Commons:优质图像评选

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 98% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
跳至提名

下列图像正在参评优质图像。 请注意,这与特色图片不同。 如果您只是想为自己的摄影作品征求些非正式的反馈意见,请前往Commons:Photography critiques

目的

优质图像旨在鼓励维基共享资源的根基——个人用户——为共享资源贡献独特的图像。 “特色图像”被认定是维基共享资源所有图像中最好的图片,而“优质图像”目的则是认可和鼓励用户为维基共享资源提供优质图像作出的努力。 此外,如果用户想了解如何改善自己的图片,优质图像也可用来参考。


指引

所有的候选图像都应是本站用户的工作成果。

如何提名

以下是优质图片的一般性准则,更详细的指引可见图像指引

图像页面要求

  1. 版权状态。参与评选的优质图像需以合适的版权协议上传至维基共享资源。完整的版权协议要求在Commons:著作权标签
  2. 图像应对符合所有的共享资源方针和惯例,包括Commons:可辨识的人物照片
  3. 优质图像的文件名必须有意义分类必须恰当,文件页的图像描述(至少一种语言)必须准确。我们建议给图像撰写英文描述,但这不是强制性要求。
  4. 优质图像严禁广告宣传和签名。优质图像的版权和作者信息应当记录在文件页,也可以放在文件的元数据中,但不应直接出现在图像本身里。

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

图片原作者必须为维基媒体用户,以确保拥有优质图像的资格。这意味着来自诸如Flicker的图片不符合资格。(需注意特色图片无此要求) 维基媒体用户制作的二维艺术品的摄影复制品符合评选资格(并应根据共享资源指引以PD-old授权)。 如果有非维基人创作的图像通过评选,应在发现错误后尽快将改图像从“优质图像”中除名。


技术要求

请参阅Commons:图像指引了解更详细的标准。

分辨率

通常情况下,点阵图(如JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF)应至少有200万像素。如果摄影对象很容易捕捉,评审者可依情况要求候选图像分辨率比200万像素更高。这是因为人们可能打印、用高分辨率显示器查看或进一步使用共享资源上的图像。矢量图(SVG)和自由版权或开源软件生成图像不受本规则的限制。

图像质量

数字图像在图像捕捉和处理的过程中可能出现种种问题,比如可避免的躁点、JPEG图像压缩、亮部与暗部图像不明晰、颜色捕捉不准确等。候选图片不应存在任何这类问题。

构图和照明

摄影主体的排布应当有助于展示图像内容。前景、背景的物件不应分散观赏者的注意力。光照、焦距也应安排恰当,让摄影主体锐利、整洁,曝光得恰到好处。

价值

我们的主要目标是鼓励在维基共享资源里上传优质图像,帮助提升各维基媒体计划和其他计划的质量。

提名方法

您只需在Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list“提名”(Nominations)一节中加入类似如下的代码:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述  --~~~~ |}}

图片描述不应该超过几句话。请在您的新提名和已存在的提名之间保留一个空行。

如果您打算提名其他维基媒体用户的图像,请仿照下方格式,在提名中提及原创作者的用户名:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述(作者:[[User:用户名|用户名]])--~~~~ |}}

注意:使用“优质图像提名工具(QInominator)”这个小工具可以提高提名的效率。 该工具会在所有文件页顶部加入“提名此图像为优质图像”(Nominate this image for QI)按钮。点击按钮后,该图像会被加到您的优质图像候选列中。您遴选完后,请编辑Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list,编辑框上方会出现一个绿色横幅,点击该横幅会将您候选列中的全部候选图片批量加入到编辑框里。

提名数目

每位用户一天最多提名五张图像。

注:请每提名一副图像后,尽量评审至少一副其他用户提名的图像。

评审图像

任何注册10天、编辑50笔以上的注册用户,除作者和提名者外,都可以进行评审。QICvote小工具可以加快您的评审进程。

在评审图像时,评审者应与提名者遵守同一图像指引

如何评审

如何更新状态

仔细评估图像,以完全分辨率打开,并检查其是否符合质量标准

  • 如果您认为该图像符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Promotion|简短描述 --提名者签名 |喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Promotion,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论。

  • 如果您认为该图像不符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Decline|简短描述 --提名者签名 |不喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Decline,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论,指明为何该图像不符合标准(可以引用指引里的章节标题)。 如果图像存在多个问题,请只点出2-3个最明显的问题,或者留言“多个问题”。在指明图像不达标时,请在提名人的讨论页里解释为何您认为图像不符合标准——请记得遵守规则,保持友善、鼓励他人!讨论页里的留言应详细阐述您做出“图像不达标”这一决定的原因。

注:请优先评审最早的图片提名。

宽限期与评审通过方式

自候选图像获得的第一个评审起计算,2天(48小时)内如没有反对意见,该图像将依照该评审意见自动记为合格或不合格。如果您有反对意见,只需将候选图像的状态改为“讨论”(Discuss),这样候选图像会被自动列入“共识评审”(Consensual review)一节。

