2805:
2005. That telnet database was an extension of a 3 vol. International
Photography index edited by Andrew Eskind and published by GEH. That work was based on surveys of public photographic collections beginning as early as 1973. As such, it was, for better or worse, a fair representative of photographic collecting and scholarship of its time. The telnet database did die, but only after I'd saved skeletal copy of it (the former editors now host their own copy of it at photographydatabase.org). I manually cleaned and de-duped the 95,000 GEH entries, resulting in about 60,000 entries that formed the core of what became PIC. I then scraped other endangered online sources by respected researchers, such as John S. Craig's Daguerreian Registry and Michael Pritchard's photoLondon.org. So my initial focus was on preserving endangered scholarship, and the bulk of what existed was focused on the English speaking world in the first century of photography's history. I am largely limited to English language sources (it is my only proficient language), and only somewhat recently has it become more common to find biographical dictionaries in English (or any language, for that matter) of local photographers outside of the US and western Europe. I have added those sources as time has permitted (though time has not permitted much this last year, and I am a team of one). Regarding "Source"/"Data from": we could explain or word this better.... You can read that simply as "There is a corresponding record for this entity in this other publication or database." (However, any of the sources that link you to Ancestry.com indicates original research done by me personally). The majority of entries have multiple sources, though some have only one. I'm happy to post a list of PIC entries which ONLY have Wikidata as a source (if I ran my query right, it looks like there are 1,644 entries out of 129,000 for which Wikidata is the only source).
2884:, sort of. The PIC data lives in the NYPL Photography (and Print) Department cataloging database (a SQL database called TMS ). There are 3 of us working with photographs (and another 3-4 with prints), all of whom are either Librarians or Specialists with many years' tenure at NYPL. So in the course of our cataloging we all have eyes on these records, though I am most engaged of the staff in this kind of authority work. Also, I should point out that the majority of the research on these names is done by the author(s) of the sources I am indexing. For example, Palmquist & Kailbourne's Pioneer Photograpers books: I am matching their entries to PIC's (and adding information from them where PIC is lacking); else I am adding a new entry to PIC where they have a photographer I lack. These editors are known quantities in photo research, and I take their work on authority in absence of any conflicting information. For the most part, PIC is aggregating, organizing and normalizing information that I (as a photograph cataloger) would consult otherwise in the course of my work. I do original research on photographers when I cannot find (any, enough, or good enough) information elsewhere in the literature. But, no, there's not a peer-review in the sense of a journal.
4233:. That does allow for inclusion of notable people who don't have articles if we provide enough sources showing they could have their own article, but that's not really at issue here (and, at which point, why not just create the article). It's very uncommon that a list of examples like this (as opposed to an exhaustible list) should include non-notable examples, and doubly so when it's a list of people. There is no definition of "noteworthy" apart from "notable" and a post hoc sense of what was suitable to include in a particular article. It sounds like you're defining it as "one reliable source"? Putting aside these policy/guideline issues, that's quite low standard. We don't need to open a flood gate of "every photographer that gets enough for a one-line substub in a reliable source gets a namecheck in Knowledge (XXG)" when we aren't exactly hurting for entries that
3629:(Sea of Japan)". However, the clarity/summarizability of Kondō's interests make him atypical. Select five photographers on this list o' lists at random, and I think on average each will be harder to summarize in a short sentence, other perhaps than blandly/generically ("photojournalist of world trouble spots", "photographer of near-abstract compositions", etc.) ¶ As for sortable lists, I think they're very good for certain purposes. For example, when looking for alternative software for a given purpose, I like lists that let me select what runs under Linux. For this list, I don't see how they'd be useful; and I can easily imagine how often the markup would be broken by a lot of those simple folks (inexperienced SPAs) more or less desperate to add entries about their employers, uncles, selves, etc. --
4076:. And after all the work that I put into it, it's pretty much the same other than for the addition of a reference saying "credible source X says that this person is/was a 'street photographer', does 'street photography', photographs in the street, or photographs in a way associated with 'street photography'". In retrospect, (i) all that dreary work of adding references has achieved is to make it harder for people to add links to dubious (and probably CoI-influenced) articles; (ii) I have trouble detecting any other utility in that list; (iii) I wish I'd instead put all that time into improving an article. (This couldn't have been Sutkus: Unfortunately I don't read Lithuanian, and didn't/don't have access to a copy of the large
