Commons:Candidats pour les images de qualité

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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
↓ Aller directement aux propositions en cours ↓
Other languages:

Voici les candidats pour les images de qualité. Notez que ce n'est pas la même chose que les images remarquables. Aussi, si vous voulez uniquement des conseils et critiques de vos photos, allez vers les critiques de photographie.

Raison d'être

L'objectif du label Images de Qualité est d'encourager les personnes qui sont à la base du fonctionnement de Commons, à savoir, les utilisateurs fournissant les images exceptionnelles qui font grandir cette collection. Alors que les Images remarquables rassemblent les images d'une qualité exceptionnelle chargées dans Commons, le label Image de qualité est destiné à identifier et encourager les efforts des contributeurs qui chargent des images de bonne facture dans Commons. Par ailleurs, les images recevant le label sont destinées à servir de référence pour tous les contributeurs souhaitant améliorer la qualité d'une image.


Guide

Toutes les images proposées doivent être l'œuvre d'un utilisateur de Wikicommons.

Pour les proposants

Un guide général sur les Images de Qualité, comprenant des critères plus détaillés, est disponible dans la page guide des images.

Critères pour la page de description de l'image
  1. Statut vis-à-vis des droits d'auteur. Pour être éligible au titre image de qualité, l'image doit être téléchargée sur Commons et disposer d'un Bandeau de licence avec une licence acceptable.
  2. Les images doivent correspondre aux critères et conventions de Commons, y compris les photos de personnes identifiables.
  3. Les images de qualité auront un nom de fichier pertinent, seront correctement catégorisées et la page associée au fichier possèdera une description précise dans une ou plusieurs langues. Une description en anglais est recommandée, mais n'est pas obligatoire.
  4. Aucune publicité ou signature sur l'image. Toute information sur l'auteur et le copyright devrait être placé sur la page de l'image ou dans les métadonnées, afin de ne pas interférer avec le contenu de l'image.

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

Les images doivent avoir être créées dans l’un des projet Wikimedia. Cela signifie que les images en provenance de Flickr ne sont pas éligibles. Remarque : le label « Featured Pictures / images remarquable » n’a pas cette limitation. Les photos réalisées par des Wikimédiens, représentant des œuvres en deux dimensions, sont éligibles ( et devraient avoir la licence PD-old conformément aux recommandations de Commons). Si une image est promue bien que n'étant pas la création d'un Wikimédien, le statut de QI doit être retiré dès que l'erreur est détectée.


Critères techniques

Les critères détaillés sont disponibles ici : Commons:Guide des images

Définition

Les images bitmap (au format JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) devraient posséder au moins 2 mégapixels ; les évaluateurs peuvent exiger une plus grande résolution pour les sujets qui peuvent être facilement pris en photo. En effet les images hébergées sur Commons peuvent être imprimées ou être consultées sur des écrans à très haute résolution, ou bien être utilisées sur des supports qui n'existent pas encore. Cette règle ne concerne pas les fichiers vectoriels (SVG) ou les images générées par ordinateur qui ont été construites avec des logiciels libres comme indiqué dans la description de l'image.

Qualité d'image

Les images numériques peuvent souffrir de nombreux problèmes, comme le bruit, des problèmes de compression JPEG, un manque d’information dans les ombres ou les zones trop lumineuses, des problèmes de restitution des couleurs, … Tous ces problèmes doivent être gérés correctement.

Composition et éclairage

La composition de l’image doit contribuer à l’intérêt de l’image. Le premier plan ou l’arrière-plan ne doivent pas détourner l’attention. L’éclairage et la mise au point contribuent à obtenir un résultat de qualité ; le sujet doit être net, épuré et bien exposé.

Objectif

Notre but principal est d'encourager la contribution d'images de qualité, utiles aux projets Wikimedia, sur Wikicommons.

Comment proposer une image de qualité

Il suffit d'ajouter, en haut de la section des Propositions (Nominations), sur la liste des images candidates, une ligne ayant cette forme : 

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ |}}

La description ne doit comporter que quelques mots ; il est également préférable de laisser une ligne blanche entre votre nouvelle proposition et celles déjà présentes.

