Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Undo revision 206894361 by Мирослав Видрак (talk)
Line 89: Line 89:
File:Waldemarsudde_February_2016_04.jpg|{{/Promotion|Waldemarsudde, east facade of the main building. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}
File:Waldemarsudde_February_2016_04.jpg|{{/Promotion|Waldemarsudde, east facade of the main building. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}


File:Aschaffenburg,_Stiftsgasse_1-20160911-001.jpg|{{/Promotion|Aschaffenburg, Stiftsgasse 1. By [[User:Tilman2007]] --[[User:Berthold Werner|Berthold Werner]] 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Needs little additional crop at the right and down parts of the image. But only IMO.--[[User:Aeou|Aeou]] 11:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:Мирослав Видрак|Мирослав Видрак]] 17:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}
File:Aschaffenburg,_Stiftsgasse_1-20160911-001.jpg|{{/Promotion|Aschaffenburg, Stiftsgasse 1. By [[User:Tilman2007]] --[[User:Berthold Werner|Berthold Werner]] 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Needs little additional crop at the right and down parts of the image. But only IMO.--[[User:Aeou|Aeou]] 11:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Good quality. --[[User:Мирослав Видрак|Мирослав Видрак]] 17:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}


File:Metro_SPB_Administration_Building.jpg|{{/Promotion|Saint Petersburg Metro Administration Building --[[User:Florstein|Florstein]] 08:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:Basotxerri|Basotxerri]] 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}
File:Metro_SPB_Administration_Building.jpg|{{/Promotion|Saint Petersburg Metro Administration Building --[[User:Florstein|Florstein]] 08:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:Basotxerri|Basotxerri]] 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 17:48, 17 September 2016


Nominations

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 17, 2016

September 16, 2016

September 15, 2016

September 14, 2016

September 13, 2016

September 12, 2016

September 11, 2016

September 10, 2016

September 9, 2016

September 8, 2016

September 7, 2016

September 6, 2016

September 5, 2016

September 2, 2016

September 1, 2016

August 31, 2016

Consensual review

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 Review

File:Reichsgraben_Kellergasse,_Zellerndorf_Niederösterreich-6738.jpg

  • Nomination Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars, Reichsgraben, located in Zellerndorf, Lower Austria. By User:Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 15:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose too dark for me --Pudelek 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Now is ok --Pudelek 10:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Its good practice, not to decline images with such simple problems --Hubertl 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Certainly not too dark now, and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 01:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no doubt about good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --Kroton 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yep, it's ok. W.carter 08:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Pudelek 10:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Ornamental pool in Jameos del Agua.jpg

  • Nomination Exterior lake in Jameos del Agua. Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain. --ElBute 10:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lake? This looks more like a "lake-shaped" pool to me. W.carter 11:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, Insufficient quality. far away from beeing a QI, IMO --Hubertl 11:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC) **  Comment Yes, it's an artificial lake or a pool not intended for bathing
    •  Comment Hubertl Could you please be a bit more specific? What are the so obvious reasons for your rejection? --ElBute 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I appreciate more opinions. --Hubertl 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment - I think the issue for me is one of definition. In English, we would not call this a lake. I would call it a pool, and since it's not intended for swimming, I suppose an "ornamental pool", though that isn't a common term. As for the picture's quality, the focus looks OK to me except for a bit of unsharpness in the upper half of the area near the right margin, but overall, it looks good enough for QI to me. So my advice, for what it's worth, would be: (1) Change the filename from "Lake in Jameos del Agua" to "Pool in Jameos del Agua", and also change the English-language description accordingly Once you do that, for whatever it's worth, I would vote to support this as a QI, although I would like to know whether there's something Hubertl saw that I'm missing. -- Ikan Kekek 00:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment for me this picture lacks on details on the dark parts. --Hubertl 06:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. I was focusing too much on the pool itself, I think.  Oppose per Hubertl. -- Ikan Kekek 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK, at least now I have a reason for rejection. It doesn't help when your picture is rejected with no reason at all. Well, shadows have been lightened up. Now, there is more detail in there. Regarding the description, it has been updated to "ornamental pool". I do my best with the English but I'm not a native speaker, you know. In any case, nothing that could not be fixed. BTW, changing the file name is not something I can do, right? How could I ask for a filename change? Sorry, I'm not very skilled in Commons as well, but I try to learn every day. --ElBute 08:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support File name changed. You click on the "More" tab at the top of the file's page and then on "Move" and request the renaming of the file. Someone with move-rights will do the move for you. In this case I did it for you. I also added a category, Category:Ornamental pools in Spain, the expression is very much in use on Commons at least. With the shadows lifted I think it's ok. W.carter 08:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks W.carter for the explanation and support. --ElBute 09:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - This is now good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Southease_Church,from_the_east.jpg

