User talk:GRDN711

Archives 1 - 2018 - 2019 2 - 2020 - 2021 3 - 2022 - 2023 4 - 2024 - 2025

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2019-03-10 03 MS FRAM - IMO 9370018 - Ushuaia, Argentina.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. Please add a CAT for the location. --Tagooty 03:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Done. Thank you for the review. --GRDN711 23:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 05:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-03 02 SEASPAN EAGLE - IMO 9432971 – Ogden Point, BC CAN.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. --Plozessor 03:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-03 01 SEASPAN EAGLE - IMO 9432971 – Ogden Point, BC CAN.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. --Acroterion 02:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Seaspan Eagle – IMO 9432971 – right side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2024-12-20 01 BBC ROSARIO - IMO 9337224 – Ogden Point BC CAN.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. --Acroterion 03:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
BBC Rosario – IMO 9337224 – frontal (bow) view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful and used -- Petro Stelte (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-04-23 01 PAVO LEADER - IMO 9181560 – Off Ogden Point, BC Canada.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 14:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ziv 00:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Shay steam engine #2 of the Cass Scenic Railway, Cass, West Virginia USA.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment Agreed, but too dark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment @Agnes Monkelbaan: @Charlesjsharp: Have not worked with this image for some time but thought your comments had merit. Re-processed from original, lightened (particularly black engine) and re-cropped image. Like this version better. Your thoughts? --GRDN711 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oke, dank u. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-24 01 Tugboat, CHARLES H. CATES IV - MMSI 316005724.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Tugboat, Charles H. Cates IV – MMSI 316005724 – port (left) view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2023-05-05 01 GEIRANGER - IMO 7816408 – Hjørundfjorden, Norway.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 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2023-05-05 02 GEIRANGER - IMO 7816408 – Hjørundfjorden, Norway.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 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2015-09-18 MS OCEAN ENDEAVOUR - IMO 7625811, at Qeqertarsuaq Island (Karrat Fjord), Greenland.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015-09-18 MS OCEAN ENDEAVOUR - IMO 7625811, at Qeqertarsuaq Island (Karrat Fjord), Greenland.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2023-05-05 03 GEIRANGER - IMO 7816408 – Hjørundfjorden, Norway.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 05:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2023-05-05 04 GEIRANGER - IMO 7816408 – Hjørundfjorden, Norway.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 05:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ziv 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Geiranger – IMO 7816408.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
HMCS Frédérick Rolette (AOPV 434) – IMO 4702541 – under construction.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-31 05 SEASPAN OSPREY - IMO 9858022 – Ogden Point, BC CAN.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 Overall ok imo, good composition and light but slightly narrow DOF. --ArildV 06:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-06-04 01 CARNIVAL LUMINOSA - IMO 9398905 – Ogden Point BC CAN.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 Tilted. --Sebring12Hrs 00:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Straigtened. Thanks for noticing. --GRDN711 23:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Carnival Luminosa – IMO 9398905.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Can you straighten the horizon? It's leaning to the left.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment The boat too! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you for your comments. Sorry - not too many vertical lines in this image and I did not see the tilt. Have implemented a correction. See if this helps. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Useful and used. For me ok. Thank you for correction.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-02-02 02 Greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) - AZ USA.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 Only the head seems in focus on the bird. --Sebring12Hrs 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC) The head and eye contact are in focus as is most of the bird with the excpetion of the tail feathers. The question is whether this is good enough. --GRDN711 17:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking for info on a ship

I've created Category:IMO 2471957 and the corresponding Wikidata item with limited info that I could find in vesseltracker.com and a few other sites. I wonder if you could help to improve this with year of build etc? Tagooty (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tagooty:

First a little background on setting up categorization for a ship image. In Commons, you need 3 pieces of information to set up the two Commons categories for uploading a ship image. A ship is positively identified if it has a ship name, a build year and a universal identifying number.

You can usually find this information with a Google search based on the Ship Name, and confirmed at Shipspotting.com, MarineTraffic.com and other ship databases.

