User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1283.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Yeriho 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Sardinia Radio Telescope 2019 051.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Reichstag dome tour, Berlin, 2014-42.jpg

And also:

• File:Reichstag dome tour, Berlin, 2014-58.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jodrell Bank Mark II 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Orotava, Tenerife 2019 142.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Tenerife 2019 491.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laboratorio de Energía Solar Termoeléctrica 2020 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Port of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 21:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Whitby Abbey 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cave of Santo Hermano Pedro 2020 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --MB-one 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Tenerife 2019 116.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 02:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grumman Memorial Park 2018 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Hulged 16:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) CA should be removed. --Ermell 16:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Has a lot of chromatic aberration. --Dimljacic 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC) @Dimljacic and Ermell: Oops, I forgot to upload the tweaked version, now done, CA should look better now. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! El Cilindro 2020 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Chapelle du Villardon

Hello,

You created the wikidata for commons Category:Chapelle du Villardon. You made a confusion between this chapel and an other one located one mile south-east of the hamlet 'Le Villardon'. The true 'Chapelle du Villardon', noticed by French Monuments historiques, is the one of the village, from which two pics are in the category (and only them). I just changed the one refered to in wikidata to one of the correct pics (I hope it will opertate). But I couldn't adjust coords.

It is really unpleasant to have to correct mistakes of people who don't know the matter they manage (I guess you never went in Hautes-Alpes, isn't it ?). Sorry for my bad English. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: I don't understand this. I didn't create Category:Chapelle du Villardon, but it was subsequently linked with chapelle de Lantelmes (Q60346396), and my bot automatically added the infobox accordingly. I'm happy to help clean up such cases, but I need more information to be able to do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem about Category:Chapelle du Villardon. The problem is that the wikidata associated to it were wrong : picture and coords were from an other chapel. Who did create this wikidata page, and from which data ? (If not you, please excuse me). By chance, I saw the mistake, and I could change first the picture, and now the coords. It is not the first time I find errors in wikidata, and it is unpleasant. Have a good night! -Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: Is it still wrong? The person to contact about this seems to be @Peter17: , who's been editing both the category and the Wikidata item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter17 operated a new change, that doesn't satisfy me. I will see with him how to close the discussion. Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: OK, feel free to come back here if there are still issues. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 194.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Horizon is tilted. --Milseburg 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC) @Milseburg: fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)  Support How fast! QI now.--Milseburg 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Tenerife 2019 498.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dust spot on the sky (i've mark it) and also noisy sky. --Nino Verde 12:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Nino Verde: Thanks for having a look! I've done a bit of noise reduction for the sky, and have tried to fix the dust spot but I can't easily see it? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 10:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 188.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 051.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 052.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grumman Memorial Park 2018 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 14:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iglesia Vieja de Fasnia 2021 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Imehling 10:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laboratorio de Energía Solar Termoeléctrica 2020 35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --IamMM 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Tenerife 2019 033.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 175.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MIGORMCZ 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 171.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MIGORMCZ 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 160.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MIGORMCZ 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Starlink satellites near Carson National Forest.jpg

File:Starlink satellites near Carson National Forest.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

vip (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 147.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 15:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

About the FP

Dear Mike, please, could you separate the data of the page view? That way we can change the layout of the page but the amounts would be the same. Just add a separate template for each user's numbers and we could edit the page more easily. Cheers --Wilfredor (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: I'm not sure how you mean? I could move all the contents of the table to a sub-page that the bot edits, if it's just the header and footer that you want to be able to easily change. Or you could demo edits like you have and I can update the bot code accordingly (will do that later today). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: The bot now uses the changes you made. Not sure about the rest of your commment here though? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 2000.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Imehling 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1572.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Try to remove chromatic aberration and improve sharpness. --VileGecko 13:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) @VileGecko: I already tried to remove the CA (compare with the previous version), not sure that there's more I can do. Same with sharpness. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)  Support This is definitely better. Sharpness is still not perfect but the scene is great. --VileGecko 08:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 0740.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Try to remove chromatic aberration and improve sharpness. --VileGecko 13:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) As per the previous image. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --VileGecko 08:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please help me i don't see the problem

