Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates


Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

PurposeEdit

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

GuidelinesEdit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


Image page requirementsEdit
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


CreatorEdit

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


ResolutionEdit

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image qualityEdit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lightingEdit

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


ValueEdit

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominateEdit

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to reviewEdit

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotionEdit

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decisionEdit

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)Edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 12 2018 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review processEdit

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual reviewEdit

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

--Cayambe (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)=Nominations=


Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

add nomination below this line, inside the gallery tags, in the following form — new nominations

December 12, 2018Edit

December 11, 2018Edit

December 10, 2018Edit

December 9, 2018Edit

December 8, 2018Edit

December 7, 2018Edit

December 6, 2018Edit

December 5, 2018Edit

December 4, 2018Edit

December 3, 2018Edit

December 2, 2018Edit

November 30, 2018Edit

November 29, 2018Edit

November 28, 2018Edit

November 27, 2018Edit

November 20, 2018Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add   Oppose and   Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Klagenfurt_Villacher_Vorstadt_Lendhafen_Elisabeth_Brücke_Pfeiler_03122018_5536.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Elisabeth Bridge at the Lend port (Lendhafen) in the borough Villacher Vorstadt, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 03:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   OpposeToo much noise under the bridge. --Ermell 07:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done @Ermell: You saw what I overlooked. I reduced the noise under the bridge as good as possible. --Johann Jaritz 03:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      Support - I'm not sure where the greatest degree of focus is, but I think the photo is sharp enough, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Ermell 08:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:1_hallstatt_austria.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Hallstatt austria unescoI. By User:Chensiyuan --Seven Pandas 02:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, CAs --Uoaei1 06:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 08:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Cheverny_15.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Castle of Cheverny, Loir-et-Cher, France. --Tournasol7 00:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeDefinite barrel distortion. --Peulle 11:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentI disagree. This is 2 images marged into one. Please discuss. --Tournasol7 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - From other photos, it's apparent that the chateau doesn't curve, as shown in this photo, so you have to clearly describe the distortion - what caused it and why you kept it - in order to pass QIC. Your catchall disclaimer isn't sufficient. I'm willing to vote for the photo with a clear disclaimer, but others might not. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:BMW_X3_xDrive_30i_IMG_0746.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination BMW X3 blau, Heckseitenansicht; gutes Licht (by Alexander Migl--Wikisympathisant 11:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeSome CA at the curb and the license plate --MB-one 12:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too blurry --EurovisionNim 07:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @EurovisionNim: Sorry, checked picture magnified. We can't talk about blurry general, please explain like MB-one f. example, or do you talk about the same issue, same details? Discuss --Wikisympathisant 19:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell 08:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:An_assisted_para_glider_about_to_land_in_Resithang_ground,_Sikkim.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination An assisted para glider about to land in Resithang ground, Sikkim--Subhrajyoti07 16:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Posterization on the parachute --Daniel Case 04:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment -   Done. Pl check - Subhrajyoti07 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think   Oppose but I'm not quite sure, so I'd like to bring this up for further discussion. My issue is the blur; the image was shot at 1/60 and I don't understand why. Would it not have been sharper with a faster shutter speed?--Peulle 11:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 09:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ikan Kekek 09:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Gerhard_Spitzer_(MA_der_Volkshilfe_Wien)_HaJN_4822.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Gerhard Spitzer (MA der Volkshilfe Wien) HaJN 4822.jpg --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Cayambe 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The categorization must be better --Ermell 22:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Ermellː I just want to know, why category is an technical argument(Quality) of pictures, and why You start a discussion and not leave just a comment? (adding a helpfully cat, should be the goal I not expect). This is not a car, and there are many faults in types, too. I added "Volkshilfe.at" but wait for my sepcial friend to raise an admonitory finger, again. I was blocked three times for this nasty game and now we playing again this Tags-Game.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can answer some of this. 1) The Guidelines include the following text in the image page requirements: "Images should have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." The reason for this is that QIC is not just a place to judge the quality of the image, but also their usefulness to the Commons project. Images without categories are less useful because they are difficult to find. 2) If you're wondering why this image is here in CR, it's done according to procedure. If an image has received a support vote, and another reviewer spots a problem, we don't simply make a comment and hope for an issue to be fixed, since the image will be promoted by the bot automatically if the creator/nominator does not act on the comment. The correct procedure is therefore to oppose and send the image to CR, where the oppose can be removed later when the problem has been rectified. Hope this helps you out. --Peulle 10:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have read all of this GTC´s ("AGB´s") before, but looks like some here construct interpretions in female meaning of a full moon. I normally never give pictures a title like "Volkshilfe_Wien"ǃ ̽sic Again, where is a constructive "together" work in a positive way? The starting cat was and is enough (see others, like poco) and I´m one of these guys improve own work. A lot of them issues still not possible any more. And nobody protects fotographers from subversive admins. btw a lot of car´s sorted wrong (example was Mustang (1968?) and the old Volvo) Anyway, that´s imho not a qualitive argument --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 15:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, and unless I'm missing something, categories seem OK now. