Commons:Quality images candidates

Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
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.

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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).


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 July 2016 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


NominationsEdit

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]] 12:02, 25 July 2016 (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.


July 25, 2016Edit

July 24, 2016Edit

July 23, 2016Edit

July 22, 2016Edit

July 21, 2016Edit

July 20, 2016Edit

July 19, 2016Edit

July 18, 2016Edit

July 17, 2016Edit

July 16, 2016Edit

July 15, 2016Edit

July 14, 2016Edit

July 13, 2016Edit

July 9, 2016Edit

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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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:16-03-30-Jerusalem_Mishkenot_Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpgEdit

16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg

  • Nomination Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Hubertl 11:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a large dust spot in sky, correctable --Llez 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC) there are some other dust spots too, see notes. --Hubertl 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpgEdit

BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Front view of Nuestra Señora de Luján Basílica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Stitching error left side, retouching leftover at the lamp right side, too magentaish, too dark. --Cccefalon 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done redone --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. -- Smial 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:VirgenMaria-SanJose-NiñoJesús-BasilicaLujan.jpgEdit

VirgenMaria-SanJose-NiñoJesús-BasilicaLujan.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Mary, Saint Joseph and Jesus in Nuestra Señora de Luján Basilica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Unfortunate crop of a part of the statue (the accessoire in Joseph's hand) --Cccefalon 06:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks, --Cccefalon 07:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good now. W.carter 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Heißluftballons_über_Ellmau,_Tirol,_160625,_ako.jpgEdit

Heißluftballons über Ellmau, Tirol, 160625, ako.jpg

  • Nomination Two blue hot air balloons above the town of Ellmau, Tyrol, Austria. --Code 06:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hm... ballons just a small part of the image, and therefore they are to noisy IMHO --Carschten 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We've already promoted much noisier pictures.And it has always been good practice here not to decline immediately but to give the creator the opportunity to fix the issue! --Code 21:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't think too much about other images; there is very little consistency in QI judging as images are subjectively judged by different people. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the baloons look sharp enough at 100% although the image could be zoomed in further. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, Peulle, but anyways I thought it would be obvious that the composition is intentional. Two balloons lost in a lot of empty sky. One bigger than the other. Do I really have to explain my pictures to get them promoted? By the way: This isn't FPC. --Code 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me - as explained ;-) --Hubertl 10:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lindenallee in der Blüte.jpgEdit

Lindenallee in der Blüte.jpg

  • Nomination Tilia avenues avenue, Natural monument in Hesse --Verum 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s tilted ccw. --Hubertl 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for review. New version. --Verum 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lots of spots and dirt in the sky, not really sharp (crisp) --Carschten 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Dirtsc 13:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version, see history. Gruss --Nightflyer 21:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You have not only removed dust spots but also changed contrast settings and white balance. This affects also noise. The unsharpness seems to be (partly) a result of Sony's noise reduction techniques or noise reduction by adobe(tm). I'd suggest a clean new development from RAW (if available) with less noise reduction. As I recently have seen this blurring noise reduction often coming from Sony SLT: Sony photographers: please lower the settings of noise reduction, if possible, photograph RAW, if possible. --Smial 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm looking at the latest version and the trees are all unsharp. --Peulle 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

file:Ανεμόμυλοι, Χώρα Σερίφου 9735.jpgEdit

Ανεμόμυλοι, Χώρα Σερίφου 9735.jpg

  • Nomination Windmills in Chora of Serifos. --C messier 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit on the bright side, especially the light blue door is missing it's details. Very fixable. W.carter 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, nothing was clipped and then remapped (please check histogram). --C messier 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, technically and according to histograms there is nothing wrong with the pic, but a pic is also what is esthetically pleasing to the eye, and in this case I think some more details would be better. W.carter 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The light from this angle is a bit flat, and this why there aren't so many details. --C messier 13:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's better to get some more input on this since we see things so differently. W.carter 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.k. for me --Ermell 07:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft -- Smial 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9658.jpgEdit

Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9658.jpg

  • Nomination Windmill in Serifos. --C messier 10:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The windows and the small bush to the left of the building are a bit too dark to see any details. It is also very hard to see the difference between the wall and the house. Do you think you could do something about this? W.carter 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, there is visible detail in the shadows (and histogram confirms that the nunmber of very dark pixels is negligible).--C messier 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Again, technically and according to histograms there is nothing wrong with the pic, but a pic is also what is esthetically pleasing to the eye, and in this case I think some more details would be better. Do you want to take these to QIC or just wait for another reviewer since we disagree? W.carter 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A photo with less contrast wan't be more aesthetically pleasing. --C messier 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's better to get some more input on this since we see things so differently. W.carter 19:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks a bit as if you got the maximum from a kit lens, but the picture is QI for me.--Ermell 07:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft -- Smial 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpgEdit

Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016_Parade-032.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016 Parade-032.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Headgear of a participant of Cologne Pride Parade 2016 --Cccefalon 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The head gear is sharp enough but it is so dominating that it should be centered in the pic, perhaps a crop? The white downy fluff needs a bit more structure and the rater white/light sky and flags behind it could use a little boost. There is some slight CA on the small building top right. Do you think you could fix this? --W.carter 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop --Atamari 18:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks pretty much as a huffy reaction on the QIC Abuse thread. However, it is also bad behaviour to override a review comment with an oppose without giving the opportunity to look into the alleged issue. --Cccefalon 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nein, keine Rache-Aktion (das mag ich nicht), ich schaute aber bei dem "First class premium-Revier" wie seine Bilder aussehen. Dieses ist für deine Verhältnisse nur ein mittelmäßiges Bild - das kannst du besser. Das Bild ist zwar scharf im Bereich der linken Schulter aber der Ausschnitt überzeugt (mir) nicht. Links ist das Objekt, der Kopfschmuck, das wohl der Fokus des Bildes darstellen soll, zu sehr am Rand gedrängt. Vielleicht es ging wohl nicht besser. Und oben setzt sich auch der Kopfschmuck auch nicht schön von der Flagge ab. Nach unten ist der Kopfschmuck auch unglücklich beschnitten, auch ragt dort unten rechts ein halber Kopf hinein. Wenn du doch schönere Bilder machen kannst - warum dieses Bild? Was hat bei deiner Wahl hier gestört? Ging es dir hier um +1 auf des QI-Konto? ;-) --Atamari (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Dear, it is not that I am short of images for nomination, I have around 50.000 unprocessed here and if you observe my upload list, you easily see that I am far from putting every photo to my nomination list. It is a petty demand, to ask the same quality for street photography than for studiophotography or architecture/landscape photography. What the fuck - after having nominated some superior photos, you think I cannot achieve promotion for a photo of normal quality? This photo is good as it is. It is taken with the best camera settings you can obtain for a close-up for moving objects in a crowd. --Cccefalon 08:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right part of the head gear is out of focus, and the white parts of it blends with the background. --Peulle 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can´t see, how to make it better. A smaller crop maybe? The back of the head and the main part of the head figure - which is in fact the main subject, is perfectly sharp. --Hubertl 04:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cropped a bit tight but QI for me.--Ermell 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Hubertl --Verum 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)~
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 01:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dzembronia_26-110-5020_DSC_2285.jpgEdit

Dzembronia 26-110-5020 DSC 2285.jpg

  • Nomination Dzembronia mountain, Carpathian National Park. By User:Haidamac --Ата 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Too small resolution for such kind of motif and a 24 MPix camera --Cccefalon 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support resolution as others QI --Grtek 11:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's this "easy to take" thing. Some downscaling is absolutely ok, not every photographer has high end lenses and images taken with usual kit lenses look mostly much better if downscaled for some amount. With my old *istDs, a 6 MPix-CCD camera I often used about (linear) 80%. For reasons. But this image has been taken with a rather modern camera and not the worst lens, so I cannot accept a (linear) downscaling to less than 55% resp. less than 30% in pixel count. --Smial 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I too think that such a motíf should have a higher resolution, but it's not strictly required in the rules. I'm more concerned with the fact that there is some kind of camera shake or something in the lower section (see note).--Peulle 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment seems to me as moving cow... --Grtek 20:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support due to fine composition, despite small resolution. --Palauenc05 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Verticals are leaning in --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sun 17 Jul → Mon 25 Jul
Mon 18 Jul → Tue 26 Jul
Tue 19 Jul → Wed 27 Jul
Wed 20 Jul → Thu 28 Jul
Thu 21 Jul → Fri 29 Jul
Fri 22 Jul → Sat 30 Jul
Sat 23 Jul → Sun 31 Jul
Sun 24 Jul → Mon 01 Aug
Mon 25 Jul → Tue 02 Aug