Moin Moin Mike Peel, could you help me please. In the Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no instance of are pictures, but i don't see the failure from where they get the Info of this category. Could you have a look there? Thanks a lot. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crazy1880: They seem to be caused by uses of {{Object photo}}, which need to be migrated over to something like {{Art photo}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crazy1880: Cleared now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Roslyn (LIRR station) vs. Roslyn (SEPTA station)

Back in 2019, your bot added a Wikidata infobox to the Category:Roslyn (LIRR station) that was actually more appropriate for the Category:Roslyn (SEPTA station). I tried to add corrections for the commons gallery of the Long Island Rail Road station, but I can't seem to get them into the replacement infobox. What am I doing wrong? ----DanTD (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@DanTD: They look OK now? [1] fixed the first one, maybe the second was just caching? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that helped a great deal. ----DanTD (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cuerno

Category:Cuerno is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD C2 (unuseful empty category) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Palosirkka (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

images by user

Hi, Regarding the 3 pages Commons:Quality images by user, Commons:Featured pictures/Statistics/Featured pictures by creator, and Commons:Valued images by user, my userpage should link to User:Yann, although the categories mention my full name (Yann Forget). Is it possible to fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: The easiest thing is to rename the categories to match your username, and the bot code would then fix this automatically, but if that's not possible for some reason then I could add an exception to the code. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are good reasons I created these categories with my full name, not my username. It is a feature, not a bug. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Honestly curious - why use your full name for the categories and not for your username? Will follow this up tomorrow with the bot code. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

One of them is that I want to be credited with my full name. Also there may be confusion with other people called Yann. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: OK, [2] should fix it, let's see how that looks in the next update. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I missed a stray :, mañana. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 2001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Statue of Joseph Brotherton in Manchester.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 23:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Images by text

Greetings Mike,

Can you please respond to my questions at the discussion that you started here [3] days ago?

Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Balloon Festival 2006 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 22:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Henschel and Sons 20319 2019 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! São Paulo Zoo 2018 037.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --aismallard 06:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Tenerife 2020 682.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Imehling 16:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Williston mall 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Should have perspective correction --Imehling 16:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC) @Imehling: Is it better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 06:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Henschel and Sons 20319 2019 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The traffic sign on the left and the garbage can on the right are in the way and should be cut away. --Steindy 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC) @Steindy: Cropped. It leaves the impression that the train is on a continuous rail, which I was hoping to avoid, but it is cleaner. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rod Davies gravestone-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective correction necessary. --Steindy 23:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC) @Steindy: Better now? Note that it's never going to be straight-on, since it was taken at an angle. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Santos, Brazil 2017 473.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Nice crop and good quality. --Virtual-Pano 00:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mazda6 2016 model 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Imehling 08:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Fasnia, Tenerife 2021 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support DOF isn't great but overall QI --Virtual-Pano 21:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Plaza de España, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1806.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

FM Promotion

This file has been promoted to Featured media! The file File:Деления инфузорий Colpidium.webm, which you nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Деления инфузорий Colpidium.webm, has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another file, please do so.

/FeaturedMediaBot (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FM Promotion

This file has been promoted to Featured media! The file File:Пульсация сердца Дафнии.webm, which you nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Пульсация сердца Дафнии.webm, has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another file, please do so.

/FeaturedMediaBot (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1793.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Barcelona 2019 060.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 01:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Clastobasis loici male terminalia posterior view.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clastobasis loici male terminalia posterior view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Used your Reichstag Memorial image in a blog post

[Here] Thanks! Raven Onthill (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Raven Onthill: Cool, thanks for letting me know! Mike Peel (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

PiBot "Commons task 1" question

Hi!

I am sorting the stuff in Category:Collections of the Musée des arts et métiers, objects from a French museum.