Si vous proposez une image réalisée par un autre Wikimédien, veuillez inclure son nom d'utilisateur de la façon indiquée ci-dessous : 

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève (par [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

NB : il existe un gadget, QInominator, qui accélère la nomination. Il ajoute un petit lien "Nominate this image for QI" (proposer cette image pour les Images de qualité) en haut des pages des images proposées. Cliquer sur le lien ajoute l'image à une liste d'images potentiellement candidates. Quand cette liste est terminée, allez à la liste des images candidates et, en mode édition, cliquer sur la barre verte (en haut de la fenêtre d'édition) insère tous les candidats potentiels dans la fenêtre d'édition.

Nombre de nominations

Un même proposant ne peut pas ajouter plus de cinq images par jour.

N.B. : si possible, pour chaque image que vous proposez, veuillez évaluer au moins une autre des images candidates.

Critiques des images

Tout utilisateur enregistré dont le compte date d'au moins 10 jours et possède au moins 50 éditions, autre que l'auteur ou le proposant, peut évaluer une proposition. Afin de faciliter l'évaluation, vous pouvez activer le gadget QICvote

Les personnes qui effectuent une évaluation doivent s'appuyer sur les mêmes recommandations que le créateur de l'image.

Comment critiquer

Comment mettre à jour le statut.

Examinez attentivement l’image. Ouvrez-la en haute résolution, et vérifiez que tous les critères de qualité sont respectés.

  • Si vous décidez de promouvoir l’image nominée, changez la ligne suivante
File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ | }} à
File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Promotion|Description très brève --signature du nominateur |Pourquoi vous avez apprécié l'image. --~~~~}}

Autrement dit, changez le code /Nomination par /Promotion et ajoutez votre signature avec, si possible, un court commentaire.

  • Si vous décidez de refuser la promotion de l’image nominée, changez la ligne suivante
File:Nom_de_l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ | }} à
File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Decline|Description très brève --signature du nominateur |Défaut(s) trouvé(s) dans l'image. --~~~~}}

Autrement dit, changez le code /Nomination par /Decline et ajoutez votre signature avec un court commentaire indiquant les critères non satisfaisant de l'image (par exemple, avec les titres de section du guide). S'il y a beaucoup de défauts, notez seulement les 2 ou 3 plus importants, ou bien ajoutez « multiple problems » (plusieurs problèmes). Si possible, expliquez en détail vos raisons sur la page discussion du promoteur, tout en restant gentil et encourageant !

N.B. : s'il vous plaît, évaluez les images candidates les plus anciennes en premier.

Délai de grâce et de promotion

Si aucune objection n'est soulevée pendant une période de 2 jours (exactement 48 heures) à partir de la première critique, l'image est promue ou refusée, selon la critique qu'elle a reçue. Pour soulever une objection à la critique reçue, déplacer l'image dans la section évaluation consensuelle (Consensual review).

Comment exécuter une décision

La gestion par QICbot est automatique deux jours après la prise de décision et promeut les images en cache dans Images de qualité récemment promues qui sont en attente de catégorisation avant leur insertion dans la page Quality images appropriée.

En outre, si vous pensez avoir identifié une image exceptionnelle, qui pourrait légitimement prétendre au label d'« Image remarquable », pensez à proposer l'image dans la liste des images candidates au label d'« Image remarquable ».

Manuel d'instructions (à n'ouvrir qu'en cas d'urgence).

Si l'image est promue,

  1. Insérez l'image dans le groupe approprié ou dans la page des groupes d'Images de qualité. L'image doit aussi être intégrée aux sous-pages associées ; seules les 3 ou 4 plus récentes doivent se trouver sur la page principale.
  2. Ajoutez le modèle {{QualityImage}} en bas de la page de description de l'image.
  3. Déplacez la ligne avec la nomination d'image et la critique dans Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives mai 2024.
  4. Ajoutez le modèle {{File:nomimage.jpg}} sur la page de l'utilisateur

Si refusé,

  1. déplacez la ligne avec la proposition d'image et l'analyse dans Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives mai 2024.
  • Les images qui attendent une évaluation sont entourées d'un cadre bleu
  • Les images qui ont reçu une critique favorable sont entourées d'un cadre vert
  • Les images dont la promotion est refusée par la personne ayant effectué l'évaluation sont entourées d'un cadre rouge

Images non-critiquées (cadre bleu)

Les images pour lesquelles aucun commentaire n'a été formulé en faveur ou en défaveur de leur promotion, ni de consensus (une opposition ou un soutien lors d'une analyse consensuelle) ne s'est exprimé sur cette page sont déplacées après huit jours, sans être promues, et sont archivées dans les catégories Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 29 2024 et la catégorie Category:Unassessed QI candidates est ajoutée à ces images.

