Commons:良質な画像の推薦

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 96% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
推薦一覧に移動

ここは「良質な画像」を選定するため候補画像を集めたページです。 「秀逸な画像」とは違う事に注意して下さい。 加えて、自身の投稿した写真について何か意見(フィードバック)がほしいならば、コモンズ:写真の批評で見ることができます。

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズの活動の基盤となっている人々、すなわちコレクションの拡大につながる独特の画像を提供している個々の利用者を応援することにあります。 「秀逸な画像」がコモンズにアップロードされた作品を最高峰を示すのに対し、「良質な画像」は良質な写真をコモンズに登録するよう、利用者に呼びかけ力づけることを目指します。 加えて良質な画像のページは、特定の画像の質を上げるよう他の利用者に例を示す場所としても使われるべきです。


ガイドライン

良質な画像への推薦はコモンズユーザー自身が作成したものに限ります。

画像を推薦する方へ

以下の説明は良質な画像への全般的なガイドラインです。より詳しい評価基準は画像のガイドラインを参照して下さい。

画像に要求されるもの
  1. 著作権の状況。良質な画像の候補作は適合するライセンスを添えてコモンズに投稿しなければなりません。ライセンスの要件全文はCommons:コピーライト・タグをご参照ください。
  2. 画像はすべてコモンズの方針と慣例に従うものとし、Commons:識別可能な人物の写真も対象です。
  3. 良質な画像には意味のあるファイル名をつけ、適切なカテゴリに分類し、ファイルページに1つ以上の言語で的確な説明を書くものとします。必須条件ではありませんが、英語による説明を添えてください。
  4. 画像に広告や宣伝が入っていないこと。著作権と著作者情報は画像のページに配置し、画像のメタデータに含めることも可能ですが、画像の内容に干渉しないようにします。

作者
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

良質な画像の審査対象になるには、作者がウィキメディアンである必要があります。その意味するところは、たとえば Flickr からインポートした画像は対象外です。(秀逸な画像にはこの制限はありません。) 二次元の美術品を再現した写真作品はウィキメディアンが作家の場合は対象です(そしてコモンズのガイドラインに従い、PD-oldでライセンスされるべきです)。 もし作者がウィキメディアンではないのに画像が選出された場合は、間違いが発見された時点で速やかに良質な画像の資格を外す必要があります。


撮影技術

さらに詳細な評価基準はイメージガイドラインを参照して下さい。

解像度

ビットマック画像 (JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF) は通常、サイズが2 メガピクセル以上ひつようです。審査者は撮影が楽な画像について、もっと大きなサイズを要求する場合があります。 理由はコモンズに登録された画像はプリントアウトしたり解像度の非常に高いモニターに投影したり、あるいは将来的に開発されるメディアで使用される可能性があります。この規則はベクター画像 (SVG) やコンピュータで合成した画像でフリーライセンスの適用対象もしくはオープンソフトウェアプログラムを利用し、なおかつ画像の説明に明記したものは対象外です。

画像品質

デジタル画像は取り込みや処理において様々な問題が生じている可能性があります。予防可能なノイズ、JPEG圧縮の際の問題、シャドウ、ハイライト部分の情報不足、色の取り込みにおける問題、これらの問題はすべて正しく処理されている必要があります。

構図と照明効果

画像内の主題の配置は画像に役立つ位置に置くべきです。前景と背景の物がじゃまになっていてはいけません。照明とピントも相対的な評価に直結します。主題はピントがシャープで、ごちゃごちゃせず露光が十分である必要があります。

価値観点

我々の目標は、コモンズを通して行われる、ウィキメディアの他のプロジェクト群において有用となる良質な画像の投稿を、奨励することにあります。

推薦方法

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list の候補画像リストの節に以下の行を追記するだけで推薦することが可能です。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|簡潔に画像の説明を記入  --~~~~ |}}