  • Nomination The Parish Church. By User:Michael Coppins --Lewis Hulbert 21:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 00:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the picture is fine but the description should be a bit more than just three words and a tag. A reader should not have to go back through the categories to find out where the church is located or even which country it's located in. Please fix that and I'll support this for QI. --W.carter 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Nice church, good composition, perhaps a bit too bright. But this should be correctable. -- Spurzem 08:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The thing that brought that pic here was not the quality of the photo, but the documentation on the file's page. It is stated very clearly in the rules for QI that description, categories and file name must be good as well, yet so many users seem to forget this and focus only on the photo itself. Without a good description a file is hard to find and hard to use. W.carter 08:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:16-08-31-Saeima-RR2_3894.jpg

  • Nomination The Saeima, Parliament ofLatvia --Ralf Roletschek 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 23:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, I disagree. Excellent composition, but I find it too unsharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Mausolée_de_C._Marius_Romanus_03.jpg

  • Nomination Marius Romanus Mausoleum in Kairouan --IssamBarhoumi 22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Not a bad photo but it needs a much better description. W.carter 10:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition IMO. Overexposed areas--Lmbuga 21:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment dear W.carter I added some information but there is a lack of historical data It take me a lot of research to find the site and photograph it for wiki loves monuments this is the first free photo for the Mausoleum. dear Lmbuga there i only that building there you can verify by the location I added it in the photo details.--
      •  Comment The description is good enough now, but please remember to sign your comments! I can't se any overexposed areas except for the sun, but that is unavoidable, and the sun is not even posterized, something that I find remarkable. The composition is not poor, but rather bold and striking. Let's discuss this one.--W.carter 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. W.carter 08:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per W.carter. I find it striking and touching, too. IssamBarhoumi, I hope you are not looking directly at the sun while you take pictures! -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Remarkable quality for a shot against the sun. --Palauenc05 09:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Great Sphinx of Giza --Hamerani 09:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment While the photo is sharp and all, you have the same problem that most photographers have when taking pics of the sphinx from this angle: There is a huge pyramid behind it and those are pretty hard to move. Some have opted for cloning it out, but I think it has a good documentary value to keep it in the picture. Only, I think it would be better if you could darken the pyramid just a little bit so that it doesn't blend in as much with the sphinx as it does right now. We need something to separate the two here. Think you can do that? W.carter 21:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The suggested changes are  Not done but are not strictly necessary for promotion IMO. This is a case where the composition could be better, but isn't bad by any means. --King of Hearts 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - W.carter's suggestion is a good one, but that's provided you want to make the picture look different from how it probably looked when you took the photo. I agree that the pyramid blends in with the sphinx somewhat, but the texture is different enough to distinguish them. I think this is good enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:2016R1535_-_Київ.jpg

  • Nomination Собор Софійський, Київ, Володимирська вул., 24 --Мирослав Видрак 07:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsuitable crop, IMO. --Peulle 08:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe a composition choice. Should be discussed IMO.--Jebulon 09:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I find the crop bold and interesting, focusing on the smaller towers instead if the whole building. W.carter 10:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Same as W.carter --Moroder 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine composition. --Palauenc05 09:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Traktormuseum Bodensee - Entrance area.jpg

  • Nomination Part of the entrance area of the Traktormuseum Bodensee --Llez 14:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Upper side seems a bit overexposed IMO--Lmbuga 14:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 14:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Info I tried to improve a bit --Llez 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The upper part is much too bright. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would suggest you simply crop the picture, see note. That would really improve it. W.carter 11:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Crop as suggested, also a bit on the left side because of symmetry --Llez 11:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow! Love what you've done with the place. :) This transformed it from a snapshot to a work of art. cart-Talk 16:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The upper part is cut now. O.K.! Very good done. -- Spurzem 18:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good composition and the focus is quite adequate. -- Ikan Kekek 00:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 09:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Villa_Balbianello_3724_Planar_3.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Balbianello (Lenno) --Hamster28 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Right side of the image is blurred. Sorry, this is not a QI. --Halavar 08:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would give some leeway to a 35 MP image for unsharpness. If downsampled to the 2 MP minimum it's perfectly sharp. --King of Hearts 02:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I could overlook problems with the background, but here there are issues even with the island and statues. The only thing that seems problem free is the actual house. --Peulle 09:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I was ready to support this photo until I saw just how distorted by blurring the right side is. My feeling is, if you're getting that much blurring on the right, crop most of it out. I could see supporting a photo that was cropped just to the right of the church and cliffs. -- Ikan Kekek 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Incredible: 10,096 × 3,511 pixels. With this size is it a bit blurred to be QI?
    If the picture has 2 megapixels, the picture is not blurred. Someone is not thinking, sorry--Lmbuga 01:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Right side must be blurring. In this area there is ((or "are")) nothing in focus--Lmbuga 01:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Very good picture. Very bad specialists IMO, sorry. Too reviewing child IMO--Lmbuga 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question What happened to the third flag pole and the statue on right? They seems tilted/leaning to right. Some unfocused buildings on right too. I've no problem for those unfocused effect though as they are far away. Jkadavoor 03:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The main subject, the island, is in focus. --Palauenc05 09:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Palauenc05 and Lmbuga. --Basotxerri 09:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 12:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Micronia aculeata 8124.jpg