Ship Name – LEYNIR (example)

Pusher tugboat, LEYNIR, leaving the harbor at Reykjavik, Iceland, heading into Faxaflói Bay with a storm coming off Mount Esja.

Build Year of ship - YYYY as in 2020 (example)

Universal Identifying Number of ship – IMO 9126388 (example)

For ships, there are 3 universal identifying numbers recognized by Commons in the following order of preference:

IMO ####### (International Maritime Organization; 7-digits; global forever ID - hull number never changes over ship life) is the best identifying number for ships if available.

ENI ######## (European Number of Identification; 8-digits; Europe forever ID but not global forever - never changes over ship life) – acceptable if IMO# is not available.

MMSI ######### (Maritime Mobile Service Identity; MMSI ######### (Maritime Mobile Service Identity; 9-digits; not global forever - depends on flag state; can change in rare cases over ship life – example Eems Delphia) – use only if IMO or ENI is not available.

If none of above universal identifying numbers are available for a ship image (usually a historical ship), Ship-by-Name Category should be named "<name of ship> (ship, <build-year>, <place-of-build> <yard # if available>)".

Your ferry image, Trei Fre, is found in various ship databases (search on "Trei Fre MMSI 247195700) but you have it incorrectly placed in Commons under the IMO parent category instead of MMSI. This ship apparently does not have an IMO or hull #. An extra point is that VG 3744 is a registration number for the country of Italy where the ship is registered. While it is an "ON - offical number" for the country of registration, it is not used for categorization in Commons.

If you are OK with this, I will go ahead and re-categorize your images under a MMSI parent category and you can see what I have done following this outline. It seems complicated but its not once you have gone through it a few times. It is a good system for categoization of ships.

Please let me know,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, much clearer now. Please go ahead and re-cat, will be much appreciated. Tagooty (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tagooty:

Created MMSI 247195700 as a sub-category under parent Category:Vessels by MMSI number.

Unfortunately, I was unable to determine when this ferry/passenger boat was built.

As a Ship-by-Name Category (a ship can have more than one name over its useful life under the same universal ID), I created Category:Trei Fre (passenger ferry) as sub-category under parent Category:MMSI 247195700, and placed both of your images in it.

Suggest you delete “Category:IMO 2471957” as I am not sure such an IMO number exists and if so, it is not for this ship. GRDN711 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've nominated the IMO CAT for deletion. Tagooty (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2024-11-28 04 K.J. GARDNER - IMO 9420150 - Ogden Point BC CAN.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. --ArildV 20:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2022-09-04 01 K.J. GARDNER - IMO 9420150 - St. John's NL CAN.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. --JoachimKohler-HB 17:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2022-09-04 02 K.J. GARDNER - IMO 9420150 - St. John's NL CAN.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. --Crisco 1492 00:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2022-09-04 03 K.J. GARDNER - IMO 9420150 - St. John's NL CAN.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. --JoachimKohler-HB 23:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-06 01 BBC NILE - IMO 9571375 – Ogden Point BC Canada 02.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. --Mike1979 Russia 06:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-06 01 BBC NILE - IMO 9571375 – Ogden Point BC Canada 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 unfavorable light, otherwise okay --Carschten 12:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-16 01 CCGS ATLANTIC EAGLE - IMO 9199103 – Port Hardy, BC CAN.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. --ArildV 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-16 02 CCGS ATLANTIC EAGLE - IMO 9199103 – Port Hardy, BC CAN.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. --ArildV 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-25 03 Canadian CCGS ATLANTIC RAVEN - IMO 9187942 – Victoria BC CAN.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. --Crisco 1492 00:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2024-09-11 HAPPINESS BULKER - IMO 9919515 – Port Angeles WA USA.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2024-09-11 HAPPINESS BULKER - IMO 9919515 – Port Angeles WA USA.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 17-04-07 114 Sulphur Springs, Saint Lucia.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. --Crisco 1492 01:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2024 voting is open!

