picture of the day » ? -JackyM59 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how the Picture of the day process is performing (manual selection of photos or random by a bot). In any case I hope that yes, because the building itself deserves FP and thus, POTD. Because the building (architects, design, architectural elements, perspective) is not in itself to blame for anything. Юрий Д.К. 14:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, for the PotD usually performed manual selection (incl. the author),b ut anyone can dispute the choice too. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for info! Юрий Д.К. 16:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, for the PotD usually performed manual selection (incl. the author),b ut anyone can dispute the choice too. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Nice photo, but may be the building deserves more sufficient lighting. Shooting at 10am could be the best, I guess. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This isn't just a building, but a symbol of aggressive war, robbery, looting, and the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians. I don't object to the fact that it's a significant image. However, posting it on FP means becoming this photo a part of Russian war propaganda. -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please do not blame me in support of aggressive war, looting, and the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians. Some users may get the impression that I support this, and will give them a false impression about me. I've created this photo only to illustrate an important building. Юрий Д.К. 16:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Russian war propaganda"? That's the same as saying that this photo is also war propaganda. The same as saying "Hitler doesn't deserve to be featured," ignoring the high historical value. That's nonsense. heylenny (talk/edits) 16:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the vote like this is just a propaganda from the other side. Rate the photo, not politics, plz. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is a delicate subject but I fully agree with George Chernilevsky. I would oppose this nomination anyway, because it lacks what I believe is (should be) a fundamental ingredient of a featured picture: magic. But it is much more important to draw attention to what this building represents now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- You probably anyway oppose all my noms. Юрий Д.К. 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all, @Юрий Д.К.: ! I've been around for a long time and always strived to ignore the identity of both creatores and nominators. However, we all know that since I came back, about one month ago, my support/oppose ratio has been quite small. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- And yes, I know 😂 Юрий Д.К. 15:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all, @Юрий Д.К.: ! I've been around for a long time and always strived to ignore the identity of both creatores and nominators. However, we all know that since I came back, about one month ago, my support/oppose ratio has been quite small. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Political and/or ethic aspects aside, just compare the lighting conditions of the nominated picture to what I had taken from nearly the same spot years ago. (And no, I'm not planning ever to nominate that photo, and never did.) --A.Savin 11:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Much lower technical quality, only light is better. I would never have thought you nominate this photo. Although perhaps someone would have said "harsh light" Юрий Д.К. 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why then don't you go ahead and take a photo with better technical quality AND better light? --A.Savin 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, will be performed whenever possible. Юрий Д.К. 17:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why then don't you go ahead and take a photo with better technical quality AND better light? --A.Savin 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Much lower technical quality, only light is better. I would never have thought you nominate this photo. Although perhaps someone would have said "harsh light" Юрий Д.К. 16:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then I'd prefer a frontal view at 90 degrees. ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have this idea among others
. May be also side view from another angle (from Pushkin embankment). Юрий Д.К. 18:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have this idea among others
- Then I'd prefer a frontal view at 90 degrees. ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support So much history in one single photo... --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)- Small update. Yesterday I was in Moscow, and there were some questions from the police, even though I was taking photos of historical buildings 😂. Юрий Д.К. 13:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Юрий Д.К., how did that work out? When I was in Washington, D.C. recently, photography of the Pentagon and whatnot was theoretically prohibited, but nobody would care unless you looked Middle Eastern.
