Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2009

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


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


[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 20:07:34

  •  Info photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Diti — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment See the bid on eBay. ;) →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose background does not help. Picture does not illustrate the fursuit very well. Plus the design of the fursuit is very likely copyrighted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Yes, I kind of knew that background would not please, but I only had my 70-300mm telephoto lens (a friend of mine got luckier ;). I have a lot of photos which would illustrate the whole fursuit better, but this is a close-up (so we can see, for example, the little holes composing the eyes and allow the fursuiter to see). And for the copyright status, as for the reason File:Anthrocon_2007 Disabled fursuiter in parade.jpg was undeleted, the photo's licensing status is independent of the design of the fursuit (I read big parts of the Copyright Act with GreenReaper (talk · contribs) for figuring it out). →Diti the penguin — 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That surprises me. De minimis certainly won't apply, neither will FOP. The reasons given in the undelete seem a bit fishy. Fursuit is original enough, and the license applying is for the photograph, not for the design what does that mean? The designer will have copyright on the design, just taking a picture will not get around it. The photographer cannot relicense the design of the suit. With your train of thought FOP would not be necessary at all for example. That is just wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, here's why I think fursuit photographs are fine copyright-wise:
    • Copyright law makes a distinction between designs and works of art. Designs have fewer protections, especially when they form part of a useful article. A fursuit design is precisely what the name suggests - a design embodied in a useful article of apparel.
    • The presence of a proposal for the Design Piracy Prohibition Act suggests apparel is not comprehensively covered by current copyright law.
    • I can't speak for other areas of fashion, but there is a very strong implied license regarding the use of fursuit designs for photography. In almost all cases, these costumes are commissioned for specific owners who have a character in mind, and it is understood by all parties that they are made to be seen, photographed, and reproduced in audiovisual recordings, like a sports mascot. I've published hundreds of photos and there are hundreds like me. No designer has complained, nor would I expect them to.
    • At least one major fursuiting company specifically addresses the right to make copies of the design - they consider it to be held by the owner of the costume (and not by the person rendering the artwork), even though they themselves recognize the need for art and suggest artists for this purpose. Some creators even go to the extent of arranging photoshoots for fursuits which they created.
    • To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no fursuit designer has submitted or intends to submit their work to the Copyright Office. Submission is required within two years for designs embodied in a useful article. It is also not common for artists to require creators to place a design notice on a fursuit.
    • It's just silly. Without the right to take photographs, you would have no good way to (say) auction the work to others over the Internet, as is typically done. GreenReaper (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately It's just silly is not a compelling legal argument. Furthermore I disgaree about your interpretation of the fur figure as design instead of artwork. What if it had been a Mikey Mouse suit? --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the suit would have represented the current Mickey Mouse design, I think Commons couldn't have been able to host a photo of it, because Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character. Yet, licensing of this file is perfectly fine, as I am the photographer. Commons just doesn't accept most of the files which would not be free enough to be used safely. Per GreenReaper (talk · contribs) above, a fursuit differs from a mascot or any other copyrighted character, by the fact that fursuits are meant to be photographed since the beginning because their owners wear them for that reason. Perhaps the Walt Disney Company could sue us for that —and we even don't know, we consider them as derivative works but maybe they accept it—, but a fursuiter couldn't. Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit, but not the photographer. →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit this is simply not true. It is up to the photographer to make sure he doesn't wrongly relicense copyrighted artwork. I'm assuming the fursuit maker has licensed the design from Nintendo. Otherwise the make could be sued by Nintendo. But I fail to see a scenario where the wearer could be sued (last time I checked bad taste wasn't illegal (not even in france)). --Dschwen (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this one! --Aktron (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Somehow it's funny but plush and steel hardly fits together - wanna say the dominating tower in the background is a bit disturbing. The copyright thing should be doublechecked. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due composition: distracting background. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting background.--SKvalen (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that is a great picture ! --Garfieldairlines (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination As it seems that that kind of background doesn't fall within FP requirements. I'll nominate several photos in the future, but their background are part of the scene and cannot be removed ; while —I knew I should have thought about it!— this photo could have been taken without the Eiffel Tower behind the fursuiter.