There was already a great job done by user @Rama who have created a lot of categories for objects with multiples images. See for example Elmiskop 102-Electron microscope-CNAM 43819.

User @Rama have mostly used the {{Artwork}} template and populated Wikidata infos for the objects. He also used the {{Category definition: Object}} template (I suppose when no Wikidata was available)

The problem come form objects with {{Artwork}} templates. @Pi_bot have also added {{Wikidata Infobox}} to them. This categories have now two infoboxes with the same informations from Wikidata displayed.

I am planing to remove the

NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND! Search for Mike Peel/Archive 11 on Wikidata Create new Wikidata item

Upload media

infoboxes (because i find the {{Artwork}} more clear in this small categories),

but before this i prefer to tell you, because, sure enough the bot will come again one day.

Also, the problem may not be limited to the category i work one, but to all categories who use the {{Artwork}} templates. Mainly museum. So this template may be a candidate for the 'templatestoavoid' variable. Miniwark (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Miniwark: That's the old system, you should remove the uses of {{Category definition: Object}} both from the file descriptions that are using them (switch those to something like {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Art photo}}, or similar - directly in the file pages), and from the category (just use the Wikidata Infobox there). At some point {{Category definition: Object}} should be deleted, but there's still too many uses (~60k) and too much manual content to make that easy to do just yet, so at the moment it's just marked as deprecated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, i was planing to do so, but the problem is not with {{Category definition: Object}} but with {{Artwork}}. @Pi_bot have added {{Wikidata Infobox}} to the categories with {{Artwork}} when it's not necessary. But, maybe this was already corrected since then ? Miniwark (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Artwork should not be used in categories, since you then have to scroll to see the category contents. Will try to have a closer look and demo the necessary changes later today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Miniwark: The edits that need to be made are like this, to convert from {{Object photo}} to {{Art photo}}. Once those are done for all the images currently transcluding the category, then the artwork template can be removed from the category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank for the tip, i will do :) I need some more coffee then... Have a nice day and thank again for the help Miniwark (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WD infobox might still be dependent on P373

Category:Pipa was recently moved to Category:Pipa (frog), but wdib still points the genus to the old page, so i deleted the p373 values from Pipa (Q2351631) and Category:Pipa (frog) (Q8763208). now wdib shows no link for the genus. RZuo (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@RZuo: Hmm, yes, that's a possibility. Could you post this at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox, please, so I don't lose track of this? I'm hoping we can do an overhaul of the infobox this summer with a student. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol Balloon Festival 2006 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 17:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Defford Radio Telescope 2016 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 17:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teide Observatory 2018 120.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teide Observatory 2018 043.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Imehling 17:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mississippi Voyager 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Playa de Las Teresitas, Tenerife 2021 040.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs a perspective correction, both sides are leaning out --Poco a poco 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC) @Poco a poco: Thanks for the review. Please could you explain a bit more, as I don't understand what you mean by "leaning out". I already applied a perspective correction. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I still see some leaning out of both sides, I'd expect vertical things to be vertical. It needs a bit more of that. --Poco a poco 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC) @Poco a poco: Ah, gotcha, does version 3 look better? Note that the palm trees are definitely not vertical! But the Red Cross building should have been... Thanks. Mike Peel 17:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)  Support Yes, not perfect, but closed enough --Poco a poco 20:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teide Observatory 2018 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Argenberg 11:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange Gardens 2019 055.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange Gardens 2019 069.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Sh2-216 c lsho 1218m+812m+903m 2933m 49h.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sh2-216 c lsho 1218m+812m+903m 2933m 49h.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

re: living people

"icmyi" have added a couple of technical comments to the discussion, re: wikidata automation. & THANK-YOU for writing the thing! have been waiting a looong time for that :) Lx 121 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Museum für Islamische Kunst

