Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FPC Bot not working (again)[edit]

Hi, It seems the bot didn't tag some candidates as it should have been. It run at 15:02, 5 April 2019, while there are 2 candidates which should have been closed as for the 5-day rule. Any idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any fault with the bot on this run. The bot ran at 15:02, and File:Common blackbird (Turdus merula mauretanicus) female.jpg will hopefully pass at 17:20 and File:SES-10 Launch - world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket (33361035200).jpg will be up for 5th day closing at 21:53 today. They are not at the full 5 days yet. We'll see if the bot picks up the first one on the next run at 21:00 and the other at 05:00 tomorrow. Or were you thinking of some other noms? --Cart (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, may be I am confusing the calculation... Yann (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to Yann[edit]

I would like to apologize for adding an alternative nomination without having consulted to the nominator. I thought that I could create alternative versions when the author was a photographer not belonging to the community of wikimedia commons. Thanks Yann for rollback me. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures[edit]

I think the section Sculptures of the FP category Commons:Featured pictures/Objects is extensive enough to propose a fission between them, but I do not know how to do it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the section is getting a bit big. Are you suggesting that the section is divided in two or that the sculptures should have a page/category of their own? Like it is done with 'Vehicles" and 'Plants'? I think Christian Ferrer might fix this, if we ask nicely. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour, je suis aussi d’avis que ça mĂ©rite une modification. On a le mĂȘme problĂšme avec Gallery of Non-photographic media. Je me dis qu’on pourrait avoir une nouvelle section « Art Â» (mĂȘme niveau que objet) et dedans des rubriques – Sculpture – Peinture – Dessin – Musique et thĂ©Ăątre. Je suis prĂȘt a vous aider si nĂ©cessaire --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oui, cette page, Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media, devient trĂšs longue. S. DÉNIEL, vous avez fait du trĂšs bon travail pour l’organiser jusqu’à prĂ©sent. Christian fait du bon travail en crĂ©ant les nouvelles pages des catĂ©gories de FP et vous parlez français les deux. Si cela ne vous pose pas trop de problĂšmes, puis-je vous demander si vous souhaitez discuter de ce qui peut ĂȘtre fait Ă  ce sujet? Je suis convaincu que vous pouvez trouver une bonne solution. --Cart (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok it's done, see Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures, I moved "Monuments and memorials" to that gallery too, as I think it's relative. Feel free to sort the images in the sections of your(s) choice(s) or /and to replace the section ""Monuments and memorials" to the former gallery. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I have done some basic sorting of the page. Good choice to add the monuments to that page too since many of the works in it can be sorted as sculptures too. I moved "Fountrains" to the new page too, since they often are a mix of sculptures and water. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
With pleasure, thanks you too for your help. There is maybe other galleries that can be created, I remember that Alexander Savin had the idea for a gallery for aerial photography too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to share your photography advice[edit]

Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography. If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article. It's just about four short paragraphs, and the most specific advice so far is that you might want a telephoto lens. I'm sure that someone here knows a lot more than that.

(No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.) There are probably several photography-related articles that would be easy to improve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, WhatamIdoing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparaison de photographies de Poco a poco[edit]

Gallery of photos for comparison - Précédente comparaison

Précédente comparaison

Images peu retouchées Image proposées excessivement retouchées
Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 44-50 PAN.jpg Duna Elim, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 165-162 PAN.jpg
4 août 2018, 14:47:15 6 août 2018 à 13:14

Comparaisons supplĂ©mentaires : photographies prisent entre 10:25 et 11:05 le mĂȘme jour par le mĂȘme photographe dans le mĂȘme site avec le mĂȘme appareil.