For the copyright status, unless you want to delete the whole Category:Fursuits, I believe we could assume that a fursuiter want their fursuit to be photographed. Anyone is warmly encouraged to discuss about it (I'll keep this page in my watchlist). →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether these guys want to be photographed is completely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the copyright status. And neither is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid argument. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you can explain me why my argument isn't valid, then? Fursuits does somehow have an unique use within the furry fandom (hence, the photos in this category can be taken as a whole), while mascots and cosplay costumes depend on the case. De we really need an OTRS permission for photos of fursuits? If so, please tell me, so I'll send one for every picture in which Natalie appear. I just —personally— think that is nonsense (COM:DM can't apply because each of the seven main fursuits is the subject of the photo), but I can do it. →Diti the penguin — 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. →Diti the penguin — 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 16:05:36
protein ribbon drawing

  •  Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is probably the most aesthetically pleasing of the original hand-drawn ribbon representations of proteins from the early '80s, from which the now-ubiquitous computer-graphics ribbon images of protein 3D structure developed. This 8-stranded barrel protein fold has turned out to be extremely common for enzymes. This image thus has historical as well as scientific value. It is from a scan of a photograph (slide) of the original pastel drawing (by Jane Richardson | me), retouched somewhat to even the background lighting. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Musia! (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--very fine pastle sketchMadhurantakam
  •  Support Thank you so much for uploading this. It's incredibly interesting to see an example of a major biochemical model by the inventor of this means of modelling it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The slide from which this was scanned has rather uneven background lighting, which took a great deal of hand-work to even out for this image and is therefore not a good source for higher resolution. It would be possible, and desirable, to re-photograph the original drawing (which is still in good shape under glass} but that is not feasible in one day, given our packed schedule for tomorrow. Is it possible to extend the comment period on this image, since my newbie ignorance made it visible here only on Jan 17, not Jan 14? Actually, the reason I nominated it, in spite of the 1600x1200 quote, is because drawings are supposed to be done as png's, and as a png it is 3.1Mb. I do agree that since it's possible to get higher resolution, I should definitely do that. However, those few extra days would be appreciated, in order to follow this last-minute suggestion that would improve what's publicly available here. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As other opposers. If, BTW, you are certain that you will be able to provide us with a higher resolution (as good quality) scan, then you might consider withdrawing this one an nominating the new one when it is ready. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result (for original version): 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:43:36
Ichneumonidae mating 

 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 14:52:07
Church of the Holy sepulchre, Jerusalem 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 17:49:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

It looks extremely flat, with little depth. Partly that may be the lighting, and partly perhaps because the image is very overexposed in the red channel (check the histogram). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 19:32:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 22:07:55

Adambro, I thought that you'll be glad to find out that instead of disrupting Commons, I at last started doing something useful. I have hoped you will support my efforts  :) Just kidding. Thank you the the interest in my video and for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More  Info May I please tell you a little bit more about taking of the video? I had my film Canon SLR in one hand and my video camera in other. It was bitterly cold, and the tundra buggy the video was taken from was shaking. Of course I do realize that only the end result matters.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for watching the video and for the kind comment, Daniel. I'm ashamed of myself, but I have to ad admit that I have not a slightest idea how to download this video back to my computer. So, I guess I've no choice except letting it go as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The postprocessing should be performed on the original video data. You don't have that anymore? --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is probabably impossible because the video was edited by user:Dhatfield and he/she did a great job with my original. If I'm to edit my original now, it will look much worse than the nominated one. Thank you for taking your time to comment, Daniel.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I agree, he did do a pretty good job. Did he have the original material though. or did he work with the version you uploaded. Anyhow this is probably a moot point, as I just saw in the linked nomination, that this video was already voted on and supported. Why renoninate? --Dschwen (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He worked with the version I uploaded as I recal, but I am not positive. This video was supported on English Wikipedia. I believed it is OK to nominate it on Commons. I'm sorry, if I've done something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, pardon me. I didn't notice the link went over to en. --Dschwen (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 04:10:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 01 Feb 2009 at 17:16:38
Spit Bruny Island 

result: 19 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 17:43:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION

