1446:. As a subject with a contemporary presence, the collective consciousness (how it is seen) will be closely associated with key events that are relatively recent and widely broadcast. On the otherhand, there will be little perceptible detail that would distinguish any particular event over say, the last thirty years. Effectively, we have a wide pallet to choose from. The perspective (point of viewing) of the present image is perhaps a little high and a little distant, thereby making it less than ideal in my opinion. I don't think that the image need capture the full width of the palace front and that there is ultimately a compromise between fullness and detail to be balanced. However, I believe that the existing image is
824:
1394:
435:
495:
468:
571:
245:
725:
704:
426:
278:
814:
793:
902:
215:
1595:
505:
624:
603:
1114:
A couple of thing to note. First off, because this has had a previous RfC that concluded for exclusion, you'd need more than the two of us talking to reach the level of consensus needed to overturn that. Second, your last point is very specifically not something that can be used as an argument, since
1540:
Nope I still don't agree with that and neither do the editors from other country/language who didn't use that aerial
Buckingham image, anyhow this issue has been "resolved". But that's such a weak point, it's one aerial example vs like 20 other regular view example, and it's not even a good example
1467:
But I do accept i suppose because why not, I do find it interesting that they use the picture I liked better in other languages, we can conclude that some of them also didn't accept that the "English" article's image sufficiently fit
1177:
Have you tried the map in my revision? There's no red dot, there's an actual outline of the palace, and it stays when you click to expand it. I guess there's some magic going on where it's pulling from WikiData or something. —
952:
1355:
I want to use image that's very iconic and recognizable, you want to use picture that's not instantly recognizable and from weird aerial view. I think mine would comply more with the said guidelines of the encyclopaedia.
153:
339:
320:
1636:
1518:
The current aerial image is the most illustrative and best for this article. There doesn’t seem to be a definitive best image for palaces. This is illustrated by those used at that other very iconic palace, the
1417:
Hi, not certain why I was chosen to provide a third opinion, so I guess that goes to the independence of my opinion. Also, being
Australian it means that my views are made at arms-length from the subject. Per
580:
478:
377:
1631:
1133:
OK, gotcha. I was more looking to understand the reasoning for not having one, but I guess if that comes down to "we had a vote and people said no", that's good enough for me, regardless of
358:
259:
1220:
Is it possible use a picture that just showed the iconic facade, instead of aeriel view of the palace? (we can still put the picture somewhere in the article to showcase the palace).
396:
284:
1661:
1609:
686:
147:
1119:
consensus is reached at each specific article - whether another article does or doesn't have one, or does or doesn't have a specific parameter, isn't considered relevant.
945:
206:
775:
1701:
676:
1716:
1686:
993:
It's also misleading to say Lawlor entered the palace or that staff 'allowed' him to enter. They didn't let him in and he doesn't appear to have entered the building.
765:
585:
561:
1731:
870:
1676:
1307:
the semi-aerial photo of
Buckingham Palace surrounded by crowd just isn't very flattering to the palace and doesn't look as iconic as those from the ground level.
551:
1706:
1561:
Nope, I didn’t think you would, but perhaps you’ll agree that
Knowledge (XXG), its images and whatever it is that places those images is a mystery to us all.
652:
636:
79:
1721:
1651:
1646:
741:
918:
1696:
1681:
1578:
I think an image of the facade is better, and the aerial image should be moved down in the article. Most pages about palaces show the principle facade.
880:
527:
1726:
1711:
44:
1666:
1656:
648:
644:
631:
608:
439:
85:
1671:
1626:
1438:
of colour detracts from what is intended to be the subject (of the article, the palace). In short, in this image, it is the gardens that are the
732:
709:
1736:
1545:
article, the first image was the regular angle, while the third one was the aerial but idk why in the thumbnails it showed the aerial first
910:
518:
473:
30:
846:
823:
1163:
Sorry but those maps are not useful. You click the teeny tiny map to enlarge and the red dot disappears making it completely useless.