Images peu retouchées Images excessivement retouchées
Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 074.jpg Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 086.jpg
6 août 2018 à 10:28 - Un ciel presque uniforme et pas saturé 6 août 2018 à 10:54 - Un ciel avec un dégradé trÚs saturé
Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 060.jpg Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 101-104 PAN.jpg
6 août 2018 à 10:26 - Le ciel avec un trÚs faible dégradé mais qui n'est pas blanchit à l'horizon 6 août 2018 à 11:05 - le ciel est plus clair sur l'horizon
Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 075.jpg Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 059.jpg
6 août 2018 à 10:30 6 août 2018 à 10:25
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S. DÉNIEL (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see anything wrong with the color of the photos above. I live in a place where clear blue skies are common in the summer, and I have experienced all these fluctuations in my photos. Light by the sea and light over a desert are rather similar since the are few features or towns to disturb it. Looking at the photos in Category:Rixö (they are all mine), you can see how much the sky color can change. The saturation will vary depending on what way you are facing with the camera (angle of camera towards the sun) and how much you zoom in on a subject, that becomes most evident in some panoramas. These two are good examples: File:Part of Rixö old granite quarry by Brofjorden 2.jpg and File:The north-south stretch of Bro Fjord.jpg.
In some cases like this: File:Old huge crane claw in Rixö quarry 2.jpg, I actually had to desaturate the sky from raw or it would look unnatural. I guess people living in areas where very high clear air is uncommon will think that photos of the sky in more untouched areas is fake. Having read so many comments about "too blue sky", desaturating the sky (even if it is just like it looked in real life) is a pretty common thing for me to do since no one will believe me anyway. People are more prone to judge from what they are used to and it is easier to say someone is cheating than to think that nature actually can be so beautiful. --Cart (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je ne le traite pas de tricheur, je n'aborde pas les choses de cette façon. Que la nature soit si belle n'a jamais dissuadĂ© qui que ce soit d’essayer de la retoucher. Je dirais mĂȘme que c’est le contraire, trops d'hommes ont l'audace et surtout l'inconscience de croire qu'ils peuvent faire mieux. Parfois ils y arrivent, mais il faut avouer que c'est rare. Je reconnais ĂȘtre un peu plus soupçonneux que la moyenne, mais il n'en reste pas moins qu'il y a une frange sur la dune et quand il y a frange ... il y a grosse retouche.
Si Poco ne veut pas d'explication sur les votes il lui suffit de ne pas les demander. Il devrait apprendre que traiter un interlocuteur de simple d'esprit n'est pas non plus la meilleur mĂ©thode pour clore une discussion. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please, S. DÉNIEL, stop this mudslinging. If you have any problem with me, then either talk to me direcly in my talk page or adress your issue at COM:ANU, but don't use the public and commons spaces for that. Thank you. --Poco2 18:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • S. DÉNIEL, I looked at the last two images with Jeffrey's metadata viewer. Sometimes it lets you see the Lightroom adjustments, but it doesn't always tell the whole story -- a file may have been in Lightroom then Photoshop, then something else, then back to Lightroom. Here it looks like only Lightroom was involved, my guess. The image you said had small adjustments was exposed about 1/3 stop darker than the other but then the exposure in Lightroom was lifted about .7 stop brighter. The other photo did not have its