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Ikan Kekek 09:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:20180929_UCI_Road_World_Championships_Innsbruck_Women_Elite_Road_Race_Omer_Shapira_850_7606.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 2018 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck/Tirol Women Elite Road Race. Picture shows: Omer Shapira of Israel --Granada 11:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Isiwal 13:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The strong tilt plays against the normal inclination --Basile Morin 13:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The orange cyclist is completely blurry. Also tilt compromises the overall image :) ---EurovisionNim 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't mind the tilt here, but the right rider being so out of focus really is a distraction, given that she is so clearly a part of the composition.--Peulle 08:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I can accept depth of field as a way of design. Perhaps the blur could have been a little stronger. --Smial 09:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  Comment The goal was to capture the motion in the turning weels, so I've set the shutter speed to 1/250s thus had to close the aperture. --Granada 10:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Sometimes there is too much light ;-) --Smial 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Hans-Jürgen Neubert 03:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:12437_SC-NZM_Rajdhani_07-11-2018.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 12437 SC - NZM Rajdhani Express hauled by a WAP7 of LGD near Kazipet Junction --Nikhil B 02:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry but I think that the quality is quite poor, it's only 3 megapixels and not sharp even though downsized like that even though do --Podzemnik 08:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Podzemnik the picture is not downsized, but heavily cropped to get the composition right--Nikhil B 15:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikhil B Thank you for the explanation. However, I don't think that the right way to take these type of pictures is to take a shot on 98 mm focal length with 200mm lens and then to crop it so much. Let's see what other people think. --Podzemnik 17:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality,--Fischer.H 17:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough considering the size.--Peulle 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 23:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:12625_Kerala_Express_25112018_2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 12625 TVC - NDLS Kerala Express with LHB coaches powered by RPM WAP-7 near Warangal --Nikhil B 02:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Heavily downsized, noisy --Podzemnik 08:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Podzemnik the picture is not downsized, but heavily cropped to get the composition right--Nikhil B 15:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality,--Fischer.H 17:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough considering the size.--Peulle 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:12625_Kerala_Express_25112018.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination TVC - NDLS Kerala Express near Warangal --Nikhil B 02:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 03:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. We're getting here under 10 % off camera's megapixels --Podzemnik 08:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Podzemnik the picture is not downsized, but heavily cropped to get the composition right--Nikhil B 15:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality,--Fischer.H 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can accept that the image has been cropped rather than downsized, but the quality is still shy of QI considering the size.--Peulle 10:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 23:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:South-West_from_Waterloo_Bridge_at_Night.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Long exposure panorama of the view South-West from Waterloo Bridge at Night.--Prosthetic Head 21:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Parts have a sligt tilt to the left I think. The very right part isn´t QI. I propose to cut it out. The motion blur of the ships isn´t ideal. --Milseburg 09:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Sandhoehe_10.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Hamburg-Finkenwerder, Sandhoehe 10, residential building --KaiBorgeest 21:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Quite good and interesting in comparison with 2012. But the half garbage bins in the front are distracting. Is that there normal place? Was there no way to take this shot differently?--Milseburg 13:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
They disturbed me too, but there was no place to roll them decently away. And there has been some traffic, so putting them in the middle of the small road has not been an option. Since there are bins with different colour markings, which are probably emptied in different days, this seems to be their regular place.--KaiBorgeest 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can not make friends with the garbage cans. But it is not a clear case. So I send it in CR.--Milseburg 10:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quality is IMO acceptable, and I really don't think that aesthetic objections to having garbage cans in the picture are relevant. I mean, OK, if they distract you from the main subject (the 2 houses) so much, but they don't distract me much at all but are simply part of a residential scene that I accept with no problem. -- Ikan Kekek 23:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      Support, bins aren't a really big deal. Its a house really? Why should that play a factor in the quality. Nice shot !! --EurovisionNim 05:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Ikan. Two steps to the left and a bit shorter focal length would have been better... --Smial 10:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --EurovisionNim 13:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

File:Teatro_marmoreo_fontana_Filippo_V_lato_dettaglio_Palermo.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The Teatro marmoreo fountain in Palermo. --Moroder 12:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too many unsharp areas, and sky has a little noise --Daniel Case 04:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 06:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very large file (I actually had trouble opening it earlier), and quite good enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 04:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schadeǃ Wunderschöne Farben, das müssten andere erst mal hinbekommen. Der Ausschnitt ist ein Teil der größeren Ansicht, manche Kommentare erschliessen sich mir nicht.Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose der oberere Teil des Bildes nicht vorhanden,--Fischer.H 18:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Fischer.H. Why landscape orientation? --Smial 10:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose top is too tightly cropped --EurovisionNim 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a detail as explained --Moroder 21:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case.--Peulle 10:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   ----EurovisionNim 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Tue 04 Dec → Wed 12 Dec
Wed 05 Dec → Thu 13 Dec
Thu 06 Dec → Fri 14 Dec
Fri 07 Dec → Sat 15 Dec
Sat 08 Dec → Sun 16 Dec
Sun 09 Dec → Mon 17 Dec
Mon 10 Dec → Tue 18 Dec
Tue 11 Dec → Wed 19 Dec
Wed 12 Dec → Thu 20 Dec