2023 Picture of the Year: Incense plays an important role in Vietnamese life. It is considered as a sacred bridge to connect the visible life of human beings and the world of heaven, earth, and gods. Photo taken in Quang Phu Cau village, on the outskirts of Hanoi, Vietnam. In this picture, incense sticks are being set out to dry, after being dipped in the incense solution.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2024 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the nineteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 27 September 2025, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2023 Picture of the Year contest.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-30 01 Salish Heron - IMO 9905746 – Galiano Island BC CAN.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. --Crisco 1492 02:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-08-30 02 Salish Heron - IMO 9905746 – Galiano Island BC CAN.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. --Crisco 1492 02:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2024-09-11 01 Wide view of Port Angeles, Washington USA.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) 05:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-21 02 OCEAN STEVNS - IMO 9224960 – Ogden Point, BC CAN.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. --Lmbuga 23:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-05-21 01 OCEAN STEVNS - IMO 9224960 – Ogden Point, BC CAN.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. --Lmbuga 22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-02-19 01 USCGC James (WMSL-754) – IMO 4666541 - Golfito, CRI.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 07:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2024 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 favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) 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 three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2024.

Round 2 will end at 11 October 2025, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now! If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
USCGC James (WMSL-754) – IMO 4666541 – port (left) side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-09-26 01 Refrigerated cargo shipl ICE - IMO 8412699 - Bergen, Norway.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 03:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-10-06 02 AMERICAN CONSTELLATION - IMO 9838333 – Port Townsend WA USA.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 01:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-10-06 01 AMERICAN CONSTELLATION - IMO 9838333 – Port Townsend WA USA.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 03:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2016-11-20 01 Mini Crosser X-CAB mobility electric scooter - Norway.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. --Vsatinet 18:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
American Constellation – IMO 9838333 – bow (front) view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 14 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:
American Constellation – IMO 9838333 – port (left) view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2025-04-17 01 Kenmore Air De Havilland Canada DHC-3T Otter N76KA.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. And add location category, please --Mike1979 Russia 06:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the review. --GRDN711 16:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Mini Crosser X-CAB 4-wheel mobility e-scooter with weather cab.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2024-09-11 02 AMERICAN SPIRIT - IMO 9283124 - Port Angeles WA USA.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 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2024-09-11 01 AMERICAN SPIRIT - IMO 9283124 - Port Angeles WA USA.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. --E bailey 01:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
American Spirit – IMO 9283124.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2019-08-13 02 Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima), Reykjavik Iceland.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2019-08-13 02 Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima), Reykjavik Iceland.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2022-10-21 Armée de l'air 6810 (France) plane – Saint-Pierre Airport.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 21:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:2022-08-27 04 Silhouette sculpture of Norsemen above L'Anse aux Meadows, NFL CAN.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2022-08-27 04 Silhouette sculpture of Norsemen above L'Anse aux Meadows, NFL CAN.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Aristeas-test (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Inclusion of artwork location in VI scope

Hi Gordon,

thank you for your message. Are items, artifacts held in museums that are unlikely to have their own article in Wikipediasdue to their low importance or lack of sources about them also worth VI and their scope is valid? I'm not talking about specific examples from Auch, but in general. I have some doubts about this (the items from Auch are unique of course and exceptional), but if we took 100 photos of, for example, pieces of pottery from the 18th century, I don't think that each individual item one would be worth VI despite a separate inventory number, what do you think?

Kind regards Gower (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gower:

Actually, in theory, 100 photos of pieces of pottery from the 18th century may eligible for separate Vis if properly scoped but there is a bar.

Commons:Valued image scope (COM:VIS) on Works of art

“Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way.”

Per COM:VIS The work must have some artistic merit and be suitably identified by title or at least a number. As said previously, current VI scope practice is to include the following, and you can always offer a {{question}} to the nominator if any of these pieces are missing. If unsure, you can also ask them how they know that the work is by the artist they cite, or similar.