exposure brightened. Both had identical adjustments to contrast, vibrance, saturation, clarity, highlights and shadows. Both images were downscaled to 92%. I don't see any indication of a Lightroom graduated filter in the sky, though we cannot tell from the EXIF if a physical ND grad was used, or a polarising filter. So, the image you claim is excessively adjusted was actually less adjusted than the other one. And the difference between in exposure is about 1/3 stop, which is well within any reasonable adjustment a photographer might make. Personally I prefer to limit adjustment to saturation or vibrance too much and avoid taking highlights down -100, but such adjustments are very common at FP. The biggest difference between the two is that the left one was shot at 80mm telephoto and the other at 28mm wide angle. That's the difference between a 17° vertical angle-of-view and a 46° vertical angle-of-view. So the brighter photo is looking at the narrow bright part of the sky near the horizon, whereas the dark one is looking at a large area of the sky. I don't think you've found evidence of excessive retouching. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem. You can take photos; for example one to the north, other to the east, so that the sky has a completely different color (Je ne comprends pas le problĂšme. Par exemple, vous pouvez prendre une photo au nord, une autre Ă  l'est, afin que le ciel ait une couleur complĂštement diffĂ©rente.). Tournasol7 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Le seul problĂšme est de savoir si j’ai le droit d’avoir un avis personnel ? Ça ne semble pas ĂȘtre le cas. Mon avis est complĂštement minoritaire, mais seul la pluralitĂ© du vote garantit son intĂ©rĂȘt. Si je ne peux pas dĂ©velopper un point de vue contraire sans qu’on y voit une vendetta alors ce n’est pas moi le problĂšme et le vote perd tout intĂ©rĂȘt. Pourquoi obliger les participants Ă  expliquer leur vote et ensuite dire que ce n’est pas bien qu'ils rĂ©pondent. DĂ©cidez une fois pour toute si vous voulez des explications ou pas. En l’état je prĂ©fĂšre vous dire que personnellement je ne rĂ©pondrais plus a ce genre d’injonction qui entraĂźne systĂ©matiquement vers des polĂ©miques stĂ©riles.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course you are entitled to your own personal opinion, but you have stated that opinion here in a rather loud and hostile way, bordering on an accusation. It can easily be misinterpreted as if you are stating facts. On this forum, we try to keep things less like heated debates and more per COM:MELLOW. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je m'en excuse. De mon cotĂ© je comprends les propos de poco comme remise en question de mon opinion et une accusation d’incompĂ©tence – ce qui montre bien que cet exercice ne peut pas fonctionner. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Beware of old users here. Face-wink.svg They know how to turn a debate with countermeasures, without crossing the lines, so you will get defensive and overreact. That way they can make you look like "the bad guy" instead. You need a lot of diplomacy, patience and keeping calm here. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oui merci, je le comprends comme ça. La premiĂšre contre-mesure c’est la demande d’explication.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
S. DÉNIEL, there is opinion and there is being wrong. Here you are just wrong. The photo you claim is excessively adjusted is actually less adjusted than the photo you claim is only a little adjusted. In addition, you failed to take account of the view of a wide-angle vs telephoto lens. You made assumptions which turn out to be wrong and which led you to make a false accusation. This is the point where most people think about apologising. -- Colin (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: RAW with FPCs[edit]