  • Nomination Micronia aculeata --Vengolis 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 09:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with Charlesjsharp.--Peulle 08:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with Charlesjsharp and Peulle. + Unfocussed foreground is disturbing--Lmbuga 21:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Arrival hall, Milano Centrale station, wide view.jpg

  • Nomination Arrivals hall in Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 02:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Bijay chaurasia 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are perspective issues, and overexposed roof. Sorry, I disagree. --A.Savin 07:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise, and lighting issues. --Peulle 08:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Spire of Sint-Bonifatiuskerk, Leeuwarden 1643.jpg

  • Nomination The spire of Sint-Bonifatiuskerk, Leeuwarden. --C messier 11:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Something wrong with focus, does not appear like QI for me --A.Savin 10:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Focus wasn't spot on, but still it was good enough. ✓ New version with some changes, please discuss. --C messier 13:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I made sure that I was looking at both versions and even cleared my cache to make doubly sure. Even in the new version, nothing is crisp sharp, and the top of the spire is quite fuzzy. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem like a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think sharpness is good enough for QI --Imehling 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Unsharp, but QI if you resize the picture at 2 megapixels--Lmbuga 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - Is there an unofficial QIC policy that all images larger than 2 MP should be reduced to 2 MP before the sharpness is judged, or is that only your method for judging whether the focus is sufficient for you? I'm confused by your argument, because Commons:Image guidelines specifically says: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file." And in the section covering focus and depth of field, no comments are made about going easier on larger files or judging downsampled 2-MP versions of them instead of the files themselves. I would agree that a really tiny area of unsharpness in an otherwise crisp 40 MP image shouldn't be a bar to QI - nor in most cases to FP - but I could use a little help (rather than invective or generalized complaining) in understanding the unofficial standards that are used at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 10:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the quality should be evaluated based merely on the uploaded size. Anything else is too complicated anyway and a bias towards high-resolution cameras (a 50 mpix picture downsampled to 2 mpix is of course nearly always "sharp", but not necessarily a technically good shot; QIC should be about a good focus, exposure, and postprocess; not about certain cameras). --A.Savin 20:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't completely agree with A.Savin here. The guidelines say that an image should not be downsampled in order to appear of better quality. Therefore, if camera can shoot 24 MP, one should not reduce this to 3 MP in order to make it look sharper. If that has been done, it's a disqualifier in itself. As technology developes, the standards also change; an image that was considered QI 8 years ago might not be considered good enough if uploaded today.--Peulle 21:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Possibly you misunderstood? I didn't say that downsampling is in itself a reason to decline; some downsampling is OK for me if necessary (sometimes it is); what I mean is that an image uploaded at 24 mpix should be judged based on what you see at 100% of a 24 mpix image, and not on what you see when downsampled to 2 (or 4, or 11, ...) mpix. With other words, when you shoot an unsharp 24 mpix photo, you may upload it downsampled to 2 mpix and then nominate on QIC if you think that it looks sharp enough then; but you may not nominate the full 24 mpix version and claim on QIC "well, just look at it in downsampled preview". At least with me, this wouldn't work. Lmbuga and others may think different, we have no such policy afaik. --A.Savin 23:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this. Much appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek 00:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the rules open up for downsampling if neccessary, but not if the objective is to make an unsharp image appear sharp.--Peulle 15:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The argument on how to review is a bit complicated. We can't encourage excessive downsampling as our minimum threshold is only 2MP. At the same time a very large file sharp only in 2/3 MP is also not acceptable. So I prefer a middle ground. For larger files above 6MP (excluding stitched panoramas), if they are not sharp enough in their full resolution, I will check them again in a reasonable resolution. Here this is first uploaded in almost camera's maximum resolution; most APC/MFTs are not that much good enough. It's acceptable for me in this size. Jkadavoor 13:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jkadavoor 13:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Evening light into Kobbskaret in Sørfold.jpg

  • Nomination Evening light into Kobbskaret in Sørfold, Norway --Frankemann 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)--
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Halavar 20:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I disagree. Beautiful photo, but there are large posterized bright areas in the sky. Ikan Kekek 05:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I would appreciate another opinion. Should this be considered a QI because of its excellence aside from the posterized areas, or should the technical problem rule that out? -- Ikan Kekek 04:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the problems are not serious enough to decline. --Palauenc05 09:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - If no-one disagrees, I'm content to declare this a QI. I'll check back tomorrow and see if there are any more comments. If not, I will drop my initial opposition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)