4103:, "2,266 editors" yes, but how many do anything more than drop by to drop in a wikilink? Your point about "List of street photographers" is my point entirely: 1 person of very few doing any sizeable work in this space. Everyone has areas in which they specifically enjoy editing and I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't be working on one area and should be working on another. More power to you if you want to work on this list. However we're devising a system here that you're suggesting others will contribute to. My experience of watching this list doesn't bear out your expectations. That's it from me on this now, I don't want to labour the point. --
1354:). If someone knows the name that they're looking for, they're not going to consult this Knowledge (XXG) list and "look them up" by finding the right place in the alphabet, they're going to type it in the search box. But for those who are browsing the list without a particular name in mind, chronological ordering helps them understand the historical context, like who that photographer's peers were/are. It appropriately puts 19th-century photographers and contemporary photographers at opposite ends, whereas alphabetical sorting might put them side-by-side merely because their last name starts with the same letter.
3258:, it's pretty obvious what source is being spoken of, and we shouldn't cite that one at all, let alone everywhere. Also, the confirmation bias in the above section regarding the reliability of PIC and whether or not it gets its information from Knowledge (XXG) needs to stop. (Full disclosure: I know I'm late to the game on this one; I monitor the Japanese AFD listings, and at one of them Hoary told me about the discussion on this page, which was largely inactive for a week before I got here yesterday, but given Qono's response to me above it seems this still merits mentioning.)
476:
3562:? Oh, good! Note a couple of things: First, chasing up these more-or-less explicit references to "street photography", and then providing these as references (in the Knowledge (XXG) sense), took a load of time and energy: more per photographer than can be devoted to a member of a not-narrowed-down set of photographers in general. Secondly, the terms "street photography" and "street photographer" have been used by knowledgable people with meanings entirely different to that expressed in that list's introductory text. (See as examples
2143:. Surely then in this case the very vast majority of DoBs and DoDs will not require references to be repeated in this list article. They do need to be referenced in the subject article. It is a direct contradiction of purpose if a list is to have some benefit over a category by having some basic further information included and each such piece of information being referenced then turns the page into a 300-400k behemoth but provides no further verfiablity than is already available one click away. Ditto nationality.
3867:? If so, I don't think that this will work. You could do it up to fifty times or so, but there are now very roughly two hundred Youkay British photographers listed. So are you going to break this down to "List of British documentary photographers" (but a huge percentage are "documentary" in some sense or other); "List of British photojournalists" (but "photojournalist" is an untrendy term that many photographers avoid, I suspect in part because it creates an image incompatible with that of Artist and high-priced
3435:. It is difficult to nail a good enough proportion of photographers down to these attributes. This has the potential to rot for living persons. I cannot see me as a reader being interested in using them to navigate this list. Those attributes that exist in this list already are too broad to be of much worthwhile description. The simplest solution that we decide upon will be the one most likely followed by editors, and thus be of greatest value as it will remain maintained. --
2867:. Thank you for your amazing efforts on PIC! It is impressive. I do have a question, which has bearing only on the use of PIC as a reliable source here, and not its general value or usefulness, which I think is tremendous. The question is this: do you have sole editorial oversight over the entries-- i.e. is anyone else involved in the editorial side of PIC, or does anyone else review your work in house, as part of the PIC team as would happen in a journal or newspaper?
2849:. I refer to the Knowledge (XXG) page where I find them to exist; that is all. And my primary interest in getting data from Wikidata has been Identifiers for other databases (Library of Congress, BnF, etc.) where I did not already have them. I'm sure there have been instances where I've taken a date from Wikidata, but that would be an exception, and not a common practice. I generally already have life dates, and use those to confirm my match to the Wikidata entry.