Name of the artwork, possibly with date; artist name if known; location of the artwork

Typically, you would not find 18^th century pottery lying around. It is usually in a museum or similar collection, which means it was curated by an art specialist at some point in order to be part of the collection.

A group of artwork images of the same thing (example; fragments of  18^th century urns) an be offered for nomination as a VI set. A nominator an also identify every individual piece, by number if nothing else, and have some way of identifying the source. They must be artwork of merit, not just the leftovers from Aunt Sally’s pottery class.

Although it adds validity to the VI claim, per COM:VIV, artwork images do not have to been previously published in the Wiki family, just have the potential for doing so.

Commons:Valued image value - Does the image/set have to be in use?

“No. It is not required that a VI candidate is in current use in any Wikimedia project. It may have been uploaded only recently and not yet discovered by relevant Wikimedia editors. One of the purposes of the VI project is to make these images stand out as recommended for their useability by the Commons community. Having said that, the current usage of an image or set in Wikimedia project content pages can be indicative of value, especially when it has been added to other Wikimedia projects by independent users. Referring to current usage is also a help for the reviewers when evaluating a VI candidate.”

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@GRDN711 thanks a lot for your expanded explanation. But is this not contradictory to that sentence:"scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository"? Gower (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question.

Name of the artwork, possibly with date; artist name if known; location of the artwork

If you search on name of the artwork or artist name in Commons, the artwork should show up. If there are copies at multiple locations, that would show up as well.

If you are looking for a wider topic, "French art 1600s", then this should be found as one of the categories that the artwork belongs to. All VI noms must be properly categorized.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

QI nomination

As you suggested QI nomination for one of my VI nominations, I am wondering is it required if an image qualifies VI? My number of uploads are quite high as all my good images are uploaded here, QI and FP nominations are very limited. The images I choose of FP and VI, I don't nominate them for QI anymore. Please let me know your views. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tisha:

You asked but there is a caveat - you are getting my personal opinion on this. I am not the definitive last word, just have an opinion based on my experience and observation.

QI VI and FP are three separate ratings with different purposes among the Wiki family.

At Commons:Valued images, there is an explanation of the difference between valued images, quality images, and featured pictures that is worth reading. I also suggest you read and understand the criteria for QI-FP-VI at the main or nomination page for each rating.

Basically when Wikpedia started using images and opened Commons as a media depository, the images flowed in, many of which were not very good or useful for an online encyclopedia and destined to become never-used digital dust in Wikipedia storage.

The QI-VI-FP ratings sytem was developed with the following purpose.

"The quality images project aims to identify and encourage users who provide images of high technical quality to Commons.

Featured pictures are the cream of the crop at Commons and the project is reserved for images of both extraordinary value and technical quality.

Valued images, on the other hand, are those that are the most valuable of their kind for use in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects."

As long as the image shows the subject well and might have some plausible use for the Wiki family of online encyclopedias, you can nominate an image for any or all three of the ratings.

I make all kinds of images but only upload ones that I think have value for the Wiki family. Yes, as they are free to use by anyone anywhere, some may show up in an outside publcation somewhere but I only upload to Commons for intended use within the Wiki family.

Given that I am giving away my images for use wherever, I want them to go as far as possible. To that end, I think it is beneficial for an image to be QI-FP-VI rated for longevity and greatest use within and outside of the Wiki family. That's why I compete in QI-VI-FP. (It is always a good idea to know, at least for yourself, why you compete for these ratings.)

As a general observation, for QI you can nominate as many images as you want (with a limit of 5 per day per QI convention) provided the image is of good technical quality and has some Wiki value. Of all the technical QI requirements, image sharpness is most important (there are many pixel peeper reviewers with good monitors in QI).

Your image does not have to go through QI before being nominated for FP but it is a good idea to do so as the technical expectation for FP is usually pretty high. In addition the image must have some extra sparkle or "wow" that distinguishes it as being the best that Commons has to offer for a gives subject.