Its a recurring topic about Poco and this issue would be resolved if Wee add a new rule to upload the RAW without alteration how a FPC requirement. I think that FP images should be uploaded with their RAW --Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would help. While a RAW file can detect if someone has adjusted the image by e.g., cloning something out or into the scene, it fundamentally needs interpretation. The first step of this is the RAW converter and you will get different results of each different software, or if you apply different profiles in Adobe. The next step in interpreting the raw is adjusting exposure, etc. The camera only takes the exposure it is programmed to take, not necessarily one that will faithfully render the scene as a JPG. Perhaps the camera under or over exposed, or the photographer deliberately underexposed to avoid highlights clipping. As photographers we are not just there to photocopy the scene like a machine, but to produce a work of art. We tend, on Commons, to prefer our artwork to be realistic-looking. There will always photographers who overcook their photos. I've got a photography book that I'm reading where the photograph has used a graduated filter or ND filter or polarising filter in most of his photos. In some, I don't like the result, particularly if he over does it and the sky is darker than the ground or water. But I only know he used them because he said so in the description -- the RAW file or EXIF do not say what filter is used.
Here, I don't think processing is the issue. I think S. DÉNIEL has naively assumed that photographs take in similar locations at similar times should look similar. But if you change lens from telephoto to wide angle, or change direction or just expose slightly differently, a big change can result to the image. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding to the above, it will not work in the long run. Try getting a RAW file from a Flickr uploader, Google Art or NASA. Not to mention all newbie photographers who start out on FPC without even knowing there is such a thing as "RAW". We have several examples of users who have dared to nominate their first very good Jpeg, got some advice and worked their way up to skillful images from RAW trough Lightroom and Photoshop. FPC must be open to all to participate and learn.
There are also photos taken under bad conditions that were salvaged and turned into beautiful and totally natural-looking images even though they have in fact been heavily processed. Where to draw the line between those cases and where extremely unusual colors or light are there straight out of camera. Demanding RAW would also exclude all HDR and focus stacked images. Do we really need all 111 RAW files from this photo, choking up the server?
What we need is not "more supervision" but more Assume good faith. --Cart (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je suis d’accord, le Raw ne sert a rien. Je ne l’ai d’ailleurs pas demandĂ©. Je ne veux pas de preuve parce que je ne suis pas un accusateur. Pour la plupart, vous partez du principe que je me trompe, c’est surement plus facile comme ça, mais, je reste persuadĂ© que Poco rencontre Ă©normĂ©ment de problĂšme de WB et qu’il collectionne les phĂ©nomĂšnes lumineux particuliers. A part Ă©crire en commentaire des photos de Poco qu’il est vraiment chanceux/malchanceux avec la lumiĂšre ça va ĂȘtre dur d’ĂȘtre honnĂȘte et de bonne foi dans les votes. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've had an FPC here rejected because I did the scan, carefully readjusted the colours afainst the original object... But wasn't believed because they were different than the scan. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Adam Cuerden (UTC)
  • Adam Cuerden, all I can say is that it's a sad day when we start to trust machines more than our fellow co-editors. --Cart (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wilfredor: you talk about a "recurring" problem? excuse but you blamed yourself in that FPC and you would probably do it again. I also see how worth your apologies back then were...Regarding the proposal to force users to upload the original RAWs, too I consider it useless, huge effort, little use and apart from tricky case as those mentioned by Cart, it looks to me like bureacracy, lack of liberty, and so on, ...without me.
S. DÉNIEL, a pity for you to learn that you are just distrustful, as I haven't see any proof to be so, at least concerning my pictures. Cart, for a change I concur with you AGF is what definetely lacks here Poco2 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC) PD: S. DÉNIEL, Wilfredor, there is a a very reasonable custom around here to ping a user when started a discussion about him. Btw, it would be great if you just forget me for a while. I've better things to do.
Poco, I tend to agree or disagree on subjects, not with specific users. Some days we end up on the same side of a discussion, other days not. --Cart (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Poco estoy simplemente citando la conversacion anterior en la que yo estaba equivocado, pues es un tema ya recurrente y requeteconversado, no te estoy acusando de hacer alteraciones. S. DÉNIEL Le processus de dĂ©veloppement fait partie de l'expression artistique de la photographie et, Ă©videmment, la rĂ©alitĂ© est diffĂ©rente pour chaque personne et l'interprĂ©tation de la rĂ©alitĂ© est Ă©galement diffĂ©rente. Vous ne pouvez pas pĂ©naliser un photographe pour avoir apportĂ© de simples modifications afin de rendre la reprĂ©sentation de sa rĂ©alitĂ© plus plausible. Colin, Cart, I understand your point, maybe it could be more a recommendation than a requirement, and yes, it`s exactly what I have done for years with the aim of preserving what the camera captured at that moment, however, we are adults I do not see the need to distrust or accuse to someone of fake alterations especially with Poco that has shown excellent work for years. I myself have been accused of generating photos with unreal colors that I took in Venezuela(a Caribbean country with different light, tones and shades that a photographer from Siberia or Quebec could see). We have had black and white FP, HDR and other kinds of alterations that make me think about what should or should not be described as unreal. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Poco, I suspect the reason Wilfredor did not ping you is because this entire topic has your name on it. As Cart notes, perhaps you should stick to arguing about the facts (raw, processing, etc) than repeatedly dismissing users like some annoying flies. Anyone participating here on this forum should be open to criticism of their behaviour, photographic practice or review practice. You appear to be extremely impatient and dismissive with anyone who questions your methods. The rest of us active reviewers know that questioning the light/colours/contrast on a photo is very routine and part of our ethos of delivering honest images for an educational project. Sometimes, like this case, the reviewer gets it wrong. Your ridiculous suggestion at the top of this section, that questions about your processing of raw files should be escalated to AN/U, is, I'm afraid, just another indication that you really need a break from FPC. