Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 41% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Przejdź do nominacji
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

Na tej stronie znajdują się kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości. Proszę nie mylić grafik wysokiej jakości z grafikami na medal. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Cel

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.

Wytyczne

Wszystkie nominowane zdjęcia muszą być stworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons.

Dla nominujących

Poniżej znajdują się ogólne wytyczne dotyczące jakości zdjęcia, bardziej szczegółowe kryteria dostępny w linku Image guidelines (en).


Wymagania co do strony
  1. Prawa autorskie. Grafika wysokiej jakości musi być przesłana do Commons pod właściwą licencją. Pełne wymagania co do licencji dostępne są na stronie oznaczenia licencji.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Grafika wysokiej jakości powinna mieć wyrazistą nazwę, być odpowiednio skategoryzowana oraz mieć na stronie pliku opis w jednym lub więcej językach. Mile widziany, ale nie obowiązkowy, jest opis w języku angielskim.
  4. Grafika nie może zawierać reklam ani podpisów autora. Informacja o prawach autorskich i twórcy zawiera się na stronie opisu grafiki. Może także znaleźć się w metadanych pliku. Nie powinna jednak zawierać się w treści grafiki.


Twórca

Zdjęcia muszą być utworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons. Oznacza, to że zdjęcia z serwisów takich jak Flickr nie będą mogły uzyskać statusu grafiki wysokiej jakości (w przypadku grafik na medal nie ma takiego ograniczenia). 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.

Wymagania techniczne

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Rozdzielczość

Obrazy rastrowe (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) muszą mieć rozdzielczość przynajmniej 2 Mpx. Oceniający mogą zwrócić się do autora o plik w większej rozdzielczości, jeśli obiekt na zdjęciu może być względnie łatwo sfotografowany ponownie. Wymóg ten wynika z tego, że grafiki z Commons mogą być drukowane, oglądanie na monitorach o wysokiej rozdzielczości lub wykorzystywane w inny sposób.


Wysoka jakość

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.


Kompozycja i oświetlenie

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.


Wartość

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


Jak nominować

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardzo krótki opis  --~~~~ |}}

Opis powinien być nie dłuższy niż kilka słów. Prosimy pozostawić pustą linię pomiędzy twoją a poprzednią nominacją.

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]]) --~~~~ |}}

Informacja: istnieje gadżet, QInominator, ułatwiający nominowanie grafik. 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.


Liczba nominacji

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


Ocenianie grafik

Każdy zarejestrowany użytkownik może recenzować grafiki
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


Jak oceniać?

Jak zaktualizować 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 promotion

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.


Jak wykonać decyzję

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


Nieocenione zdjęcia (nominacja zakreślona na niebiesko)

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 June 27 2017 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process

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 review

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.


Zasady dyskusji

Zobacz Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Odśwież stronę: purge this page's cache


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]] 14:15, 27 czerwiec 2017 (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.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

June 27, 2017

June 26, 2017

June 25, 2017

June 24, 2017

June 23, 2017

June 22 , 2017

June 21, 2017

--Cayambe 06:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20, 2017

June 19, 2017

June 18, 2017

June 17, 2017

June 16, 2017

June 15, 2017

June 13, 2017

June 12, 2017

June 11, 2017

June 7, 2017

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 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 Review

File:Mosaic_of_Theodora_-_Basilica_San_Vitale_(Ravenna,_Italy).jpg

Mosaic of Theodora - Basilica San Vitale (Ravenna, Italy).jpg

  • Nomination Mosaic of Theodora - Basilica of San Vitale (built A.D. 547), Italy. UNESCO World Heritage site. --PetarM 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but IMO the bottom crop is too tight, cutting away parts of the fountain column. --Peulle 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry,for me is fine. Discuss please --Livioandronico2013 22:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, for me is fine too. --Manfred Kuzel 09:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for info, my oppose is based on seeing that the other images contain more, so this image doesn't show the whole mosaic.--Peulle 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 09:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Muscari_armeniacum20170624_8090fruits.jpg

Muscari armeniacum20170624 8090fruits.jpg

  • Nomination Fruits of Muscari armeniacum. --Bff 12:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below minimum size.New file uploaded.--Ermell 21:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC) --Ermell 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, the photo is more than 10 Mpix (not MB) large and sharp at its subject (although I find the unsharp stems a bit disturbing) --C messier 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per C messier, quud quality.--Manfred Kuzel 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 09:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Μονή Βιδιανής 3206.jpg

Μονή Βιδιανής 3206.jpg

  • Nomination Vidiani monastery, Crete. --C messier 11:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The areas in shadows are too big and aren't sharp, sorry --Ezarate 22:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree about the unsharpness and the shadows are unavoidable for a building surrounded by big trees. More opinions please. --C messier 12:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Oceana_Pond_3_LR.jpg