执行决定

QICbot会在评审决定完成后2日内自动运作,将获选图像列入Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted中。这些图像随后会被分类并加入到合适的优质图像页面。

如果您留意到有些图像质量极为优秀,请考虑提名特色图像

人工操作说明 (仅限紧急情况下使用)

如果当选优质图片,

  1. 将图像加入优质图像页面合适的组别(可以有多个组别),以及这些组别对应的子页面。主页面应只保留3至4张最新图像。
  2. 在当选图像的文件页底部挂{{QualityImage}}模板。
  3. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 6月 2024
  4. {{File:当选图像文件名.jpg}}加入到用户的讨论页。

如果落选优质图片,

  1. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 6月 2024
  • 等待评审的图像,其评审信息用蓝色边框标示。
  • 评审者认定合格的图像,其评审信息用绿色边框标示。
  • 评审者认为不合格的图像,其评审信息用红色边框标示。

无评审结果的图像(用蓝框标注)

如果在提名开始后的8日内,候选图像没有得到任何支持/反对票,或在共识评审中未能达成共识,该图像将不会被列入优质图像中,而是从候选列表中移除、存档至Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 07 2024,并列入Category:Unassessed QI candidates

共识评审过程

共识评审(Consensual review)是指在以上步骤不足以达成共识的情况下所进行的讨论,以吸引更多人加入并给出自己的评审意见。

如何发起共识评审

如需发起共识评审,只需将代码中的/Promotion, /Decline改为/Discuss,并在评审文字后加入您的评论。机器人会在一日内将该讨论移入共识评审区。

只有处于“promoted”或“declined”状态下的讨论才能被记入共识评审中。如果评审员无法做出决定,可以只留评论但不明确表态提名通过与否。

共识评审规则

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

刷新页面: 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]] 07:58, 7 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 7, 2024

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 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 15, 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:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Slender-billed_gull_(Chroicocephalus_genei)_immature_Sfax.jpg

  • Nomination Slender-billed gull (Chroicocephalus genei) immature --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syrio 12:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong identification of the species, it is not a Slender-billed_gull but a Yellow-legged gull --El Golli Mohamed 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A830_in_Mallaig_city_center.jpg

  • Nomination The A830 road as it passes through the city center of Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, I think it's fine. Let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow, please explain. It's in focus and well exposed at around 12 MP; what kind of detail do you mean? --Grendelkhan 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support Detail seems fine for me. --MB-one 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

  • Nomination The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2483.jpg

  • Nomination Former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there was to much perspective corretion involved. The building looks annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of ordeal, huh? The picture's fine, let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes please dicuss. It is not only about PC. It think it was taken from a position too low and too close, forcing the camera to be tilted up too much. --Augustgeyler 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sabine_Scholt_at_Republica_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Sabine Scholt and Tom Buhrow at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 19:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough detail IMO --MB-one 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I see enough detail at Sabine Scholt. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_larve_de_coccinelle_qui_dévore_un_pucerons.jpg

  • Nomination A ladybug larva that devours an aphidI, 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 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough DoF to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • short dof, but the head and the prey are clearly visible, and no time to close further given the speed --Skander zarrad 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I improved the overall sharpness a bit, but I can't increase the dof --Skander zarrad 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not cancel my vote ! Are you serious ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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
  •  Support 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)
  •  Support If I take into account that this is not a studio shot, but was photographed in available light and that the image is significantly larger than six mpixels, then the quality is quite acceptable. --Smial 13:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 19:24, 6 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. Красный 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done 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)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 19:22, 6 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. --Ploozessor 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs some perspective correction and there are some really prominent blue fringes to the right. --C messier 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the upper right corner --Nikride 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 6 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)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:01, 7 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)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose PC is needed --Ezarate 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support 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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Actionsampler_backside.jpg

  • Nomination Lomocamera Fisheye, backside --Lvova 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  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)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the House of Porcia --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:59, 7 June 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)
 Comment. I asked for my version to be deleted because Mike Peel thought it was poorly done. See above. I think it was much better than te version which is to be prised now. -- Spurzem 14:26, 6 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: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 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)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Zuccarello --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Vado Ligure --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Garlenda --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Laigueglia --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Andora-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Andora --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:56, 7 June 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)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 四 30 5月 → 五 07 6月
  • 五 31 5月 → 六 08 6月
  • 六 01 6月 → 日 09 6月
  • 日 02 6月 → 一 10 6月
  • 一 03 6月 → 二 11 6月
  • 二 04 6月 → 三 12 6月
  • 三 05 6月 → 四 13 6月
  • 四 06 6月 → 五 14 6月
  • 五 07 6月 → 六 15 6月