Commons:Quality images candidates

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

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 05 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 05:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


June 5, 2024[edit]

June 4, 2024[edit]

June 3, 2024[edit]

June 2, 2024[edit]

June 1, 2024[edit]

May 31, 2024[edit]

May 30, 2024[edit]

May 29, 2024[edit]

May 28, 2024[edit]

May 27, 2024[edit]

May 26, 2024[edit]

May 25, 2024[edit]

May 24, 2024[edit]

May 23, 2024[edit]

May 22, 2024[edit]

May 21, 2024[edit]

May 20, 2024[edit]

May 19, 2024[edit]

May 18, 2024[edit]

May 15, 2024[edit]

May 13, 2024[edit]

May 12, 2024[edit]

May 8, 2024[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:La_cathédrale_de_la_Major_vue_depuis_le_parvis_du_Mucem.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Major Cathedral of Marseille seen from the Mucem forecourt. --Remontees 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good picture but needs slight perspective correction --Plozessor 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Is it better? --Remontees 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Others might still find it not 'vertical' enough, but IMO it's good now. --Plozessor 06:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you, I corrected the verticals. Thanks for your help. --Remontees 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose It's leaning too much to me, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Santa_Croce_di_Firenze_viewed_from_Giotto_Campanile_dllu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence viewed from Giotto Campanile --Dllu 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Quite prominent vignetting. --C messier 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Fixed Dllu 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think it is a bit underexposed. --C messier 19:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Blaise_church_in_Vassel_(5).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Blaise church in Vassel, Puy-de-Dôme, France. --Tournasol7 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • PC is needed --Ezarate 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Acceptable given the viewing angle. --C messier 20:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per C messier. --Smial 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Actionsampler_backside.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lomocamera Fisheye, backside --Lvova 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too low detail for a studio photo --Poco a poco 13:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Nice to hear, it is not from a studio :) Lvova 14:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment In this context, ‘studio’ does not mean the equipment of a professional photo studio, but only that the lighting, background and arrangement can be controlled by the photographer. This can also be a kitchen table, a camera tripod, a background cardboard and a white cardboard as a brightener. --Smial 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco, borderline resolution (the actual subject is way less than 2 MP}, not fully sharp, underexposed shadows. --Plozessor 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Smial 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_iX2_xDrive30_IMG_8425.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BMW iX2 xDrive30 in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 07:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment. Maybe the picture could be cropped a little tighter all around. But that's not meant entirely seriously. Overall, the photo looks very pale and I'm also bothered by the fact that the car doesn't have a license plate. -- Spurzem 15:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not sure, but I guess that's not, what QI is about - therefore we have VI. The main object is the vehicle, which is ready for delivery. So the image is cropped to put the focus on the car. A license plate would not make sense in that state. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 08:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, "missing" license plate on a car parked on a dealership's yard is not unusual. --Plozessor 04:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 10:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Railway_Museum,_Almaty_(P1180238).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cutaway of a railway buffer in the Kazakh National Railway Museum in Almaty --MB-one 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Lots of noise. --Smial 11:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Denoised. Thanks for the review --MB-one 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure why this was sent to discussion since there is no vote at all. Picture is good now. --Plozessor 04:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
But surely there was a vote, because I had declined the original version. The improved version is not perfect, but it is now acceptable. Now  Support. --Smial 12:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, then someone (or QIvote malfunction) had accidentally removed the original vote. --Plozessor 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 10:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

File:African_wolf_(Canis_lupaster)_in_Bouhedma_National_Park.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination African wolf (Canis lupaster) in Bouhedma national park. By User:Faouz Kilani --TOUMOU 21:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Chroma noise, lacking sharpness, lacking categorization --Plozessor 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is an interesting place, but it does not have the necessary quality --Parsa 2au 08:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Not sharp al all --Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Beautiful landscape, but unfortunately noisy and blurry picture. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 00:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Beautiful landscape, but unfortunately noisy and blurry picture. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 06:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Something went wrong with voting and all my comments migrated from here to the next picture. I tried to say that this one is unfortunately noisy and blurry. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 07:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather blurry, not QI, IMHO --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose

