You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 22:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support A bit soft, but good quality. Nice composition. I checked and changed two categories. --Harlock81 05:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Ermell 18:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I sent an email to Thomas Piketty asking for permission to use his slides
This is the text of the email. Piketty is French, so I wrote a sentence in French telling him he may need to translate the email.
Subject:
Permission to use your slides on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons
Text:
Cet e-mail est rédigé en anglais. Vous devrez peut-être le traduire en français.
Hello,
I have uploaded a set of slides to Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons that you, Thomas Piketty, made in 2018 . These slides are freely available on the Internet and do not appear to be copyrighted. These slides are about political conflict on the basis of cleavages such as income, education, and race/ethnicity.
If you are willing, could you please provide your permission to Wikimedia Commons ( the email is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) that I can use the slides on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The slides are attached.
Thank you,
Vallabh Kudva
UIUC Graduate Student
Get Outlook for Mac JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Piketty is a professor, so I used my academic email address, as I thought it might establish credibility with him. I hope he responds to my email, and gives permission. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I got permission from Piketty in his reply. I can forward you his email if you want. English is not his first language, as he's from France. This is the text of the email:
"Sure, no pb, everything available on my homepage can be used as you wish, as long as the source is properly quoted"
__________________
Thomas Piketty
Page personnelle/Home page
World Inequality Lab/World Inequality Database JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe that is sufficient. You need to read the guides here on Wikimedia Commons: Commons:Email templates/Consent. The instructions are very clear. Please stop asking me questions. Read the guides and follow their instructions. E bailey (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi, please don’t remove rejected nominations from the QIC page like you did here. Doing so could be seen as cheating, since it might allow you to bypass the daily limit of 5 nominations. It also prevents others from being able to respond if they still wish to comment on the discussion. If you really want to end your nomination, you can instead use the 'Withdrawn' template. -- Jakubhal 05:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Where do you see a 'withdrawn' template? I don't see any reference to this in the instructions for QIC nominations. E bailey (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Here - under the QI page, not in the main template namespace. Same as Promotion and all the others used on the page. -- Jakubhal 06:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
You just need to change Promotion/Nomination/Discuss (or whatever it is) to Withdrawn, and it’s a good idea to add a short note saying you’re withdrawing, and sign it -- Jakubhal 06:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but still ok. --Plozessor 03:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Needs perspective correction. --Plozessor 03:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Can you explain? Don't understand. --E bailey 22:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC) See "Distortions" in Image guidelines. --Plozessor 08:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Fixed and re-uploaded. --E bailey 03:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Support 👍 --Plozessor 04:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Strong perspective distortion --Jakubhal 04:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC) Can you explain what you are seeing? Only edits on this photo were to exposure and levels. --E bailey 22:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC) Comment Please read Commons:IG. I expect you to edit the picture to fix the distortion. Yes, you created it by tilting the camera upwards when taking the photo, not during post-processing. --Jakubhal 09:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Fixed and re-uploaded. --E bailey 03:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Support OK --Jakubhal 06:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 16:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC) Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
CommentsSupport Good quality. I think there was a bug... --Sebring12Hrs 03:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Luminancenoise in the shadow areas, fixable? --F. Riedelio 07:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC) Uploaded a new version. Let me know what you think. --E bailey 23:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC) Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 17:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Exterior of Hotel La Rose. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't replied sooner. Location is rarely important for animal scopes. There can be scopes for different subspecies and for behaviour - like in in flight, on nest, with juvenile, defending territory etc. At VIC we have to link to one of the categories (the most useful) where the images can be seen.
With a building scope, it is very different. Your recent scopes could have been Sonoma County Museum (Exterior) - the number is not needed, but the location and current use is; and Hotel La Rose, Santa Rosa, CA as there are other hotels with the same name. Best wishes and enjoy VIC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it. E bailey (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Victory Eagle monument in Truckee, CA - back. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Victory Eagle monument in Truckee, CA - front. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Hyloscirtus mashpi (Mashpi stream treefrog). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Small coastal containership, PICTOR J, moored at Reykjavik Harbor, Iceland
Hello E bailey:
There is no magic tool for sharpening an image but you can do some tonal tuning to enhance the appearance of sharpness.
