I actually looked and trawled through them when looking for a better one. And especially for such categories VI is actually useful for people looking for images! It allows potential reusers to find good image quickly. I thought that was one of the main points of VI initiative? "build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online" While for single-image categories VI is just an ego boost ("provides recognition to contributors"). And in case better image is missed: then once spotted it should be nominated to replace this one @Tagooty: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info According to COM:VIS, VI is the "image [that] is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope". COM:VIS also gives guidelines for choice of scope. Besides a VI, a scope may have several images that are useful to Wiki editors. So to help editors, Commons has COM:Quality Images. A scope can have many QIs. The nominated image is a good candidate for QI. See for e.g. Mud village, Spiti in which the VI of CAT:Mud village, Spiti is used in the Infobox and a number of QIs are used elsewhere in the article. Category:Playground equipment or Category:Playground castles are both too broad. The latter has about 300 images covering a wide variety of castles. --Tagooty (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