VI is a separate rating sytem with a different criteria and does not have the same high technical requirements QI FP but it never hurts to have a QI-rated image to enter for VI.

I will only upload images that I think have merit for use in the Wiki family. If the image has the potential, I nominate first for QI, then for VI if the image subject works for that rating system. I have lots of images with double QI-VI ratings.

When I nominate for FP, it will usually have a QI rating; may have a VI rating and must have some "wow" to it that distinguishes it as being beyond the merely good.

You specialize in birds; I like ships. Here is an example of one of my ship images that made what I call the "trifectda" of all getting all three QI-FP-VI ratings.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have read them. All goes to QI then along with the other. Previously when I started nomination (not so long back) I used to do that only and I will keep doing so. All goes to QI. Thank you for your advise. I will seek them often. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

VI query

Hi, I was wondering, can swimming and walking be a suitable subscope in VI for Brown Crake? Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tisha:

“Swimming” and “walking” are suitable sub-scopes as they are distinguishing behavioral characteristics, but the behaviors should be obvious in the image such as here and here.

In the case of this Brown Crake image, the bird is just meandering looking for possible prey – not exactly a definitive or obvious species behavior.

Within the scope is the claim that your “image is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope you have specified.” That’s why selecting an appropriate VI scope is a challenge.

If we are talking about a VI nomination for this image, how about “Zapornia akool (brown crake) – male, ventral view” –> species + two sub-scopes.

The sexes are similar but this looks like a male to me (please verify). If unsure about the sex, you could go at a slightly higher scope level – say, Zapornia akool (brown crake) – ventral view” - species + one sub-scope.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tisha:

“Swimming” and “walking” are suitable sub-scopes as they are distinguishing behavioral characteristics, but the behaviors should be obvious in the image such as here and here.

[[File:Brown crake bird (2021).jpg|thumb|Brown crake (Zapornia akool) at the town of Bhigwan in the Indian state of Maharashtra]]

In the case of this image, the bird is just meandering looking for possible prey – not exactly a definitive or obvious species behavior.

Within the scope is the claim that you “image is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope you have specified.” That’s why selecting an appropriate VI scope is a challenge.

If we are talking about a VI nomination for this image, how about “Zapornia akool (brown crake) – male, ventral view” – species + two sub-scopes.

The sexes are similar but this looks like a male to me (please verify). If unsure about the sex, you could go at a higher scope level – say, Zapornia akool (brown crake) – ventral view” - species + one sub-scope.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Regarding gender I found this AI response -

'Male and female Brown Crakes (Zapornia akool) look very similar (sexes alike) with no major color differences, but the male is typically slightly larger and heavier than the female, though they share the same olive-brown upperparts, whitish throat, ashy-grey neck/breast, and brown belly/flanks.'

In that case visual identification not possible.

Another question is, as views are not mentioned in the subscope guideline for VI, will it be fair to use 'views' as sub scope? If so I can use them often. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated this for VI. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tisha:

Nice gender response which AI "borrowed" directly from a description at Birds of the World at the Cornell Ornithology Lab...:). The easiest way to tell males from females is if they are together as a pair (males are larger). You can see that at some of the Commons images of Brown Crakes.

While it is not spelled out in the COM:VIS animal-specific VI scope guidelines, it has become a norm at the VI forum that lateral, dorsal and ventral are acceptable sub-scopes for bird or insect species, provided the image clearly shows all of the species well at that view.

The origins come from the VI criteria (3) that the image “must illustrate its subject well” as the species can look significantly different at these three views, in turn characterizing the species, similar to characteristic behaviors in the animal-specific guidelines – “eggs", "juvenile", "hunting", "mating",...

Generally, these three views are regarded as sufficient as view sub-scopes. If you go for a further view that is more inventive, you would have to provide a convincing argument that it is uniquely characteristic of the species.