L'évaluation consensuelle (Consensual review)

L'évaluation consensuelle est une procédure utilisée lorsque la procédure initiale n'a pas permis d'aboutir et qu'il est nécessaire de disposer d'autres avis.

Comment demander une évaluation consensuelle

Pour demander une évaluation consensuelle, modifiez seulement /Promotion, /Decline en /Discuss et ajoutez vos commentaires immédiatement après l'évaluation. Un robot déplacera la ligne dans la section appropriée dans la journée.

Ne mettez dans la section évaluation consensuelle que les images ayant reçu un avis soit positif soit négatif. Si, en tant qu'évaluateur, vous ne pouvez prendre de décision, vous devez ajoutez vos commentaires sans déplacer l'image.

Règles de l'évaluation consensuelle

Voir Commons:Candidats pour les images de qualité#Rules

Rafraîchir l'affichage de la page : 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]] 16:35, 29 mai 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).


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 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 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:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg

File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smial : Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust : & @Plozessor : There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust : Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., understood (mostly). However, I cannot understand that you cannot find the time to have a maximum of five images per day renamed and possibly the captions added to your description fields. Better file names would be very helpful both to improve the visibility of your files in search engines and (for me) to have them moved to the appropriate quality image galleries ("categorization" via Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted). Almost every file with a too broad file name must be right-clicked and opened to understand where it should be moved to. BTW, it also takes some time for me to upload files with the upload wizard because of the lengthy forms that should be filled in. Commons:File naming has been a proposed guideline since 2009, but it is still tagged as a proposed guideline. Apparently, there has not been sufficient consensus yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for now. This is about quality, not quantity. Inaccurate file names and rambling image descriptions are common at Scotch Mist. I thought a brief note would be enough to get him to improve this practice. I didn't think it would be that difficult to convince him. QIC is not intended to be a mass-processing operation. Hence the limit of 5 per day. Less is also possible. For QI you can expect more effort in choosing the file name and formulating the image description than any automatic processes. Or you can forego the candidacy.--Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Milseburg : Sorry, my mistake, I thought QI was primarily about the quality of the image and that while indexing information is of course important, it is secondary and therefore it should not be critical whether that information is contained in the File Name, the Caption, the Description and\or the Categories (each of which, or a combination, could potentially be used to aid in moving images to appropriate QI galleries). If the Caption contains information that you consider must also be contained in the File Name and\or Description, then clearly the Caption serves no purpose in this regard, but before I amend the Descriptions, and possibly the File Names, of already nominated images and hundreds of images I had intended to nominate for QI in the future, can you or @Robert Flogaus-Faust : please explain to me when I should enter information in the Caption and what form that information should take?? (PS I would respectfully suggest that my descriptions are not "rambling" and while it is understood that some background information to provide historical context to places visited may not have interest to many, there are some people who have apparently found this information and associated web links helpful!) --Scotch Mist 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, these formalities play a role in a quality image in addition to the technical criteria. In this case, I would suggest the title: "Sigismund's Column and Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw" and the description "Tops of Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle Tower in Warsaw", possibly linked. You should proceed in the same way for further nominations. In the short file descrirption of structured data it's already done but should also done in the summary. Your current approach does not meet QI standards. If adjusting is too time-consuming, simply nominate fewer images. In fact, I think it's less work to reduce title and description to the essentials. Remember that people interested in the images just want to be informed about the content of the images and do not want to go on a long educational journey. The place for that is somewhere else. No such a big thing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust : Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust : Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

{{/Discuss|Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |[reply]

  •  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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronologie (8ème jour après la proposition)

  • mar. 21 mai → mer. 29 mai
  • mer. 22 mai → jeu. 30 mai
  • jeu. 23 mai → ven. 31 mai
  • ven. 24 mai → sam. 01 juin
  • sam. 25 mai → dim. 02 juin
  • dim. 26 mai → lun. 03 juin
  • lun. 27 mai → mar. 04 juin
  • mar. 28 mai → mer. 05 juin
  • mer. 29 mai → jeu. 06 juin
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/fr&oldid=874921257"