A technical reason might be to increase the sharpness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a retarded reason. The sharpness isn't actually increased, it's just harder to see the blur because it's smaller. Information is lost. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that, but it could still be a reason. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Keeping bigger resolutions for oneself is a choice, and voting against a picture for that reason makes me think that people vote for Commons and not for the picture itself. It's not by absolutely wanting a high resolution version that you will appeal uploaders, you know. See what it lead to for File:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg: people were like “you don't have control on your high-res version any more, sorry” (while upload was a honest mistake), and I'm now sure that Ehquionest (talk · contribs) will never want to upload again. But yes, I see your point. →Diti the penguin — 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the reason for not uploading the full resolution version of the file. In some way I do understand him for not uploading it, since I'm heading in the same direction more and more. Wikipedia's articles can be well illustrated with a photograph <2mpx and Wikipedia is becoming a free haven for companies, who can now obtain and use good pictures for free. I'm not against school children using them for projects at school, but large companies... As an example: Take a look at the website of the Top of the Rock observation platform in NYC (Rockefeller Center). The intro (so don't skip it) uses a panorama taken by user Dschwen and they probably didn't pay a dime (This one is uploaded under GNU, so he probably doesn't mind, but that's besides the point.). If you want to encourage photographers to upload larger files, you will have to do better then dismissing the pictures from becoming FP's. There is currently no license available on Wikipedia, which doesn't permit the use of files outside of Wikipedia's projects.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The the reason for there being no license under which an image can be restricted is because we are a free repository that is the whole purpose of Commons and the reason for Wikipedia and all he other Wikimedia projects. I sure Dschwen has many photos that have been used else where, I have had a few used even Britannica uses one of my images. Ultimately we make a choice as to how much and what we choose to upload, if that choice means that the image doesnt meet the communities criteria for FP then thats a choice the uploader makes. FP is about being our best work and small images have a harder time convincing the community they are our best work. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably upload at full size if commons had a non-commercial licence. Opposes based on downsampling at COM:FPC don't motivate me. Downsampling can increase the apparent sharpness of an image, in my case though it isn't needed, I am using high quality equipment and (usually) good technique. BTW, The slight crop only needs to be changed by four pixels to meet the 2mpix requirement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my understanding, Creative Commons licenses do not include a resolution restriction where below a certain resolution the license applies but above the resolution it doesn't. I witnessed a pre-Creative Commons era real life situation where an image that did not exceed 300px and was watermarked with the photographers name was used to make a print that was 20 inches X 16 inches as that was what was available to the interested eh, print maker. I just don't think that your need to control how the image is managed can be obtained by resolution restrictions that you are using here and perhaps you should only show the image at the non-commercial show places that live up to your restriction requirements. A lot of people take nice photographs, those interested in reviews and acceptance need to consider who their audience is. -- carol (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:57:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:46:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (insufficient votes). D-Kuru (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:44:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 18:43:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 20:34:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

No, they don't, but the remark concerned a statement by Karel, which has been removed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest one thinks twice before making accusations to any contributor, regardless of his/her importance. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 12:08:58
A photo of the inside of James Watt's workshop, where he spent the majority of his 'retirement' working on inventions such as a machine to copy statues. The workshop was preserved after his death and was then transported wholesale to the Science Museum in London, where it is currently walled-in and not visible to the public.