1093:
I'm skipping over some points that seem invalid to me, like that it's the decision of the article's "main authors" (which sounds like
1044:— It seems like the map has gotten more useful since that discussion happened, but true, coordinates can replace it for the most part.
99:
1691:
104:
20:
1641:
1028:
975:
202:
198:
194:
190:
1144:
to have an infobox because other articles do, just that consistency across articles helps with finding info quickly, that's all.
168:
74:
1287:
Other articles only show the main façade because we don't have any high quality aerial photos of the other castles and palaces.
1024:, the talk archives have a lot of discussion about infoboxes; could you give a quick summary or point to a particular section?
1393:
837:
798:
448:
135:
254:
65:
960:
914:
277:
214:
185:
129:
901:
109:
1254:
1599:
225:
1338:
exactly, that's why representing the best image for the topic is essential, not some weird unflattering photos
983:
425:
244:
454:
264:
125:
941:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
1455:
1246:
1014:
956:
1250:
1223:
The rationale for this is because all other Palace thumbnail images only featured the famous main facade.
175:
55:
1566:
1528:
845:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
740:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
526:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
70:
1474:
a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
1424:
a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
1550:
1505:
1434:. In the proposed alternative, the gardens dominate the fore-ground and near-middle distance and the
1406:
1361:
1343:
1315:
1278:
1263:
1238:
1234:
1124:
1073:
640:
268:
1583:
1329:
1298:
1197:
1168:
979:
510:
161:
1451:
1379:
1183:
1152:
1104:
230:
1094:
494:
467:
141:
1226:
51:
24:
1464:
I don't particularly agree with this decision, but alas it's a very minor improvement anyway.
1031:
seems to be the most conclusive, so let me see if I can summarize the points and reply here:
1562:
1524:
570:
227:
1546:
1501:
1402:
1357:
1339:
1311:
1293:
There is a photo of the main façade at ground level under Early 20th century (1901–1945).
1274:
1259:
1120:
1069:
1021:
998:
1273:
also the
Buckingham Palace main facade is one of the most iconic (from the street angle)
1382:
can I ask your third opinion on our little dispute over Lead Image of
Buckingham Palace.
1579:
1386:
1325:
1294:
1242:
1217:
1193:
1164:
1116:
1065:
724:
703:
1620:
1542:
1520:
1469:
1419:
1179:
1148:
1100:
1038:— My edit adds the map, namesake and website, but maybe those are considered trivial.
937:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
829:
737:
1086:— That's part of the reason I added it: consistency, allowing for info at a glance.
813:
792:
523:
1081:
994:
819:
500:
229:
1587:
1570:
1554:
1538:
The current aerial image is the most illustrative and best for this article
1532:
1509:
1459:
1410:
1365:
1347:
1333:
1319:
1302:
1282:
1267:
1201:
1187:
1172:
1156:
1128:
1108:
1002:
987:
964:
643:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you should visit the
978:: "In the long history of the palace these incidents are fairly trivial".
504:
1230:
1077:
842:
1604:
1493:
1392:
1050:— No one is arguing that it should. It can just include info that
1478:
1290:
The aerial photo of Buckingham Palace includes the main façade.
623:
602:
1498:
1488:
1483:
896:
419:
231:
15:
1324:
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia, not a holiday brochure.
639:), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
917:
of this article to be created. For further information, see
569:
1637:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
1310:
Is it possible to draw some kind of consensus for this?
283:
This article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page as
1430:
image. I would first say, that I would not call either
1352:
389:
370:
351:
332:
313:
160:
1632:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
1140:
And just to clarify my last point, I'm not saying it
1192:
For enough, I hadn't seen that style of map before.
1060:— Fair enough, but you can click on it to expand it.
841:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
736:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
522:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1442:subject and the palace is relegated to the role of
1397:
Buckingham Palace from gardens, London, UK - Diliff
1036:
Doesn't add anything that the lead doesn't include.
174:
926:The rationale behind the request is: "Important".
1048:An infobox can't cover the breadth of the topic.
976:Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3#Security breach
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
946:Audience at Buckingham Palace (38563762812).jpg
1662:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Arts
1494:https://es.wikipedia.org/Palacio_de_Buckingham
1042:Map is not useful; coordinates can replace it.
951:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
1479:https://fr.wikipedia.org/Palais_de_Buckingham
8:
267:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
263:as one of the best articles produced by the
257:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
1426:You would both paraphrase this as being an
661:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British Royalty
1499:https://nl.wikipedia.org/Buckingham_Palace
1489:https://de.wikipedia.org/Buckingham_Palace
1484:https://de.wikipedia.org/Buckingham_Palace
787:
750:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Historic sites
698:
597:
462:
292:
239:
1702:High-importance British royalty articles
536:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Architecture
423:
1717:High-importance Historic sites articles
1687:Top-importance Historic houses articles
1090:Would that be a fair summary/response?
789:
700:
599:
464:
1732:Top-importance London-related articles
1652:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Arts
1647:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles
1537:
1423:
1064:"every similar article has one, e.g.,
1677:High-importance Architecture articles
1385:this is the image I want to use, but
7:
1707:WikiProject British Royalty articles
1058:"reduces the size of the main image"
835:This article is within the scope of
730:This article is within the scope of
664:Template:WikiProject British Royalty
629:This article is within the scope of
516:This article is within the scope of
1722:WikiProject Historic sites articles
753:Template:WikiProject Historic sites
23:for discussing improvements to the
920:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge (XXG)
913:, submitted by Catfurball, for an
855:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject London
14:
1697:FA-Class British royalty articles
1682:FA-Class Historic houses articles
1627:Knowledge (XXG) featured articles
1594:
539:Template:WikiProject Architecture
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1727:FA-Class London-related articles
1712:FA-Class Historic sites articles
1593:
900:
822:
812:
791:
723:
702:
622:
601:
503:
493:
466:
433:
424:
276:
243:
213:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1737:Spoken Knowledge (XXG) requests
1667:FA-Class vital articles in Arts
1657:FA-Class level-5 vital articles
875:This article has been rated as
770:This article has been rated as
681:This article has been rated as
637:Royalty and Nobility Work Group
556:This article has been rated as
1672:FA-Class Architecture articles
581:the Historic houses task force
453:It is of interest to multiple
1:
1588:15:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
965:19:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
849:and see a list of open tasks.
744:and see a list of open tasks.
578:This article is supported by
530:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1571:19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1555:15:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1533:13:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1510:09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1460:02:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1411:01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1366:22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1348:22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1334:21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1320:21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1303:20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1283:19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
1268:19:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
858:Template:WikiProject London
632:WikiProject British Royalty
1753:
881:project's importance scale
776:project's importance scale
733:WikiProject Historic sites
687:project's importance scale
562:project's importance scale
359:Featured article candidate
340:Featured article candidate
321:Featured article candidate
1255:Royal Palace of Amsterdam
1202:20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1188:18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1173:18:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1157:18:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1129:18:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1109:18:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1003:07:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
988:15:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
874:
807:
769:
718:
680:
651:and/or contribute to the
617:
577:
555:
488:
461:
406:
295:
291:
265:Knowledge (XXG) community
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1692:Historic houses articles
667:British royalty articles
635:(a child project of the
519:WikiProject Architecture
285:Today's featured article
1642:FA-Class vital articles
1247:Royal Palace of Caserta
1017:that added an infobox)
861:London-related articles
756:Historic sites articles
397:Featured article review
378:Featured article review
1398:
1251:Royal Palace of Madrid
574:
75:avoid personal attacks
1396:
1054:be summarized easily.
573:
542:Architecture articles
447:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
440:level-5 vital article
207:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1074:Palace of Versailles
105:No original research
1027:From a quick look,
1009:Infobox -- why not?
511:Architecture portal
1541:if you click the
1523:in St Petersburg.
1399:
1389:doesn't agree with
957:Community Tech bot
838:WikiProject London
575:
449:content assessment
296:Article milestones
287:on April 21, 2006.