  • Something went really wrong with comments to this and next image. I deeply sorry for so many words here, i didn't want to do it --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and below the QI-standards. --Milseburg 09:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg --Plozessor 04:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC) You voted twice. --Milseburg 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Milseburg Oops! 😯 --Plozessor 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree Gnangarra. Coat of arms are different. Its not a reproduction imo. It is created from a Blazon. In heraldry and heraldic vexillology, a blazon is a formal description of a coat of arms, flag or similar emblem, from which the reader can reconstruct the appropriate image. Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation. --ArildV 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment they are based on a registered design for them to be recognised as belonging to the specific person, part of QI is reliable/verifiable identification. Gnangarra 07:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I also disagree with Gnangarra. Coat of Arms designed on Commons are based on a blazon, which is a precisely accurate description of the Coat of Arms. It is not a reproduction, since the design is unique to that blazon. It is in the same style (color palette, philosophy of design, et cetera) as other commons coat of arms, and that is called the Sodacan style, but still the image is created by the user.
  •  Question Is this representation correct? See source here.--Peulle 09:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I could not find a Blazon of this thing. --Smial 16:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Arms of the House of Porcia --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree again with Gnangarra for the same reason as earlier. Ashoppio 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 10:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Yaphank, New York --Mike Peel 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The buildings are too distorted and the front could be a bit brighter. Please compare the edited version and discuss whether the original photo is a QI. -- Spurzem 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd prefer the original version of Spurzem's (which is less distorted but tilted). Something in-between would be optimal I guess. --Plozessor 16:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The original one is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 08:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I've uploaded a new version with perspective redone, how does that look? The version at File:At Long Island 2023 027 (bearb Sp).jpg looks odd to me, the tower has been shortened and twisted. Thanks. Mike Peel 15:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I should know, what Spurzem does is rubbish. Please excuse me. I didn't know that bell towers and gables have to be skew. -- Spurzem 19:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I never said what you did was rubbish, I just said that the version looks odd to me. I appreciate your input in this nomination. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Parish church Saints Philip and James, Arriach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --IM3847 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not convinced of a good quality. The image is cropped too close at the bottom and the tower is badly distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support: good for QI. --The Cosmonaut 03:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: Distortion is too extreme. --Zinnmann 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Zinnmann 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frontenac County Courthouse, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but not lucky with lighting --IM3847 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sunny weather is not a requirement, so I ask for another opinion --The Cosmonaut 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Even if it is not an explicit requirement, photos of landscapes and buildings promoted as QI should be appealing. Unfortunately, your dark picture of the beautiful building does not appeal to me either. -- Spurzem 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support An overcast sky without direct sunlight is quite normal and no decline rason. It's a matter of opinion wether it's appealing or not. I think it's more demanding then on sunny days and was handled here good enough for QI. --Milseburg 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Arms of the Kingdom of Cyprus--ZuppaDiCarlo 22:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be previously assesed as QI Gnangarra 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm not sure I understand. If a user makes an image of a country's flag or an organization's logo, why should that not be eligible for QI?--Peulle 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Qi requires all elements including the source of the image, this not something made up by the artist, like distribution map it requires a source or multiple sources for to be identifed as being a true representation. Gnangarra 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The font is from a portugese Armorial produced in 1416. This was made by a Portuguese herald, who attended the Council of Constance. Now it is located in the John Rylands Library. The URL is in the Source section in the file page. --ZuppaDiCarlo 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Same reason as the earlier replies by me. The coat of arms here represented is a reproduction of a blazon, which is a description. It is not based on another person design. In my opinion, this work is really well done both heraldically (except for the Jerusalem Cross on Argent, which is a rather "illegal" thing to do in modern heraldry, but that just history, or arms of inquiry.) and design-wise. Ashoppio 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 10:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since when does a quality image have to be .jpg or .png? To me, this repeated resistance towards the works in question seems exaggerated. "These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user": who made this file? An artificial intelligence? no, it was me. Even the photographs that you all took are based on real works (paintings, sculptures, etc...) that you did NOT paint or sculpt, so this statement seems completely unfounded to me. --ZuppaDiCarlo 22:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules -- Jakubhal 05:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Zuccarello --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 19:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Vado Ligure --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Opposefaithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 19:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Garlenda --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Laigueglia --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As a blazon-based CoA, it's an artistic work of the uploader. Good quality and it contributes to the vast operation to provide all Italian municipalities to have coats of arms under a free license --Arrow303 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Andora-Stemma.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Andora --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question @Gnangarra: isn't there the reference in the image description? It is a faithful reproduction of a blazonry. Not another photograph. The shield is made by me.
  •  Support--ArildV 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gnangarra--GoldenArtists 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are hundreds of already promoted vector images, that represent some coat of arms, seal, or logo, and there is no reason to reject these particular ones. The Gnangarra's vote, in my opinion, is an over-interpretation of the rules Jakubhal 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Banesto building at Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona --MB-one 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, I know the tower is the subject, but that left crop is really distracting, cutting off the banner text like that. --Peulle 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support. I think it's good that only part of the advertising can be seen. I just wish the square and trees were a little brighter. I therefore vote with a weak pro and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)  Support I agree --ArildV 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle: Thanks for the review. I could crop a bit more of the advertising banner, to make it less distracting, if that helps. --MB-one 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, personally I would crop it just to the right of the word "Ultra", to avoid cutting off words.--Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped, as you suggested. --MB-one 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--Peulle 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Tend to support. Advertisements like these are (unfortunately) common at public places, and the image is well taken. --PantheraLeo1359531 09:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PantheraLeo1359531 09:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLike the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Tue 28 May → Wed 05 Jun
  • Wed 29 May → Thu 06 Jun
  • Thu 30 May → Fri 07 Jun
  • Fri 31 May → Sat 08 Jun
  • Sat 01 Jun → Sun 09 Jun
  • Sun 02 Jun → Mon 10 Jun
  • Mon 03 Jun → Tue 11 Jun
  • Tue 04 Jun → Wed 12 Jun
  • Wed 05 Jun → Thu 13 Jun