416:
389:
581:(incidentally, a highly problematic article): "born in Gyumri, Armenia" (which would actually have been the Armenian SSR at the time), active in Armenia. Of these six, Sevada is the only one with Armenian nationality. Now, I've no particular objection to use of "Armenian" to cover people who, regardless of nationality or domicile, consider(ed) themselves Armenian; but if we do that, then why not Basque, Catalan, Kurdish photographers? --
982:" guideline that I suggested is not meant to be exclusive, but a rough starting point. It is an objective way of establishing notability for inclusion in this list (I'm not talking about notability for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG), or inclusion in other sublists of photographers). Notability can certainly be established in other ways, I'm just suggesting that an objective level of prominence would be a useful guideline.
290:
259:
21:
1616:- I am as likely to search with my eyes as I am with the search tool. I'm not sure chronologically shows peoples' contemporaries, other than in a very broad sense, as what matters is years active. What do we do when year of birth is not known? The simplest solution that we use will be the one most likely followed by editors, and thus be of greatest value as it will remain maintained. --
917:". This is an amusing idea. It concentrates on those galleries to which tour groups are bussed in to take selfies in front of famous paintings and that host "blockbuster" exhibitions (the huge majority of which have nothing to do with photography). Also it would recognize photographers who had the good sense to take pix of artists and art hangers-on. Tough for such photographers as
339:
321:
4735:, meaning that if someone is in "Spanish women photographers" that person can also be in "Spanish photographers". I'm not sure if there's a rule that applies to lists, too, but I don't see why the principle is any different. We shouldn't have "male" be the "null gender". In mainspace, though, there are concerns about duplicating content that don't apply to categories... —
1051:, but I'm still puzzled. What's the purpose in limiting the number of photographers included? (Right now, I can only think of one possibility. If somebody produces a vanity article about themself, they can prevent it from being an orphan by linking it from here. But the corollary is that listing here can work rather well as a guide to freshly added spam.) --
3940:). And US photographers are disproportionately well written up and easy for anglophone editors to research. Japanese photographers are increasingly well known, even in English; virtually no Japanese photographer, however significant, gets an article here that goes beyond the perfunctory. When we get to, say, Lithuanian photographers, even the article on
4310:, but thank you for clarifying that what we are talking about is including those who have an entry in an encyclopedic work on the topic. That's obviously better than just "one reliable source," as I mistakenly inferred above, but ultimately doesn't change my opinion. There's another question implied here, though: whether to include
3718:. Most of the names would have been in red. These are photographers that, six user IDs and some IP numbers thought, many people would want to look up in an encyclopedia: Let's create articles on them, and watch the red turn blue. (In retrospect, this list of redlinks was hardly the stuff of an article, well intended though it was.)
3330:. These designations could be included on a case-by-case basis as long as they are sourced, but we don't need these restrictive categories with abbreviations next to entries that require a key to decode. As it is now, being unsourced, this tagging largely constitutes original research, which goes against Knowledge (XXG) policy (
1231:, "baseline notability" is described in existing guidelines. Want something stricter in order to qualify for listing here? About 36 hours before you posted the comment immediately above, I asked (on this talk page, a short way above): "What's the purpose in limiting the number of photographers included?" I'm still wondering. --
1430:(PS: Chronological) There is no point if the entries are split by country. Their peers are spread everywhere. If chronological ordering is to be used then all photographers should be together by, for example, decade, and it should not be by date of birth but rather by years active, if it is to show historical context.
1641:'s points to create a compromise, can we agree to list photographers alphabetically but also allow chronological sections by years active, where it makes sense? While there may be a few photographers who overlap, a 19th and 20th century split is a commonly used periodization in photography references, for example.