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

Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crapload (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 07:10:17
Ancient Egyptian crown

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 06:56:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2009 at 12:33:09
A flower being inflorested near Nižbor, Central Bohemian region, Czech Republic

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: nothing on the picture is identified Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Please also categorize better. Lycaon (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'd think about that, but I did not :-) Well for the next time. --Aktron (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, the butterfly is probably a Zygaena sp. (exact species to be checked) and the flower a Centaurea sp. (again, species to be checked). Lycaon (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I am not a botanician or zoologician so a great risk of error is there. I'd advise someone much more skilled to help there. --Aktron (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aktron. You could ask here for propper identification on the butterfly. I think it's Zygaena (Mesembrynus) purpuralis, Zygaeninae in Germany called Blutströpfchen (Stresemann 2) Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. --Aktron (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:33:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 21:45:08
Platanus trees in South America

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

Lycaon (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I'm not sure this justifies FPX template rather than simple Oppose. But I can't support it because I agree with Lycaon's comments. There should be a bit more detail of the leaves of at least one tree, but these are disappointing. I am wondering whether there is a general fault with the recent crop of cameras, that they offer 7 to 10 Mpx images with 4 to 5 Mpx optics? We did not see the problems before because the image resolution masked it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think this is an unnecessary FPX template. I would agree with an oppose opinion about this photo regarding sharpness and noisiness. Apart from insufficient file data (?), I don't think the other factors (saturation and perspective issues) are a problem. It's a personal choice. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]


  •  Comment Tiago, please don't remove nominations from the candidate list as long they are not closed propperly and being archived. You can apply the '''{{withdraw}}''' template if you want to to cut your nomination short. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, Richard. When I read that after 24 hours, if no contrary views on the FPX template would be made, the nomination should be closed. I misunderstood that I should remove it. I will apply the withdraw template instead. Thanks for the info. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]


 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - At the Edge of the Brook (1875).jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2009 at 20:36:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Indeed, it should not even be on Commons. I have nominated it for deletion as "no source", and it may be that that will flush out the missing information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:05:00
Houses in Gdańsk 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 17:09:58
EC 145 air ambulance 

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 20:32:34
Schleienlöcher nature reserve

versteh die Frage nicht ganz. Um rundum zu kommen. :-| ? --Böhringer (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hast du Hochkantbilder in einer Reihe gemacht ? Mich interessiert die Technik --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ja, und je näher das Objekt ist, desto grösser sollte die Bildüberlappung sein, damit keine Stichingfehler vorkommen. --Böhringer (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bei mir wird das immer nix, zefix :-)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaandam2.jpg, Withdraw

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 21:57:24
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:14:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:12:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:10:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2009 at 22:09:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 00:27:50
Spheres!

The top sphere looks like a billboard --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 15:45:06
Moon behind tree

  •  Comment Wikimedia Commons is a Media File Repository (not the same as wikipedia!), so it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. Some of these pictures are used for other wiki projects like wikibooks. I would have supported this picture--as I quite like it--but it is too blurry in fullsize. --JalalV (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 17:07:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2009 at 21:34:22
Polar bears a sow and a cub 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nygårdstangen panorama sun.jpg, withdraw

[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:11:09
Nygårdstangen in Bergen

[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 00:16:04
Polished slice of petrified wood

 Comment Seriously? Crapload (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Oh, sorry, now I found it. I will put the size into the image description as well. --Siebengang (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 02:29:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 08:47:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 09:20:37
Hong Kong International Finance Center 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 11:00:12
A panoramic image of the Neris River in Vilnius, Lithuania, featuring the new administrative city center 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 14:06:53
Spiderlings

Thank you, Michael. The idea was that Hans will remember that he supported both image in the first time and will do the same now. I guess now he is more strict :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Spiderlings 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:08:21
Reflection 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:39:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Well, a polarizer will not work for a stiched panorama and I don't think this image will really gain from a UV filter. --Siebengang (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 19:30:34
Arc Héré at night 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 02:46:16
Panorámica de la ciudad de Pampas. Overview of the city of Pampas. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 03:21:12
Niños de los Andes. Andean boys.

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

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 12:34:41
Cranes made by Origami (Washi paper).