86:dispute resolution
47:
1613:
1227:Kensington Palace
970:Security breaches
932:
931:
895:
894:
891:
890:
887:
886:
786:
785:
782:
781:
697:
696:
693:
692:
596:
595:
592:
591:
418:
417:
414:
413:
314:February 23, 2005
251:Buckingham Palace
238:
237:
66:Assume good faith
43:
25:Buckingham Palace
1744:
1607:
1597:
1596:
1591:
1015:my reverted edit
904:
897:
863:
862:
859:
856:
853:
832:
827:
826:
816:
809:
808:
803:
795:
788:
758:
757:
754:
751:
748:
727:
720:
719:
714:
706:
699:
669:
668:
665:
662:
659:
649:join the project
647:, where you can
626:
619:
618:
613:
605:
598:
544:
543:
540:
537:
534:
513:
508:
507:
497:
490:
489:
484:
481:
470:
463:
446:
437:
436:
429:
428:
420:
409:Featured article
407:Current status:
392:
373:
354:
335:
316:
293:
280:
255:featured article
247:
240:
232:
218:
217:
208:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1617:
1616:
1603:
1214:
1070:Tower of London
1011:
972:
953:nomination page
939:
928:
860:
857:
854:
851:
850:
828:
821:
801:
772:High-importance
755:
752:
749:
746:
745:
713:High‑importance
712:
683:High-importance
666:
663:
660:
658:British Royalty
657:
656:
641:British Royalty
612:High‑importance
611:
609:British Royalty
558:High-importance
541:
538:
535:
532:
531:
509:
502:
483:High‑importance
482:
479:Historic houses
476:
444:
434:
388:
369:
350:
331:
312:
234:
233:
228:
205:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1750:
1748:
1740:
1739:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1704:
1699:
1694:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1674:
1669:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1649:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1629:
1619:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1558:
1557:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1465:
1414:
1413:
1400:
1390:
1383:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1350:
1308:
1291:
1288:
1243:Windsor Castle
1231:Hofburg Palace
1213:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1145:
1138:
1117:MOS:INFOBOXUSE
1098:
1088:
1087:
1066:Windsor Castle
1061:
1055:
1045:
1039:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
980:Celia Homeford
971:
968:
949:
948:
938:
935:
930:
929:
907:
905:
893:
892:
889:
888:
885:
884:
877:Top-importance
873:
867:
866:
864:
847:the discussion
834:
833:
817:
805:
804:
802:Top‑importance
796:
784:
783:
780:
779:
768:
762:
761:
759:
747:Historic sites
742:the discussion
738:historic sites
728:
716:
715:
710:Historic sites
707:
695:
694:
691:
690:
679:
673:
672:
670:
627:
615:
614:
606:
594:
593:
590:
589:
586:Top-importance
576:
566:
565:
554:
548:
547:
545:
528:the discussion
515:
514:
498:
486:
485:
471:
459:
458:
452:
430:
416:
415:
412:
411:
404:
403:
400:
393:
385:
384:
381:
374:
366:
365:
362:
355:
347:
346:
343:
336:
333:March 31, 2005
328:
327:
324:
317:
309:
308:
305:
302:
298:
297:
289:
288:
281:
273:
272:
248:
236:
235:
226:
224:
223:
220:
219:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1749:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1695:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1678:
1675:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1650:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1622:
1611:
1610:investigation
1606:
1601:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:Winter Palace
1539:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:Winter Palace
1517:
1516:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1471:
1470:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1466:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:Cinderella157
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:Cinderella157
1377:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:Hampton Court
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1211:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1137:they said no.