The edit by Pi bot disconnected the link to wikidata:Q1954632. Therefore I'll revert this edit. Best, --ThT (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThT: The edit that broke this was [4], I've fixed it with [5] and the creation of Category:Museum für Islamische Kunst (Berlin) (Q111727427), everything should work OK again now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teide Observatory 2018 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There are some weak CAs on the two towers on the right, but it's probably good enough for QI --Imehling 08:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Shugborough

Hallo Mike. I was doing some work on gardens in Staffordshire and categorised some photos related to the gardens at Shugborough without properly checking existing categories for this house and estate. I will try to tidy the categories and I am sorry for unnecessarily cluttering the history of some of your photos.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thoughtfortheday: No worries, thanks for working on photo categorisation! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monte Serrat, Santos 2018 078.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --aismallard 00:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monte Serrat, Santos 2018 085.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fountain in Trafalgar Square 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Cape Town (MP) 2018 015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Weak support The weathervane looks distorted. QI otherwise. --aismallard 00:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pi bot added wdib in comments

hi Mike! special:diff/308692415 have you noticed this problem? RZuo (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@RZuo: The bot can't identify the comments, it just adds the infobox after the last }}. Those cases need to be fixed manually (now done for this case). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museo de la Ciencia y el Cosmos 2018 012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Little Moreton Hall 2015 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Useful to indicate in the Description which part of the Hall is depicted. --Tagooty 03:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) @Tagooty: Good suggestion, added to the file description, do you want me to change it here as well? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. Thanks for the revision. --Tagooty 02:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Little Moreton Hall 2015 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teide Observatory 2018 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --IamMM 08:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange Gardens 2019 018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 09:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange 2015 041.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 09:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museo de la Ciencia y el Cosmos 2018 017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Cape Town (MP) 2018 011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Museo de la Ciencia y el Cosmos 2018 024.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --D-Kuru 07:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Cape Town (MP) 2018 017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --D-Kuru 07:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Cape Town (MP) 2018 016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:ป้อมพระจุลจอมเกล้า-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ป้อมพระจุลจอมเกล้า-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pennisetum Villosum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zamek Bierzgłowski gateway.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good image, good quality -- Spurzem 11:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham Castle - floor murals.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Noise reduction probably a tiny bit overdone, but otherwise nice rework. --Smial 10:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange 2015 105.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perspective correction necessary. --Steindy 12:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC) @Steindy: Corrected, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Memorial Aeroespacial Brasileiro 2019 114.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chester Eastgate Clock.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! London Eye at night 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Radcliffe Camera, Oxford.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 11:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 09:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bearch huts at Scarborough.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 22:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Helianthus annuus - Teddy Bear.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kniphofia 'Percy's Pride' 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unidentified plant, RHS at Tatton Park, 2009-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 15:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Echinacea purpurea 'Sundown'.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 15:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! London Eye at night 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 15:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

critical upgrade correction to your bot

In the 2002 Zagreb was in Republic of Croatia, not in Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Critical_Upgrade

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A05:4F46:73:5A00:8125:E942:E081:F2C (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed with this edit on Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Artichoke 'Green Globe'.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 09:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red dahlia 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Allium Globemaster.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Campanula hybr. Sarastro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 09:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Replica of the Campbell Bluebird K7 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange 2015 037.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

¡La edición española de Wiki Loves Earth 2022 ya ha comenzado!

Amanecer en la Bahía del Fangar

¡Hola! Desde Wikimedia España nos complace anunciar que la edición de Wiki Loves Earth 2022 ya ha comenzado. Tu participación nos ayudará a documentar espacios naturales protegidos y compartirlos con el mundo a través de Wikipedia y otros proyectos de conocimiento libre.

Accede a la página del concurso para leer las bases: https://www.wikilovesearth.es/. Allí también podrás descubrir detalles sobre cómo participar y cuáles son los premios de esta edición. Si tienes cualquier duda, no dudes en contactarnos.