I have done that on this image. Please take another look at it and see if it meets your criteria for QI sharpness.
Best,
Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I see your improvements. Since you've made improvements, you can renominate and state what you've done. It's best practice to link to the previous nomination discussion using: {{subst:QICprevious|File:YourImageName.jpg|date of prior nomination}}
On my part, I will abstain from judging your image and let others judge it. If you get another decline you can ask for consensual review and get more opinions. E bailey (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
The image had not been voted out yet. I will just note that improvements have been made and request consensual review.
Best,
Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Re.: Ring Mountain Preserve and Mt Tamalpais, 1 Nov 2025.jpg
Hello, I meant that edge looks like double edge or blurred one in full resolution. Something like halo. Gower (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Made some adjustments intended to reduce overprocessed/halo edge of sky and tree line. Uploaded new version. Will comment on QI nom page. Thanks E bailey (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment@E bailey: Scope-link cateogry is fine but the name of this ship is not "Cruise Ship".
Just like a bird species is identified uniquely by a combination of scientific name and common name, a ship is identified uniquely with the name on the hull along with a universal ID number such as an IMO hull number. Suggest you use a scope similar to [[:Category: National Geographic Gemini (ship, 2001) | National Geographic ''Gemini'' – IMO 9228368]] --GRDN711 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the tip. This ship changed names and it wasn't clear to me how to scope this to all names that it has had. I have updated the scope. --E bailey (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The only image in scope-link category but useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevskytalk 17:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Drone images are increasing rapidly in number at Commons. Needs to be better categorized. Suggest you start by creating a manufacturer sub-category under Category:Unmanned aerial vehicle manufacturers, and then a model sub-category under the manufacturer for this image. --GRDN711 16:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Done created categories for this manufacturer. --E bailey 16:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Support Issued fixed --Earth605 14:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Support Support with category improvement. --GRDN711 17:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 07:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 07:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 07:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Phoebastria irrorata in flight, dorsal. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Best in Scope very sharp one --Gower (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Shure SM57 microphone. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --JackyM59 15:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --JackyM59 15:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Tagooty 14:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
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!
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Tagooty 00:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2025 voting is open!
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of five images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2025.
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Announcing the Winners of Picture of the Year 2025!
Hi everyone,
Wikimedia Commons is pleased to finally announce the winners of this year's Picture of the Year 2025 contest! We had some truly incredible finalists to choose from, but the community has spoken.
Here are your top three winning images:
First place: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area. Attribution: WAFA (Q2915969) / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Second place: Baby cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) sleeping at Cape cross, Namibia. Attribution: Giles Laurent / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: A gigantic jet photographed from the International Space Station by astronaut Nichole Ayers. Attribution: public domain
You can view the full results and see where all your favorite images placed here: Full 2025 Results
I also want to highlight what an incredible turnout we had. In the second round, we saw a massive jump in both the number of users voting and the total votes cast. We had exactly 13,979 votes cast by 3,509 users! To put that in perspective, last year we had 7,403 votes from 2,837 users. It is amazing to see that level of growth and community engagement.
Thank you to everyone who voted, helped organize, and generally made the contest such a huge success this year!
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
_July_2025.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Santa_Rosa_Junior_College.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Santa_Rosa_Junior_College.jpg)
,_Truckee,_CA,_Oct_2025.jpg)
,_Truckee,_CA,_Oct_2025.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_2,_Ring_mtn,_May_2026.jpg)
,_Ring_mtn,_May_2026.jpg)
_May_2026.jpg)
_1,_Ring_mtn,_May_2026.jpg)
,_Truckee,_CA,_Oct_2025.jpg){kind=link}
,_Truckee,_CA,_Oct_2025.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_May_2026.jpg){kind=link}