No wow is the misnomer of 2008 :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 13:10:36
Ant 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 18:39:50
Guitarist James Root 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 20:42:26
Stained glass, cathedrale Saint-Étienne (Toulouse, France) 

result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2009 at 22:53:47
Hoar frost on grass

  •  Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor I did not think this was that good, but I am grateful to Richard for his Snow picture for giving me the encouragement. At least you can see the shapes of the ice crystals if you zoom in. (And if you don't like the colour fringes on the edges of the picture, please complain to FujiFilm - they made the lens.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I already complained to FujiFilm :). It's ok, but not FP. —kallerna™ 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition, sharpness, color fringes don't make it a FP -- Siebengang 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help the colour fringes as they are characteristic of the Fujifilm lens. Ditto some aspects of the sharpness. It looks like Kallerna has had the same complaint. I can't afford to think of replacing my camera for perhaps 5 years. (Having only just got it.) But there is perhaps the option of adding on a purely factual basis some examples of the colour fringes caused by the lens defects on the FinePix s5800 article. It is only a stub at the moment, and will be greatly improved by illustrations of user's experience. In defence of this horafrost example, I would say that, in spite of the limitations of the lens, the central area does show detailed ice crystal structure which is not as visible on some of the other hoarfrost images on this page. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colour fringes are not characteristic for Fujifilm lenses only. Many, especially zoom lenses fail on that matter. So, don't blame your new camera! In some cases, it is possible to correct the fringes 'manually' with Photoshop by selecting the blue or purple areas one by one and reducing their saturation. But this seems difficult to do here. -- MJJR (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been looking at some others on review sites, and trying a few test photos. One conclusion is that review sites tend not to give examples of the worst case, which is high contrast printed page, black on white, taken with options like the "double macro" setting as this was. But I have a fair test picture with no noticeable fringes by selecting subject, background, and aperture, to minimise contrast etc. Also, I can get negligible fringing on other subjects by selecting mid-range focal lengths instead of extreme telephoto or wide-angle, and manually setting small aperture. Which then means using a tripod because of the longer exposure time, or noise on high ISO setting. We are all up against this, and it is a part of learning not to depend on "snap-shot" mode - the Auto setting on the digital camera. It rarely gets it right first time. But it does mean that you get something where you may have missed the picture altogether. I have said this to remind those who may be new here. Are there any photo processing software packages which, like Audacity for sound, are freely available? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not enough DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keep frozen orange juice cans with ice crystals.jpg, withdraw

[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 00:20:25
Ice crystals at orange juice

That's right. Anybody could open a door and see the ice and snow outside. Very few will bother to take a look and try to see the beautiful ice crystals in unusual places. I feel sorry for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:04:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 02:38:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 10:25:12
Nembrotha lineolata 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment A very nice surprise! Thanks. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 11:35:43
hoar frost 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:25:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

You should stick to the extraordinary capture of the ordinary. You're good at that. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:49:20
Crazywell cross 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 18:41:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

This is a drawback from a Canon 40D feature which is called High Tone Priority . It causes slight noise in darker areas but despite I dont want to go without it because i paid a lot of money for that. :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
But couldn't you just shoot with RAW instead of JPEG? Then you'd have much more control over it! Diliff (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 10:56:07
Manzushir Monastery in Mongolia

Well it's a door of the gate to the temple. Depicted is the bronze handle in the traditional style as a lion or beast. A blue prayer shawl (khata) is tied around it, which is tradition in Mongolia. In the background the temple itself can be seen. I think it's a lovely image. Gryffindor (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 12:23:27
Elastic wheels of the straight-wave gearings 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:16:52
Plumeria (Frangipani) flowers 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 14:52:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 19:49:57
Caracol falls, near Canela, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:43:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Late vote, oops. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 20:46:31
Allianz Arena lighting up in blue. 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Spitsbergen - polar base

I tended more to support instead of oppose :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:31:10
Rybachiy Peninsula 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dikkop - Burhinus capensis.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 08:10:08
Dikkop head 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Vitus Cathedral - Stained glass (retouch).jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 16:25:28
Part of stained glass windows in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 20:22:27
Milo Manara 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 01:08:50
Using a drip torch 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 08:36:17
Larus delawarensis in flight 

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 06:24:17
USS Russell (DDDG-59) displaying Holiday lights. 