画像の説明は簡単で構いません。また、ひとつ前の候補画像との間には何もない行を一行残しておいてください。

自分以外のウィキメディアンの画像を推薦する場合、作者の利用者名を以下の例のように説明文内に示してください

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|数語の画像説明 (投票者[[User:利用者名|利用者名]]) --~~~~ |}}

ご注意:推薦の手順を簡略化するガジェットとして QInominator があります。 ファイルページの上部に「この画像を良質な画像に推薦する」というリンクが小さく表示されます。このリンクを押すと、画像は候補一覧に追加されます。この一覧が済んだらCommons:Quality images candidates/candidate listを編集します。編集ウィンドウの上部に表示される緑色の棒をクリックすると、条件を満たす候補作がすべて、編集窓に加わります。

推薦数

一度に選べる枚数はひとり当たり1日5点以内です。

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

画像評価

評価するには登録ユーザーで、なおかつ登録後10日以上経過し、編集回数50回以上であること、作者でも推薦者でもないことを満たすと資格があります。QICvoteガジェットを有効化すると、より簡単に評価することができます。

評価者は推薦者と同様に画像のガイドラインを基準に画像の評価をしてください。

評価方法

状態の更新方法

画像の評価は慎重に行って下さい。画像は等倍サイズで開き、品質基準を満たしているかどうかを確認して下さい。

  • その画像が品質を満たしていると判断したら、下記のように該当箇所を書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Promotion| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

つまりテンプレートを /Nomination から /Promotion へ切り替え、署名をし、可能ならコメントを記入するのみです。

  • 画像が基準を満たしていないと判断した場合は、下記の様に書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

言い換えると、テンプレートを/Nomination から /Decline に変更して利用者の著名を付与、落選した画像の分類を示す文を付け加えることもできます (ガイドラインから節の題名を利用)。 もし問題が多い場合は最も深刻な順に2点もしくは3点に絞り込むか、複数の問題あり と提示してください。推薦作を落選とする場合は、理由を推薦者のトークページに記入します – 規則として丁寧な文面で読んだ人を勇気づけることです。そのメッセージには決定の詳細を説明します。

注意:推薦日の古い順に審査し、可能な限り自分が推薦した点数と少なくとも同数の作品を評価してください。

評価猶予期間から決定まで

最初の票が入ってから2日(48時間)以内に反対投票がない場合、当該の画像は評価に従い候補もしくは候補外となります。反対意見がある場合は状態を Discuss に変更すると、当該の画像は 同意審査 Consensual review 節へ移動されます。

結論の出し方

上記の猶予期間2日が過ぎると、QICbotは自動的に投票結果が出たものとして処理し、候補作に推薦された画像はCommons:Quality Images/Recently promotedにキャッシュされます。カテゴリ付与が済むと自動的に適切な良質な画像ページに追加されます。

もし皆さんが、秀逸な画像の地位に匹敵する特別な画像を発見したと思われた場合は、ぜひこの機会に当該画像をCommons:Featured picture candidatesに推薦してみてはいかがでしょうか。

手動処理の方法 (非常のときのみ開始してください)

候補作になると、

  1. 当該画像を適切な良質な画像の単一または複数のページに追加します。このとき、その画像は関連するサブページへも追加し、メインページに掲出するのは常に、最新の3–4点のみとします。
  2. 画像の説明ページを編集し、最下部に{{QualityImage}}テンプレートを追加します。
  3. 画像の推薦と評価を記した行をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 6月 2024に移動します。
  4. 利用者のトークページを編集し、{{File:imagename.jpg}}テンプレートを記入します。

候補から落選した場合、

  1. 画像の推薦と評価を記した文をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 6月 2024に移動します。
  • 審査を待機中の画像は枠線がブルーの枠線内に推薦文を表示
  • 審査者が当選と認めた画像は枠線が緑色
  • 審査者が落選と決めた画像は枠線が赤色

