Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

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]] 09:44, 7 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 7, 2024

[edit]

June 6, 2024

[edit]

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 21, 2024

[edit]

May 20, 2024

[edit]

May 19, 2024

[edit]

May 18, 2024

[edit]

May 15, 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:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 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

[edit]

  • 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)

I'm not opposed just 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

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. Just so much mobile phone processing made any texture disappear. --Augustgeyler 08:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 08:42, 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:43, 7 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[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)
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

[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)
  •  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

[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)
  •  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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[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)
  •  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)