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 14:58:22
A beautiful view of Cluj, Romania 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascata caracol2.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 09:49:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 00:21:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Mywood (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gavin Hamilton - Coriolanus Act V, Scene III.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 09:54:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:13:40
Miomantis paykullii

müsste nur noch der Sensorfleck aus dem Flügel, dann gäbe es ein Pro für Richard Barz edit --Böhringer (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bin mir nicht sicher ob ich den Edit nominieren soll. Du kannst das aber gerne machen, die Datei liegt noch auf meinem Server --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'est un spécimen jeune. Sa couleur était plus ou moins comme cela. Cela change évidement suivant que le ciel est couvert (plus froid) ou plein soleil (plus blanc) ou en fin de journée au soleil (plus chaud). Sorry to reply in French, but I am unable to explain reasoning in English --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, d'accord. Si c'est une spécimen nouvelle, je ne pouvrais trouver des references. Pourtant une image très belle!  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peux-tu eliminer la macule du capteur, s'il te plais? Comme Böhringer a dit plus haut. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voilà c'est corrigé --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2009 at 15:56:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Support Bright, interesting and very high quality. Bravo! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 00:29:06
Sunrise over Lake Michigan

I know sunrises and sunsets look pretty similar, but both of your examples are sunsets. Indeed there are few quality sunrises on Commons. I believe I have the only FP one, and that one is not so much about the sunrise as the silhouettes. Note that I do have one with better clouds from that same shoot, but the colors aren't as good. I wish people would get up a bit early and take some better sunrise shots :) --Dori - Talk 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other sunrise
 Comment: Wow, File:North Point Sunrise 20090201 1696.jpg has much more potential! It just looks a tiny bit too dark, but that could easily be fixed. Want to nominate it? --Siebengang (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, too late.-)--Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 01:45:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:27:27
An abstract view of office buildings in the Zuidas district of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

How about: Very sharp, almost no noise, great DOF, no CA and a pretty good composition. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. But if I'll take a technically perfect photo from some usual thing, like from tissue, will it be FP? —kallerna™ 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 18:32:55
Sample of tulips found in the Keukenhof park in Lisse, The Netherlands. 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 02:49:47
Tim Berners-Lee at Campus Party Brasil, 2009 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 05:40:55
MetLife Building in NYC 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 06:03:37
Tulips on Park Ave in NYC. Cropped small piece of background off the top.

  •  Comment -- Hmm, try looking at center yellow tulip at 100%. Shallow depth of field is deliberate here because it gives a relatively small patch of tulips a little more depth.
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 00:30:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral =>  Not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 00:56:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Also, one of the steeples is cut off, and the right hand side is blotchy and fuzzy. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06
CVN-69 SPIE training 

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 09:10:06
CVN-69 SPIE training 

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Lune1 (by).jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 19:30:06
Great photo of the gibbous moon

*  Support —kallerna™ 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (because of File:The Moon Luc Viatour.jpg). —kallerna™ 15:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. ComputerHotline (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 00:30:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral =>  Not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexican curious 02.jpg, deleted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2009 at 17:55:13


Deleted => not featured. MER-C 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 00:56:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Also, one of the steeples is cut off, and the right hand side is blotchy and fuzzy. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 04:59:41
Crepuscular Rays

I hereby award you Mbz1 this very rare Crepuscular Rays Barnstar for 2 many great atmospheric optics pictures --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 05:19:50
Comet Holmes 