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose any rule on RAW and/or obligation to submit it, but Symbol support vote.svg Support encouraging users to save the RAW when taking a picture and to use them for post-processing. --A.Savin 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Err, why do you assume that FPC were necessarily taken in RAW and not JPEG straight out of the camera? What about those from external sources such as NASA, or you know generated in some special way? -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    Every digital photo is of course taken in RAW ;-) It's just that some years ago, memory cards for cameras had rather small capacity (remember "Sony Memory Stick" etc.?) and to save it, many people (myself included) had suppressed the record of RAW file along with JPG's. But nowadays I doubt there is any reason to reject RAW. --A.Savin 00:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not every digital camera exports RAW and not every photographer is proficient in using a RAW converter. I don't want the barrier to FPC to be a requirement to use Lightroom. And FPC is about more than just photos from Commoners -- I've never really understood the restriction at QI, as it does our users no favours. For those with low bandwidth connections, uploading RAW is not practical and it is a chore enough to document the JPGs properly. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean that users should be encouraged to upload RAW, I mean they should be encouraged to let their camera save RAW (if possible), to use RAW for post-processing, and to preserve the RAW files for possible future attempts. With today's memory cards of 32 GB and more and hard disk drives of 1 TB and more, usually no problem IMO. --A.Savin 12:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Your images are generally of architecture, i.e. things that don't move, possibly (relatively) long exposure with the camera on a tripod. One or two frames, taken in RAW, and edit in peace at home. If I were taking photos of action shot say at a sporting event or even current affairs, the SOP is as high an FPS as possible for that split second perfect shot. Not ony does RAW not offer me much, it would actively hinder me by reducing my FPS. -- KTC (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
          • First, I don't understand what is "SOP" (apart from "sockpuppet") and "FPS". Second, not all my pictures are of architecture and things that don't move. I've submitted numerous uploads of people, of animals, just as example. Third, even if you do only reportage/action photography, you still choose some sample of the best shots (mostly not more than 100-200 per session, I would estimate) to upload and so it it still should not be a big deal to save the RAW material for the selected pictures, given the volume of today's hard disk drives. And fourth, I only wrote that I support encouraging photographers to use RAW whenever possible, but oppose any obligation to submit RAW -- so what's actually your point; it's of course still up to you to shoot RAW or not, this you should know better. --A.Savin 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Standard Operating Procedure = SOP and FPS = Frames per second. I understand what KTC means. When you set your camera to save both jpeg and raw for each photo, you get a much lower FPS so you might miss that perfect shot between to "camera reloads". Setting the camera to only jpeg, you can take many more photos in a second using continuous shooting, and you will probably get thĂĄt perfect image. With my Panasonic, I can take up to 10 shots/sek if I want the raw file too, but up to 50 shots/sek if I set it to jpeg only. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. There are also quite fast (Mini-)SD cards, with what I use 10 shots/sec with RAW+JPG is no problem, and not sure if I'll ever need more (at least for photos, not for videos). ;-) --A.Savin 20:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But in sports photos where a football can be kicked at 130 mph (58 m/s) and tennis balls go at 160 mph (72 m/s) ([1]), a lot can happen in a second. --Cart (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question : it's technically possible to download a RAW file in Common? If we wanted, for educational reasons, to provide a RAW? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • S. DÉNIEL, Commons does not support hosting RAW files. As noted below, there is Commons Archive if you want to upload raw. But there is no consensus to require photographers to do so. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Any obligation to publish the RAW version. If needed, we have the Commons Archive to keep RAW. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Please note! This suggestion is not a voting matter but regular comments/posts are welcome as always. --Cart (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAs I had said, this should be a recommendation, not a requirement. BTW, I think Colin is right, maybe Poco a poco needs a break. The photographers are people more sensitive than the rest of the population and it is not a sensitivity to light only. Sometimes we go through moments of depression in very cold climates/cultures or we simply win all the awards that Commons can give us anyway, I have also felt like Poco in some moments, but it is always good to assess the criticism and observe everything from a positive angle, what I value most about FPC are not the stars that I can win but the negative votes because it help me to improve. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I personally strongly oppose [the obligation for us to upload RAW files]. A photographer's RAW is like a painter's canvas. It's the most fundamental and basic form of the photograph. It's like displaying the original 35mm film in a gallery — ridiculous. With all due respect, I disagree. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, per A.Savin. It is a good practice to save the RAW file (even though for me and my low-end computer, processing it is a truly arduous process). ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Delist[edit]

Hi, Is a Delist nomination counted in the 2 allowed nominations? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation is that you get up to 2 regular nominations and up to 2 delist nominations at the same time, counted separately. Either way we should determine a consensus and specify it clearly in the instructions. -- King of ♠ 01:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)