- I did some searching, and it looks like you might need to obtain permission from the FSB to shoot sensitive locations, but from what I can tell the laws are subject to irregular enforcement. JayCubby (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Everything ended without any problems, I just went on taking more photos! I often walk past police/security officers with my camera and they usually don't care. Perhaps in this case there was interest in the photography rather than real suspicions. In general, photographing public objects is permitted in Russia, even copyrighted sculptures. I wouldn't like to contact the FSB or similar structures to take photos of sensitive locations, so I only photograph objects that are obviously permitted. Юрий Д.К. 15:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment As Milseburg above, I also consider this nomination unfortunate and premature. The comparison with the depiction of catholic churches is an obvious fallacy. Unlike the crimes perpetrated by the church centuries ago, the slaughtering of innocent people was happening at the very moment the shot was made and is happening now. I fail to accept, or even to understand, how people can go on calmly assessing the merits of this picture, knowing what it represents and what is being planned inside. This is a serious ethical and humanitarian issue that should make us stop and think, not a political one! I humbly ask the nominator to withdraw it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- A large number of users have voted support for the image and reviewed it. Thus, I consider premature withdrawn to be disrespectful to them. Even before the nomination, I was ready that the nomination will beat all the records for oppose votes, but a negative result is still a result. Юрий Д.К. 15:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose because they're boxy buildings that aren't interesting enough to look at, not because of my views on Russian aggression. If we are going to oppose nominations based on that, the Kremlin also should not be featured, nor any Russian Orthodox churches. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Small correction, it is single building. Юрий Д.К. 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I find the political oppose votes strange, because featuring a picture does not equal endorsing the subject. If tomorrow we were to feature a portrait of Hitler, or Trump, or Netanyahu, would that mean we are endorsing their political views or crimes? In fact, a featured portrait of Hitler would be the perfect image for a POTD that commemorates the genocide(s) that were committed by/under him, and to remember Nazism for the heinous, nauseating and disgusting ideology it was (and is). That said, though the architecture is interesting to me and the motif certainly feature-able, I find the composition weak. Perhaps a different time of the day would have been better. Thus,
Neutral. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Question On this long discussion I understand following: the building has a chance for FP. But does it [chance] depends on the outcome of the war? Any comments welcome. Юрий Д.К. 15:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should. I try to judge all media based on technical and artistic merits, which, here, are met. JayCubby (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- It depends on whose propaganda is broadcasting and yellin louder at the time. That's it. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Irrespectively of whether or not one is capable of setting politics aside when reviewing this image, I find this sort of moral relativism misplaced. Claiming that Russia is responsible for an "aggressive war, robbery, looting, and the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians" is a fact, not "propaganda from the other side" or an example of Ukraine "yellin [sic] louder at the time" Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Whatever the aesthetic appeal of this building, it is inappropriate to present it today. Perhaps in a few years...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's an office block in the style of the era it was built. But there must be many more buildings like this that do not house this particular branch of the Russian government. So why use it as a FP? MartinD (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2026 at 15:57:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Artisans (craftspeople)
Info created by Rod Waddington – uploaded by Mr. Ibrahem – nominated by ArionStar -- ★ 15:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Great since the city is a war zone today -- ★ 15:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2026 at 15:49:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Fadi El Binni of Al Jazeera English – uploaded by BotMultichill – nominated by ★ -- ★ 15:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- ★ 15:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --JackyM59 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support I see in this picture a lot of silent pain that women in Islam have to endure. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the tight crop and the face hidden in the shadow. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Crop-composition and light doesnt work here. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2026 at 11:47:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain
Info The Torre Glòries ([1]) at night. Barcelona, Spain. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Well, from a technical point of view, I'm not entirely convinced, and my support is based solely on the fact that the image is currently the most successful shot in the category. However, 10 years have passed since the last post-processing, and more modern software would certainly produce better quality, especially in the shadows. This would show the main subject in a better context with its surroundings. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is some cw tilt Poco a poco (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good to me. Rarely see D800. You could put just EXIF better, just pick from one shot. --Mile (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC) p.S. @Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys disagree with raising shadows, this is strong contrast shot.