¡Muchas gracias y suerte! El equipo organizador de WLE 2022 en España

"Recibes este mensaje porque participaste en el concurso en ediciones anteriores" --03:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jodrell Bank Control Building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support The iron construction of the antenna, while confusing, is of good quality. --Steindy 11:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Battle of Culloden battlefield 2009-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Replica classic automobile, VJI 5305.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Long Island Aquarium 2018 042.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 08:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leaning Tower, Torun.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Just ok --Poco a poco 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! London Eye at night 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Verticals need a fixing. --Ermell 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC) @Ermell: Good point, new version uploaded with corrected verticals. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. Better now. --Ermell 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 17:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Croome Court 2016 028.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Whitby Abbey ruins 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 04:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nether Alderley Mill 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Verticals and CA should be fixed. --Ermell 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC) @Ermell: I've had a 2nd attempt at those, CA in particular is tricky because of the background trees. How does it look now? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I am not sure with the left side. I think it´s overdone there. CA is ok now. --Ermell 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @Ermell: I had another go with perspective, how does that look now? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality.Looks acceptable. --Ermell 22:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lovell Telescope 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Could you correct the perspective and remove the dust spots? --Ermell 07:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC) @Ermell: Perspective corrections don't work well on this image, since they distort the circular dish into an ellipse. I can't spot the dust spot? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC) You must then pull the picture apart until the circle is correct again. --Ermell 13:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @Ermell: OK, I had another go, dust spot removed, perspective corrected. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)  Support ok now, thanks. --Ermell 22:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Edgar Wallace plaque, Fleet Street.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Site of the Mitre Tavern, London 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old Scarborough cable car.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments You can't get much more out of this lens. Consequently, the photo is good enough. --Smial 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Croome Court 2016 022.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Croome Court 2016 029.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gravestone at St Clement Danes church, London 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Mary's Church, Cromford.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biddulph Grange 2015 051.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Looks good to me, although a more symmetrical placement might help. --JiriMatejicek 15:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Yann 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Whitby Abbey ruins 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fire Fighter ship, Long Island 2018 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1294.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1288.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1289.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1278.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Whitby Abbey ruins 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Wikisympathisant 11:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Living people age limits?

Didn't you decide to restrict this by year somehow? My first search found two people (Category:Amelia E. Johnson and Category:Georg Julius Franz Schuster) in Category:Living people who were born in 1859 and are surely dead by now. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Oops, that code apparently didn't work right. I've rewritten it, it should be fixed now. Thanks for spotting the issue and letting me know! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johan, Skye.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kyleakin Lighthouse, 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chester Zoo 2016 001 - Scimitar-horned Oryx.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chester Zoo 2016 009 - Islands.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Long Island Aquarium 2018 044.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is a green hue --Poco a poco 18:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC) @Poco a poco: There is, I think it might be a glass reflection somehow, if I white-balance the green bit, the rest of the photo ends up purple. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC) That's not surprising, can't you apply a selective WB to the pinguin? --Poco a poco 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @Poco a poco: OK, I discovered masks in Lightroom, and have tweaked the WB again, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Better indeed --Poco a poco 10:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chess piece, Making of Harry Potter studio tour 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Gran Canaria 2021 0254.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Gran Canaria 2021 0261.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Japanese Larch bonsai.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 06:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BLW Private Letter Boxes (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aster diplostephioides, Tatton Park.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 10:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Begonia 'Saturn', Tatton Park.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 10:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fire Fighter ship, Long Island 2018 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fire Fighter ship, Long Island 2018 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Statue of St Volodymyr.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 12:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

