Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.
A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.
An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.
If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.
Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.
Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.
Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.
Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.
Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:
DeclinedVICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. UndecidedVICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.
Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.
There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list:
where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates
If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.
The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.
Reason:
In my opinion, this is the best image in scope to show how the commemorative stones of the artwork are arranged to form the pavement of Ulica Piotrkowska. -- Aciarium ⚒ (talk)
Oppose<> Image is technically excellent but the scope is troubling, particularly the words "in devleopement" which seems extra and unnecessary description. There are about 5 different stages of flower bud development from floral meristem to maturation, but this image does not show all five stages. I would suggest a simpler, more generic and effective plant scope such as "Prunus laurocerasus (cherry laurel) showing buds". --GRDN711 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strike my previous oppose in recognition that this is a worthy image and that the nominator has been making good attempts on improving the scope. However, IMO, the scope could still be better tuned.
COM:VIS says that the scope should be “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.” In almost all cases, this means the scope should be relatively simple, generic and not overly wordy.
What would I do here? Accepting the comment from Archaeodontosaurus of a more precise sub-scope statement, I would change the scope to:
“Prunus laurocerasus (cherry laurel) - immature inflorescence” and add the following statement in the VI nomination line - ''''''|reason= Good example showing buds''''''.
IMHO the nomination reason line (underused by most), and the image description, are the best places for more wordy descriptions or extra statements in support of the nom. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
very interesting, thank you for answer. I’ve read the article. But we are on Commons, and the scope should be linked to Commons, not to any wikipedia. Could you fix this, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Best overall image in the linked category. The aircraft is large in the frame, the Cargolux livery is easy to see, and the Anchorage setting is clear from the runway and Chugach Mountains behind it. --Quintin Soloviev (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC) -- Quintin Soloviev (talk)[reply]
Comment Look at how other competitors build their scope. You have to pay attention to the syntax. But above all you have to connect the scope to the category that contains the image. --Pierre André (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Reason:
Best overall image in the stadium's category. This aerial view shows the full stadium bowl clearly, along with its mountainous setting near the University of Texas at El Paso and surrounding landscape. --Quintin Soloviev (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC) -- Quintin Soloviev (talk)[reply]
Reason:
Higher resolution and better color/contrast than the existing 2012 VI. An additional plus is that the graffiti in the 2012 image is no longer present. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Reason:
Nomination to review the existing VI status. Previous supporting review was based on it being best in scope. That's IMO no longer the case. -- Astro.furball (talk)
I have added the following to the VI Nomination ProcedureːPlease ensure you have the FastCCI gadget enabled. You should use this to identify existing VIs with similar scopes. Note that if an image shows up as FP or QI it may also be a Valued Image.Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Higher resolution and better color/contrast than the existing 2012 VI. An additional plus is that the graffiti in the 2012 image is no longer present. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Reason:
Nomination to review the existing VI status. Previous supporting review was based on it being best in scope. That's IMO no longer the case. -- Astro.furball (talk)
All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.
Skip to image nominations
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
_May_2026.jpg)
._26-04-2026_(d.j.b.).jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Apollo_and_Cupid_by_François_Duquesnoy_(17th_century)_(Bronze_and_porphyry).jpg)
_Crassula_ovata_-_Serres_du_Museum_de_Toulouse.jpg)
_-_Apollo_by_Domenico_Pio_(1715-1801)_(Terracotta).jpg)
_Clematis_‘Joe%27_-_flowers.jpg)
_L%27ancre_du_Tegetthoff.jpg)
_12.jpg)
_Marken_2.jpg)
_Drenthe_2.jpg)
,_1790,_RF_2009_5.jpg)
_May_2026.jpg){kind=link}
._26-04-2026_(d.j.b.).jpg){kind=link}
._26-04-2026_(d.j.b.).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_Apollo_and_Cupid_by_François_Duquesnoy_(17th_century)_(Bronze_and_porphyry).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Crassula_ovata_-_Serres_du_Museum_de_Toulouse.jpg){kind=link}
_Crassula_ovata_-_Serres_du_Museum_de_Toulouse.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_Apollo_by_Domenico_Pio_(1715-1801)_(Terracotta).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Apollo_by_Domenico_Pio_(1715-1801)_(Terracotta).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Clematis_‘Joe%27_-_flowers.jpg){kind=link}
_Clematis_%E2%80%98Joe%27_-_flowers.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_L%27ancre_du_Tegetthoff.jpg){kind=link}
_L%27ancre_du_Tegetthoff.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Marken_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Marken_2.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Drenthe_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Drenthe_2.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
,_1790,_RF_2009_5.jpg){kind=link}
,_1790,_RF_2009_5.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}