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Comet Holmes

  •  Info This image was taken few weeks after the first one. The comet was fading. The white things on the image are clouds. To take an image of a comet the time exposure should be used. Of course the small wind would move the trees, and the clouds, the rotating Earth could also make the things look a little fuzzy. The idea was to show not a telescopic view of the comet as it was seen from my light-polluted backyard.
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I still think it's not possible to identify that there is a comet (I was actually expecting to see a tail) in the photo. But I do like the composition of this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very special comet. The comet was visible for few months in a row, but the tail was seen only in very strong scopes and only for few days. This is because during the comet's outburst, its orbit took it to near opposition with respect to Earth, and since comet tails point away from the Sun, Earth observers were looking nearly straight down along the tail of 17/P Holmes, making the comet appear as a bright sphere, which was kind of cool. Maybe this comet did not look as a comet, but it did look as UFO --Tryitbot (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) aka user:Mbz1[reply]
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange Tulipas - Cropped out version.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 09:15:01
Orange tulips in the Keukenhof park. 

result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 08:34:31
Orange tulipas in the Keukenhof park. 

result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 06:06:28
Viking gold at Leiden Museum 

result: 1 support, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

-- Crapload (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: uncontested FPX => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Papillon (by) (7).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Papilio cresphontes

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

-- Crapload (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: uncontested FPX => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 23:01:40
Interior view of the Cologne Cathedral 

 result: 1 support, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 14:39:46
An artist's rendition of the Phoenix Mars probe during landing. 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 14:55:25
Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 15:16:41
Calendula officinalis

sorry, too late.-)--Mywood (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 15:22:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you, Hans! I mean it. I've missed you opposing my images. I even thought that you are upset with me. :=) I'm glad we're back to normal. And yes, you are absolutely right, it is hard to say that the "rocks" are actually turtles. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 17:43:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 18:49:55
Ferris wheel at nighttime. Zurich, Switzerland 

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 20:38:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 10:22:43
Bamboo

  •  Comment Please learn to stick to the guidelines, you keep setting bad examples/precedents for new users. An unidentified image of an organism is NOT eligible for FP, nor is an undersized image. Mitigation is for border cases not for flagrant flaunting of the guidelines. Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is not an image of an organism. Its subject is light, line, and form, not literal encyclopedic presentation. There is no need to identify the organism. Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Can you do it without taking away the light, line and form? The point is that the identity of the organism is only necessary if this photo is to be used in an encyclopedia or factual article about bamboo. A photograph can stand on its own as a concept or mood or abstract without being an encyclopedic illustration of a particular species of organism. In addition to abstract uses, it can form the background for text in a cover page for a Wiki book. It can become a poster. Photographs have many uses other than as encyclopedia illustrations. Fg2 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 20:43:24
The development of Moscow International Business Centre (March 2008)

sorry, too late.--Mywood (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 10:23:54
Bergen city centre 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 14:36:34
Light source

 Comment Angle has been chosen to clearly show the main inside and outside components (read image description).--Santiago Martín (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 08:44:38
Kuznetsk Alatau, Siberia

* Oppose As other opposers Benh (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) *  Support as Tiago --Villa16 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) votes too late --Karel (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 


result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2009 at 20:51:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Depicted is a blue prayer shawl (khata) tied around a Buddhist stele, which is tradition in Mongolia. It is located at Manzushir Monastery. Gryffindor (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Stadion w Pruszkowie 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 19:16:28
Lateral view of the Riga Nativity of Christ Orthodox Cathedral 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, x neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 07:07:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2009 at 22:21:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

[edit]

Version 2

Originally I left the stained glass window as providing some colour for comparison with the sandstone. I have followed Tiago's suggestion as it is in line with what I originally aimed at. Except that I have left in a little bit of the carved stonework above and below in the interests of keeping a little bit of height-to-width. This also allowed me the luxury of a little more contrast without risking burnt-out window colours. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 08:18:05
Panorama of Livorno, Italy 

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured.  --Karel (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 15:16:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Discussion about fangs and camouflage is moved to --> here --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2009 at 16:08:57
Ste-Anne church in Dijon as seen from the garden. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 10:15:52
Japanese SM3 launch. 