--Pi bot (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Pi bot request

Hi Mike. This is a pretty minor thing, but a little bit of a pet peeve for years now: while FPCBot notifications link to the correct section for the most recent FP promotion on a page, QICbot has always just linked to "Quality Image Promotion" which goes to the first instance of that title on the page. It's only even becomes noticeable when they start to accumulate on a talk page, but if I notice it, the people who are even more active at QIC than me are surely noticing. Does that make sense? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I've also seen this. I think the difference with QIC and FPC is that at QIC you normally have multiple accepted images on a single day, while FPC is much rarer. FPC can post one notification/section per image, but I suspect if QIC did that then it would get quite annoying. Another option to fix this would be to put the date in the header, what would you think to that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is the number of images in a section, but maybe I don't understand what you mean. Here are two links via notifications:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhododendrites?markasread=50072819&markasreadwiki=commonswiki#Quality_Image_Promotion

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhododendrites?markasread=49921880&markasreadwiki=commonswiki#c-FPCBot-2022-05-30T13:00:00.000Z-FP_Promotion_17

The first goes to the topmost section with the heading "Quality Image Promotion" while the FPC one includes the timestamp and tacks on "17", so it goes directly to the new section. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at the code, I can't spot the difference. Will keep looking... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar 2011 48.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chess piece, Making of Harry Potter studio tour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 16:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 03:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torun RT4 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 03:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BLW Type C Pillar Box.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Mail GR postbox 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Mail motorbikes 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ivory armlet at the Horniman Museum 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 04:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fans at the Horniman Museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, but can you please indicate in your file description on the file page where it was made? -- Ikan Kekek 22:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Textile printing blocks at the Horniman Museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Please identify the place of origin in your file description. If you can't do better than "India," add that. -- Ikan Kekek 01:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality (and I wonder when they will return it to Nigeria). -- Ikan Kekek 01:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Catherine Church, Torun 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 16:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sanni curing masks at the Horniman Museum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, but please delete some of the categories. This isn't a photo of a toothache, for example. -- Ikan Kekek 22:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Done (I didn't add them). Thanks. Mike Peel 07:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)  Support Thanks for removing them, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Actros with crane 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Actros with crane 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Actros with crane 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Imperial War Museum North - T-55 tank 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Imperial War Museum North - T-55 tank 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 47.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 48.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 49.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 55.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 59.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 030.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 042.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SKA site, South Africa 2014 61.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Argenberg 08:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Snowmanstudios 09:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At La Palma 2021 1292.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 084.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 110.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Social weaver nest 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nether Alderley Mill 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Long Island Aquarium 2018 059.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grumman Memorial Park 2018 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 073.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 60 London Wall, London.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! G-WATR, Lochearnhead.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skye bridge, 2010-5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! John Bright statue, Albert Square, Manchester 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 08:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @VGrigas (WMF): thanks for getting in touch, and thanks for considering uploading to Commons rather than to Wordpress. However, I suspect hiding attribution temporarily would be difficult to do in practice, since nothing would stop people from reusing the sounds once they are uploaded, and the licence would require them to provide that attribution. I don't understand why you think having the attributions on Commons would bias the public, though, since that doesn't happen for other contests as far as I'm aware. So my recommendation would be to upload them anyway with attribution. If that can't be done, and you decide you have to use the Wordpress step, please consider ensuring that all uploaded sounds can be released on Commons under a free licence afterwards, and encouraging those that uploaded them to continue contributing audio to Commons regardless of the outcome of the vote. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Shugborough Hall 2021 092.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Aismallard 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Port of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality and good view -- Spurzem 06:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Port of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 039.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liverpool Lime Street station.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Entrance to the Making of Harry Potter studio tour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Social weaver nest.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Ok. --C messier 09:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Travessia Santos-Guarujá 2018 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, beautiful -- Spurzem 21:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quarry Bank Mill 2016 021.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Can you check the right wall. It looks curved and leaning in a bit. --C messier 09:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC) @C messier: Good spot! I've uploaded a new version that fixes this (enabling lens profile corrections). Does that look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --C messier 10:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sea wall, Weston-super-Mare 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 18:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sea wall, Weston-super-Mare 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 18:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wayfarers Arcade 2011-4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 18:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angra dos Reis, Brazil 2018 134.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Alexander Novikov 20:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angra dos Reis, Brazil 2018 139.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Alexander Novikov 20:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! British Museum Flood Tablet 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 08:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chester Zoo 2016 020 - Banteng.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! John Bright statue, Albert Square, Manchester 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tower of the Royal Exchange, Manchester.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Snowmanstudios 12:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pershore Abbey.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Snowmanstudios 12:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pershore Abbey 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Snowmanstudios 12:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Model of the sun, Jodrell Bank Observatory.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correction of the perspective necessary. --Steindy 16:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC) @Steindy: Tweaked, is it better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)  Support Th sun model is okay now, the background not. But acceptabe. --Steindy 15:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from the Torre degli Asinelli, Bologna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from the Torre degli Asinelli, Bologna 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 069.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 116.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Candelaria, Tenerife 2022 108.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AEMet Izaña 2022 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AEMet Izaña 2022 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 15:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AEMet Izaña 2022 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View from the Torre degli Asinelli, Bologna 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with Migrating to Art photo