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1096:
1091:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1025:
1023:
1018:
1016:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
969:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
947:
944:
943:
942:
936:
934:
927:
924:
922:
921:
916:
915:audio version
912:
906:
903:
899:
898:
882:
878:
872:
869:
868:
865:
848:
844:
840:
839:
831:
830:London portal
825:
820:
818:
815:
811:
810:
806:
800:
797:
794:
790:
777:
773:
767:
764:
763:
760:
743:
739:
735:
734:
729:
726:
722:
721:
717:
711:
708:
705:
701:
688:
684:
678:
675:
674:
671:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
628:
625:
621:
620:
616:
610:
607:
604:
600:
587:
584:(assessed as
583:
582:
572:
568:
567:
563:
559:
553:
550:
549:
546:
529:
525:
521:
520:
512:
506:
501:
499:
496:
492:
491:
487:
480:
475:
472:
469:
465:
460:
456:
450:
442:
441:
431:
427:
422:
421:
410:
405:
401:
399:
398:
394:
391:
390:April 4, 2009
387:
386:
382:
380:
379:
375:
372:
368:
367:
363:
361:
360:
356:
353:
352:June 27, 2005
349:
348:
344:
342:
341:
337:
334:
330:
329:
325:
323:
322:
318:
315:
311:
310:
306:
303:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
256:
252:
249:
246:
242:
241:
222:
221:
216:
212:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1605:Lam312321321
1577:
1473:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1258:
1225:
1222:
1215:
1141:
1134:
1092:
1089:
1063:
1057:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1035:
1026:
1019:
1012:
973:
950:
940:
933:
925:
919:
908:
876:
836:
771:
731:
682:
645:project page
630:
579:
557:
533:Architecture
524:Architecture
517:
474:Architecture
455:WikiProjects
438:
408:
395:
376:
371:May 31, 2007
357:
345:Not promoted
338:
326:Not promoted
319:
269:please do so
258:
250:
210:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1563:AdamBlack89
1525:AdamBlack89
1448:more iconic
1082:White House
1013:(regarding
909:There is a
148:free images
31:not a forum
1621:Categories
1600:sockpuppet
1547:Wentwort12
1502:Wentwort12
1403:Wentwort12
1358:Wentwort12
1353:MOS:IMAGES
1340:Wentwort12
1312:Wentwort12
1275:Wentwort12
1260:Wentwort12
1239:Versailles
1212:Lead Image
1121:Nikkimaria
1022:Nikkimaria
653:discussion
260:identified
1580:Politcsd7
1387:Firebrace
1326:Firebrace
1295:Firebrace
1218:Firebrace
1194:Firebrace
1165:Firebrace
1095:ownership
443:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1598:Blocked
1444:backdrop
1180:W.andrea
1149:W.andrea
1101:W.andrea
1029:this RfC
445:FA-class
364:Promoted
211:200Â days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1078:Kremlin
911:request
879:on the
774:on the
685:on the
560:on the
304:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1608:, see
1440:visual
1428:iconic
1080:, the
1076:, the
852:London
843:London
799:London
451:scale.
307:Result
126:Google
1436:noise
1432:ideal
1142:needs
995:DrKay
432:This
253:is a
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1584:talk
1567:talk
1551:talk
1529:talk
1506:talk
1456:talk
1407:talk
1362:talk
1344:talk
1330:talk
1316:talk
1299:talk
1279:talk
1264:talk
1198:talk
1184:talk
1169:talk
1153:talk
1125:talk
1115:per
1105:talk
999:talk
984:talk
974:See
961:talk
766:High
677:High
552:High
402:Kept
383:Kept
301:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1602:of
1135:why
1097:).
1052:can
955:. —
871:Top
176:TWL
1623::
1586:)
1569:)
1553:)
1531:)
1508:)
1472::
1458:)
1450:.
1422::
1409:)
1364:)
1346:)
1332:)
1318:)
1301:)
1281:)
1266:)
1253:,
1249:,
1245:,
1241:,
1237:,
1233:,
1229:,
1200:)
1186:)
1171:)
1155:)
1147:—
1127:)
1107:)
1099:—
1072:,
1068:,
1001:)
986:)
963:)
923:.
588:).
477::
209::
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1612:)
1592:(
1582:(
1565:(
1549:(
1527:(
1504:(
1454:(
1405:(
1378:@
1360:(
1342:(
1328:(
1314:(
1297:(
1277:(
1262:(
1216:@
1196:(
1182:(
1167:(
1151:(
1123:(
1103:(
1084:"
1020:@
997:(
982:(
959:(
883:.
778:.
689:.
655:.
564:.
457:.
271:.
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