Comment Thank you, I just filled in the Exif info, when possible. Here are the elemnents I couldn't: F/4, 1/10, ISO250. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Mile, just for my own understanding, and I am well aware that this is a high-contrast photo: what is the main goal of completely drowning the shadows in a documentary photograph? At first glance, this image is more reminiscent of a giant sex toy. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys I think in your case (to recover shadows) enlighted tower whith mild blue-red colors would be lost. See Category by night. --Mile (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not a fan of "plain black" night photos (instead of Blue hour or similar), and also, not sure on possible copyright status of the illumination. --A.Savin 12:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- According to Article 35(2) of the Spanish Copyright Law (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual), works that are permanently located in parks, streets, squares, or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed, and publicly reproduced. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Illuminations are not permanent. --A.Savin 17:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- According to Article 35(2) of the Spanish Copyright Law (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual), works that are permanently located in parks, streets, squares, or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed, and publicly reproduced. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good to me, and the black sky provides a good contrast with the colorful tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the picture is heavily distorted so it doesn't look right even after the perspective was corrected. The Gates Hotel on the right is projecting towards the tower and so are the buildings in the farther background on the left side. I also don't think this perspective presents the size of the tower well (to the human eye, it should be taller and thinner). You should have taken this picture from a larger distance or composed a vertical panorama to get a more decent natural-looking result (see this picture as a reference). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Info Thank you @Kiril Simeonovski: for your careful assessment. This is indeed a panorama, but you are right about the proportions of the tower and the need for correcting the verticals. I will try to fix both later. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Here is the alternative. I found the dimensions of the tower and restitched the panorama accordingly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Association_football_(soccer)
Info Uzbek football club Nasaf Qarshi before the match against Saudi Arabian football club Al Ittihad in 2025-2026 AFC Champions League Elite, December 23, 2025. Uploaded and nominated by myself -- Umarxon III (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment This is a good photo in its category, in that it's well-taken and does what it's supposed to do, but nothing feels special about it to me. Couldn't it be almost any well-taken professional photo of any team? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Ikan has a point, but we do not have any other professional photo of a team. Do we? --Yann (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Yann makes a compelling case. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose For now. I check Tilt which should be put a bit more down. Adding exposure and some Vibrance make this much more better. Also AUTO setting show Tilt if OFF. @Umarxon III i check EXIF. You could do same with ISO 500 (ISO2000 is overdose). --Mile (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)- OK,
Support per Yann's point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 05:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2026 at 10:41:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Romania
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment That's quite a nice motif, but I don't understand the placement of the right crop. I think one that cropped the building in the middle between the leftmost and second-leftmost windows might work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support per Ikan, I left an annotation about the crop. Otherwise it's a clean work and there are now FPs from this motif. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Just nice European view Юрий Д.К. 17:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- May be the suggested crop would be the better. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A nice and correct picture, not more. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 05:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, it looks a bit cluttered to me. Poco a poco (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2026 at 08:07:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Fishermen
Info In the Sundarbans, fishermen face a life-of-peril navigating dense mangroves where the Bengal tiger is a constant, lethal presence. This conflict is rooted in a history of shared territory, where tigers—uniquely adapted to the saline environment—have long viewed humans as prey. All by -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think this image is interesting and has educational value. What bothers me a little is the technical and creative execution. IMO, the white balance is not quite right (too greenish or cyan) and there is also a lack of brilliance in the midtones; it looks as if there is a veil over it. I would also crop it differently (see note). These adjustments would be very easy to implement, and then I would support the nomination. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, I have uploaded the corrected and cropped version. Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak support This is better but I still miss some more brilliance. Let's take a look at what others think about it, and also check out the selected gallery to compare the image in terms of its technical quality and thematic implementation with the existing awards. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, I have uploaded the corrected and cropped version. Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Yeah, more or less along the lines of Syntaxys' comments, I'm not convinced by the light and colors. Pretty nice composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral per Ikan. Unfortunately there just isn't something that noticeably stands out in this image. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Good enough. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2026 at 13:44:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Japan
Info Atrium and blue pillars at AEON MALL. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I understand the idea, but I'm not convinced by the execution (I guess that the first pillar should be located more to the left and also the POV to), sharpness is not the best either. Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Poco a Poco – Julian Lupyan (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Sure, the sharpness could be more overwhelming, but the composition is good, and the point of it to me is the blue pillars, with everything else ancillary. We don't need to see the people or stores sharply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Compo is fine Юрий Д.К. 22:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not special enough for FP, sorry. It's fine for what it is – I imagine taking an extraordinary photograph of pillars at a shopping mall would be challenging. --AVDLCZ (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I really like the compo and it's a well-thought out shot...but there just isn't the wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Sun 15 Feb → Fri 20 Feb Mon 16 Feb → Sat 21 Feb Tue 17 Feb → Sun 22 Feb Wed 18 Feb → Mon 23 Feb Thu 19 Feb → Tue 24 Feb Fri 20 Feb → Wed 25 Feb
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Wed 11 Feb → Fri 20 Feb Thu 12 Feb → Sat 21 Feb Fri 13 Feb → Sun 22 Feb Sat 14 Feb → Mon 23 Feb Sun 15 Feb → Tue 24 Feb Mon 16 Feb → Wed 25 Feb Tue 17 Feb → Thu 26 Feb Wed 18 Feb → Fri 27 Feb Thu 19 Feb → Sat 28 Feb Fri 20 Feb → Sun 01 Mar
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.)
- Add the template
{{Assessments|featured=1}}to the image description page.- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
com-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}} - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
featured=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with{{Assessments|featured=2}}. - Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1–6) with (1–6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological archives.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the section above. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