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 23:20:22

Current FP — 1,600 × 1,200
Proposed replacement — 2,650 × 2,010


result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Crapload (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 10:20:35
A-10 Emergency Landing 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 19:14:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 16:59:46
Original

Original version 

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Edited version 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 19:40:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 03:53:03
A hayfield in autumn. 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:04:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

This is a photo a Russian museam in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, in the early evening. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:08:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2009 at 21:18:13
Hoodoos in Bryce Canyon National Park

Question: what did you not like about color? Clear (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the subject itself, the color is not attractive, I don't get a wow from it. For me it looks like a typical casual shot from a trip. Subjective reason. --S23678 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. -- Clear (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gatto europeo4.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 16:51:42
4-month female cat

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

-- Crapload (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tour Eiffel 22.JPG

[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's a picture of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night (i.e. a copyvio)... MER-C 12:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Pig in Tierpark of Merseburg 003.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 22:50:35
young pig

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

Lycaon (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caracara takes off at Machu Picchu.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 19:05:31
A mountain caracara (Phalcoboenus megalopterus) taking off at Machu Picchu, Peru. October 2007.

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

. Lycaon (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caracara takes off at Machu Picchu-original.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 18:38:29
A mountain caracara (Phalcoboenus megalopterus) taking off at Machu Picchu, Peru. October 2007.

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

—kallerna™ 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bison bonasus right eye close-up.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 16:35:46
Bison bonasus right eye close-up

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

→Diti the penguin — 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 15:56:17
Public transport ticket 

result: 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 18:03:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Cropped version

 Info A 2100x1500 version of the above, with the Hawk centred. 

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wintering Monarchs in Santa Cruz 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2009-01-06 Blick nach Suedwest-2.JPG

[edit]

Town Hall and Long Market Square in Gdańsk, Poland. 

result: 0 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2009 at 22:45:09
A charming street of Riga 

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 05:34:15
Great Wall at Simatai 

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 06:00:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --Karel (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:26:57
Altay mountains, Kazakhstan 

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 04:27:49
View of Jerusalem from southeast, early twentieth century 


result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 18:05:22

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna - Keele - 09.12.08.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 19:40:00
The Moon from Keele Observatory

Nomination closed by nominator. 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2009 at 21:02:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION 


result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2009 at 16:03:12
Original edited version Third Version


Colour Correction

Third Version 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 03:40:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 10:42:54
Grey Heron in flight

Désolé de répondre en français: mais éclaircir l'image c'est aussi faire ressortir le bruit iso. Cette image est faite à 1000 iso pour avoir une vitesse suffisante. De plus éclaircir le fond ne va rien apporter, c'est flou car en dehors de la profondeur de champ. Le fond sombre fait aussi ressortir l'oiseau plus clair.--Luc Viatour (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 11:51:43
A little spinner in the Mollahan Mills, Newberry 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2009 at 15:12:57
Grand Ducal Palace Luxembourg

* Oppose As per MatthiasKabel. --PieCam (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC) after close -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 04:42:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 07:01:47
Great Wall child 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague Castle Guard - winter.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 12:00:37
A guard outside Prague Castle - winter uniform 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 17:56:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Sorry, too late. -)--Mywood (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2009 at 06:07:44
Calypte anna

It was not upsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Couple-lib-r-8 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 8:57
Sympetrum sanguineum sexual intercourse 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 15:39:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rice & Barton's Big Gaiety Spectacular Extravaganza Co. - Gaiety Dancers.png, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 16:37:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 17:53:08
Sympetrum striolatum 

result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured.
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 18:09:44
Butterfly Portrait 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 20:22:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landing egret in GGP.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 21:39:22
Great Egret

So what?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 and please take your image off the nomination. I really do not like it.Thanks. 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (withdrawn). --Karel (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanita muscaria tyndrum.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 14:40:36
Amanita muscaria tyndrum


  •  Info Reason to delist: Quality, especially illumination is low. The flash fired straight onto the mushroom burning out the whites and leaves the backgrund dull. I think, that featured images should have better quality!
result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Crapload (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/February_2009&oldid=18829452"