In this edit you replaced "{{Information field|" with "{{Art photo|Wikidata=Q110713956 field|". Jarekt (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Yes, the code would do that. I hadn't heard of {{Information field}} before, otherwise I'd have coded an exception for it - too late now. Hopefully there shouldn't be too many cases with that, though? (and maybe that's something that could be migrated into the information templates directly?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I only found handful of files with this issue, so hopefully it is not a widespread problem. {{Information field}} is a bizarre legacy template which when added to "other_field" of {{Information}} and other templates can add additional fields, with any text, to the infobox, by benign en:Code injection. It can be useful, especially when creating custom infobox templates, but can easily lead to pages with invalid html. It is already integrated with all infobox templates so there is nothing to migrate. --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jarekt: OK. I was thinking more like having "name1", "field1" lines and directly supporting the additions in the information templates, rather than the code injection approach. But better would be to just migrate them into normal fields / structured data anyway. I know nothing more about how it's used beyond this discussion, though, so perhaps it's just a rabbit hole to avoid. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legacy issue, and unless we want to be fixing some percentage of 85 M files that are using the existing system, it is better not to touch and keep backward compatibility. --Jarekt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beeston Castle 2016 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Alexander Novikov 22:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Benin Bronzes, Horniman Museum 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Møller Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Alexander Novikov 22:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyme Park 2014 26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 22:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyme Park 2014 28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 21:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyme Park 2014 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 21:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Berrington Hall 2022 125.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Berrington Hall 2022 127.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. CAT Greenhouses is too general. There are more specific subCATs "by city" or "by country" etcetc. --Tagooty 01:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Berrington Hall 2022 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Would be useful to add the view e.g. front facade in the Summary/Caption --Tagooty 01:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cambridge MERLIN telescope 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)  Support So good. --Q28 01:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cambridge MERLIN telescope 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knockin telescope 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 05:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wayfarers Arcade 2011-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ERF Gardner 120 (GMB 537G).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of GPS coordinates in landscape images

Perch Rock Lighthouse 10

Hello Mike Peel:

This is just a personal opinion but I believe it has validity.

While a complete description of the image detail is useful, a geocode (at least approximate) in the image description contributes to the usefulness and longevity of all landscape bird, animal and plant images going forward at Commons. See See object location at Template:Location. Category GPS is ok but image GPS is better.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@GRDN711: OK, but the coordinate is already at Category:New Brighton Lighthouse, which the file is in? I've added it to the file now though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mike:

Categories change all the time as can the Wikipedia topic on the "New Brighton Lighthouse", all of it outside your control.

If you want your lighthouse image to be around and used in a couple of centuries (probably historically), a complete image description and GPS coordinates with the image (preferrably in the Exif data) will help get it there.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@GRDN711: I hear you, but I do a lot of work on categories and metadata via Wikidata, and I tend to prefer using that for metadata as much as possible. We can't predict what will happen in a couple of centuries, and what will survive that long, but right now keeping things in categories and Wikidata really helps to minimise maintenance work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)