It is just my opinion but something like “showing chest feathers” goes over the edge, being too narrow and descriptive.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for such detailed explanation. Those three views will be sufficient and very helpful for VI nominations. I hope for lateral aspect - right and left two different subcopes can be used. One more thing is sometimes I find Wikipedia pages are are already loaded with images, in such cases if I don't use the images, will my VI nomination be justified for that image? What I mean is, usage of image mandatory or not for VI nomination? Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tisha:

When it comes to birds, lateral, dorsal and ventral are three views; not four. As a general rule, birds are symmetrical in appearance. They look the same in the image whether they face left or right. I would accept the exception if you can prove that a species has one blue eye and one brown eye characteristic of the species, but until then, just three views.

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Please note that for subjects other than birds, particularly man-made ones like cars or ships that are not usually symmetrical, a lateral view from the right or left could be visually distinct and separate sub-scopes VI claims could be made. GRDN711 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

HI Tisha:

Regarding "Wikipedia pages are are already loaded with images" - well, the problem is not too many birders, but too many birders with good camera systems in their hands who make images of their feathered friends. By my rough count, there are about a dozen active brid photographers like Charles who regularly upload bird images at Commons. Do that for a few years and the number of bird images will add up...

For the bird photographer you may not be familiar with, search Commons on "Uploads by JJ Harrison". He is an Australian photographer who makes images of many topics but focuses mostly on birds. He uploads primarily to Commons and Birds of the World. He never enters any of his images for Commons QI FP or VI ratings. Instead, others do it for him... IMHO, that's sort of cool.

You seem to be looking for the magic path to VI success, and there isn't just one. There is, IMHO, best practices that will likely get you there.

Tell me, - why are VI ratings of your bird images important to you?

Best,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays! * 2026!

	* Happy Holidays! *
	Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Joyeux Noël et bonne année! Frohe Weihnachten und ein glückliches Neues Jahr! Wesołych Świąt i Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku! Щасливого Різдва i з Новим роком! Boldog karácsonyt és boldog új évet! Καλά Χριστούγεννα και καλή χρονιά!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays! * 2026!

	* Happy Holidays! *
	Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Joyeux Noël et bonne année! Frohe Weihnachten und ein glückliches Neues Jahr 2026! Wesołych Świąt i Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku! Щасливого Різдва i з Новим роком! Boldog karácsonyt és boldog új évet! Καλά Χριστούγεννα και καλή χρονιά!

Pierre André ^(talk) 10:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

...and a Happy New Year.

Warm greetings from Italy. Terragio67 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and warm wishes for a joyful, healthy, and peaceful New Year 2026! -- Radomianin (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hurtful commentary in QI review

The commentary you left on my nominated image was hurtful. If you don't believe it merits a quality image, that's okay and I understand, and you raised fair points. But pointing out that I took it on my cell phone and that there are better images of the subject (these are not relevant to the QI criteria) makes it seem like you felt I was wasting everyone's time having contributed the photos at all. Please be more gentle in the future; I am trying to be productive with everyone's time. Aplucas0703 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Russian ship names

Hello! About your suggest to check categorization. Cirillic letters use in Russia. The cirillic letters "PT" are latin letters "RT". So the "PT-423" in russian is "RT-423" in english.Mike1979 Russia (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mike:

Thanks for the clarification of changing Cyrillic characters into the Latin alphabet such that "PT-423" in Russian becomes "RT-423" in English.

A similar issue that I have encountered before is ship names having Norwegian vowels, Æ, Ø, Å, displayed on the stern or bow. An example is the RORO all-electric ferry, SMØLA which becomes SMOLA or SMOELA when the Norwegian vowels are converted to the nearest English equivalent.

I undwerstand your point here but there is a discontinuity between what an observer sees on the bow, and what is displayed on the Commons web page. Perhaps the following note could be inserted in the category description for clarificaiton.

Note: The Russian ship name "PT-423" displayed in Cyrillic characters on the bow or stern, becomes "RT-423" when changed to the Latin alphabet.

Just a thought,

Gordon GRDN711 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)