Oceana Pond 3 LR.jpg

  • Nomination Oceana Pond --PumpkinSky 20:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose all is very unsharp, sorry --Ezarate 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is ok. --Tsungam 11:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think enough of the photo is sharp for QI. PumpkinSky, is the color true? -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    *@Ikan Kekek: I won't be able to get to my computer with Lightroom for several hours to double check everything, but things I recall for certain are that I didn't change the hue settings, did not use split tones, and the lens had a circular polarizing filter on it--which is why we can see through the water in the foreground. I can check other settings later today. PumpkinSky 10:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Hue, saturation, and luminance were not changed in Basic or HSL or Color panel. The only color change was in Effects under Blue where I gave it a minor Blue saturation setting of +10. This is the only color change. I just uploaded a version where I added a minor Vignette setting of -4; IMHO it's better. Let me know what you think. PumpkinSky 19:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek 01:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cvmontuy 17:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough for QI. The colors and the deep insight into the pond are exactly what you get with such a filter and why you use it. --W.carter 10:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 10:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Sulawesi_chestnut_munia_trsr_DSCN0991.JPG

Sulawesi chestnut munia trsr DSCN0991.JPG

  • Nomination Chestnut munia in a corn field near Nantu Nature Reserve, Sulawesi --Shankar Raman 03:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but IMO it is not sharp enough. --XRay 12:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Plumage not sharp enough, even at 50% reduction. --Alandmanson 14:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Peulle 16:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

File:Sulawesi_sunbird_trsr_DSCN0846_v1.JPG

Sulawesi sunbird trsr DSCN0846 v1.JPG

  • Nomination Female olive-backed sunbird in Tangkoko Nature Reserve, Sulawesi --Shankar Raman 03:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp enough and details missing. --XRay 05:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek 08:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough; background is also too busy --Alandmanson 14:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per XRay.--Peulle 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 08:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-1.jpg

Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-1.jpg

  • Nomination Årnäsuddens naturreservat. By User:Björn Sehlin --Josve05a 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quallity. PumpkinSky 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems to be heavily downscaled. --Berthold Werner 08:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Björn Sehlin, could you please upload the original (not downsampled) version of this photo? / Hej Björn, kan du vara snälla och ladda upp en version som inte är förminskad över det här fotot. För att bilden ska bli godkänd som en QI så ska den vara i sitt originalformat för att all information i filen ska finnas tillgänglig. --W.carter 08:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 06:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-2.jpg

Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-2.jpg

  • Nomination Årnäsuddens naturreservat. By User:Björn Sehlin --Josve05a 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems to be heavily downscaled. --Berthold Werner 08:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Björn Sehlin, could you please upload the original (not downsampled) version of this photo? / Hej Björn, kan du vara snälla och ladda upp en version som inte är förminskad över det här fotot. För att bilden ska bli godkänd som en QI så ska den vara i sitt originalformat för att all information i filen ska finnas tillgänglig. --W.carter 08:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 06:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-3.jpg

Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-3.jpg

  • Nomination Årnäsuddens naturreservat. By User:Björn Sehlin --Josve05a 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quallity. PumpkinSky 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems to be heavily downscaled. --Berthold Werner 08:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Björn Sehlin, could you please upload the original (not downsampled) version of this photo? / Hej Björn, kan du vara snälla och ladda upp en version som inte är förminskad över det här fotot. För att bilden ska bli godkänd som en QI så ska den vara i sitt originalformat för att all information i filen ska finnas tillgänglig. --W.carter 08:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Proper COM:Categories needed --A.Savin 13:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 06:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Rainbow_trout,_Sikkim_AJTJ_DSCN6530.jpg

Rainbow trout, Sikkim AJTJ DSCN6530.jpg

  • Nomination Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss from Sikkim. By User:Ajtjohnsingh --PJeganathan 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Disgusting, bad composition, no QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ermell, good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem --Milseburg 09:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --A.Savin 13:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem --MirandaAdramin 21:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Seems OK to me. Disgusting how? -- Ikan Kekek 09:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, "distgusting" is not the point here for me, but the comosition don´t make a QI. The cut person does not give a good background. --Milseburg 11:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Why not? The person is holding the fish. You think it would be better to show the person's head? I think that would draw attention away from the fish. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway persons are a problematic background for fish-motifs, I think. --Milseburg 12:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me - Vengolis 14:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oppose on grounds of composition. Just for the record, I feel using words like "disgusting" in an image review is highly inappropriate. PumpkinSky 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking in detail. If the composition should have been accepted, everything else would have had to be perfect and it's not.--Peulle 16:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, nice catch but the picture is not QI to me --Cvmontuy 17:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just wanted to thank everyone for your reviews on this image. Don't really care whether this image selected for QI or not, but would appreciate if words such as "disgusting" are not used here in this forum. Thanks Ikan Kekek and PumpkinSky for pointing this out.--PJeganathan 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 09:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:CintaaisladoraTacsanegra.jpg

CintaaisladoraTacsanegra.jpg

  • Nomination Black electrical tape brand Tacsa professional line --Ezarate 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose some parts are too dark and it has a bit of noise, sorry --Cvmontuy 22:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info ok, I reprocessed the image Ezarate 22:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not getting smart whats wrong with it. But its quallity is way off --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Honestly, I expect better photos from Ezarate; a quality photographer like you should not have nominated this. There are many issues: Noise, too shallow DoF for a studio shot, lots of chroma noise ... the chromatic aberrations haven't even been removed.--Peulle 16:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

Pn 19 cze → Wt 27 cze
Wt 20 cze → Śr 28 cze
Śr 21 cze → Cz 29 cze
Cz 22 cze → Pt 30 cze
Pt 23 cze → So 01 lip
So 24 cze → N 02 lip
N 25 cze → Pn 03 lip
Pn 26 cze → Wt 04 lip
Wt 27 cze → Śr 05 lip