評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

推薦されこのページに掲出された画像は8日以内に、当落どちらの票も集まらなかった場合、あるいは合意に至らなかった(つまり同意審査で賛成票と反対票が同数だった)場合、当該の画像は推薦なしとしてCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 06 2024にアーカイブしてこのページからは削除し、画像の説明ページのカテゴリ欄にCategory:Unassessed QI candidatesを追加します。

同意審査のプロセス

同意審査とはよく目にする呼び方で、上記の手順で合意が得られず、他の意見を求める必要がある事例に使われます。

同意審査の申請をするには

手続きは状態を/Promotion, /Decline から /Discuss に変えるだけで、審査の直後にご自分のコメントを記入してください。ボットの自動処理により、当該画像は1日以内に同意審査節へ移動されます。

同意審査へ申し送りする対象は、すでに当選・落選の審査が済んだ画像のみとします。審査者として、もしもご自分で判断がつかない場合には当該画像をこのページに置いたまま、コメントを添えます。

同意審査のルール

Commons:良質な画像の候補#ルールをご参照ください

ページの再読み込み: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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]] 12:19, 6 6月 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 6, 2024

June 5, 2024

June 4, 2024

June 3, 2024

June 2, 2024

June 1, 2024

May 31, 2024

May 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

Consensual review

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:Anne_Kaun_at_Republica_2024_04.jpg

  • Nomination Anne Kaun at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Peulle 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I think the woman is not sharp enough and ther is some lack of detail. No QI for me. --Alexander-93 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Belle-dame_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

  • Nomination Vanessa cardui foragingI, 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 20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Overexposed and depth of field is too small, sorry. --Красный 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    on for depth of field? the head is very clear --Skander zarrad 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Returned to "Decline", if you disagree — change to "Discuss" instead. Head is clear, yes. But half of both wings is not in focus, that is rather disturbing. ~~~~
    I reworked the exposure, the impression of overexposure should no longer be there. Unfortunately the DOF is concentrated on the body of the animal THANKS :) --Skander zarrad 18:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Аллегория_дня2.jpg

  • Nomination Allegory of Day (bust in Summer Garden), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Needs some perspective correction and there are some really prominent blue fringes to the right. --C messier 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:La_cathédrale_de_la_Major_vue_depuis_le_parvis_du_Mucem.jpg

  • Nomination La Major Cathedral of Marseille seen from the Mucem forecourt. --Remontees 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good picture but needs slight perspective correction --Plozessor 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Is it better? --Remontees 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment Others might still find it not 'vertical' enough, but IMO it's good now. --Plozessor 06:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
        •  Comment 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)
  •  Support Perspective is ok for me. --Zinnmann 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Santa_Croce_di_Firenze_viewed_from_Giotto_Campanile_dllu.jpg

  • Nomination The Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence viewed from Giotto Campanile --Dllu 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quite prominent vignetting. --C messier 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Fixed Dllu 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Blaise_church_in_Vassel_(5).jpg

  • 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)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Actionsampler_backside.jpg

  • 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:African_wolf_(Canis_lupaster)_in_Bouhedma_National_Park.jpg

  • 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

  • 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: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

  • 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: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg

  • 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)
Just to note that @Túrelio: has deleted Spurzem's edited version, not sure why. Thanks. Mike Peel 14:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable --XRay 04:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 04:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem --Augustgeyler 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable --XRay 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per XRay. --Sebring12Hrs 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --XRay 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Good composition. Lighting is somehow OK. But  Level of detail too low --August Geyler (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per August Geyler. --MB-one 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • 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)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

日程表(推薦から8日目)

  • 水 29 5月 → 木 06 6月
  • 木 30 5月 → 金 07 6月
  • 金 31 5月 → 土 08 6月
  • 土 01 6月 → 日 09 6月
  • 日 02 6月 → 月 10 6月
  • 月 03 6月 → 火 11 6月
  • 火 04 6月 → 水 12 6月
  • 水 05 6月 → 木 13 6月
  • 木 06 6月 → 金 14 6月