3812:(born 1952), British documentary photographer, photojournalist and photobook collector, known for photographic projects that take an intimate, satirical and anthropological look at aspects of modern life, in particular documenting the social classes of England, and more broadly the wealth of the Western world.
3861:(born 1952), documentary photographer, photojournalist and photobook collector, known for photographic projects that take an intimate, satirical and anthropological look at aspects of modern life, in particular documenting the social classes of England, and more broadly the wealth of the Western world.
3888:
There are many photographers that are difficult to categorise under topics, unless those categories are as broad as, perhaps, "documentary", "art", "portrait", "landscape" and "commercial", which are so broad as to be mostly pointless. "Documentary" and "art" being most so. And so many photographers
2966:
A qualified okay. I would agree if the above two discussions, and the advice, is retained in an easily identifiable position, for example as formally (yet to be) closed discussion retained with the project banners at the top of this talk page? And perhaps also easily linkable to from other articles
2518:
Please read my comments more carefully. I was quite clear that I think an entry in this list should require an entry in a reliable source's list of noteworthy photographers. That would make this list much more useful than what it is now, which is essentially a list of links with unsourced attribution
2435:
See the AFD comment(s) I linked to. Hobo is an example of a photographer who is NOTEWORTHY enough for inclusion in a list (hence his having brief entries in other encyclopedic works), but apparently not NOTABLE enough for a standalone article. My argument was conditional on the idea that all the info
1404:
Chronological is a pain to edit, and if one is checking for the existence of someone on the list, editing or not, another large pain as you have to read every entry. (On another point, I cannot but help notice that in this entire process you have not bent and inch from your initial position, despite
1213:
I totally agree. The source isn't perfect and it shouldn't be the only source we rely on. But it is a reliable source for nationality and birth and death information, so my using it as such to cite my sources is appropriate. It is especially important to cite when talking about living persons. It has
3839:
Taking the long view, Martin Parr might appear in multiple lists that would eventually be linked to on this page: List of
British photographers, List of documentary photographers, List of photojournalists, etc. Taking the shorter view, I think that the short introduction you wrote is a fine example,
3647:
Sourcing, for example as is used in the list of street photographers, requires meticulous attention to find an independent reliable source to support the claim that a photographer works in a particular genre (consider, for example, is street portraiture 'street photography', or 'portraiture'. I say
3778:
asks an important question. My thinking is that this list would develop and grow and be split off to become a jumping-off point to various sub-lists of photographers by nationality, area of practice, time period, artistic movement, and so on. The purpose is to provide an entry point for the curious
3698:
much less cynically pointed out that it's a good way to spot new, well-intended articles that might benefit from assistance. Yes, true. I also said that, if the entries were amplified with short summaries, it might serve as a memory jogger. ("What was the name of the Magnum photographer who did the
2947:
has clarified that the PIC does not use
Knowledge (XXG) as a source, and so its usage is not circular. Given that, and considering that the PIC builds and verifies its information from several reliable sources, I propose that PIC is accepted a reliable source for for nationality, date of birth, and
2804:
Hi, I'm David Lowe, the editor/compiler of PIC. I'm happy to offer clarification or insight on the data, and answer any questions. A bit of its pre-history: PIC began as an attempt to save a personal copy of a database once maintained by the George
Eastman House (now Eastman Museum) beginning about
1198:
Ok but in the Canada section, for example, you use it exclusively to establish something or other (notability? that is already in the article). It is a)incomplete as did not include several people I checked), b) reliance on a single source excessively (if we are just going to use their database for
4283:
Did either of you read my comment? I'm not talking about "bypassing notability guidelines" (I explicitly cited the guideline that says notability does not apply to content within articles) or shoehorning in non-notable individuals, but allowing this list to be a merge target for articles on people
3643:
I think this list is so broad and long that no-one is likely to use it. I do not base that on having examined stats, but we should, rather than giving just our own opinions! I use this list only to be notified of new articles (whether "COI junk" or articles requiring some attention). It would be a
706:
Yes there might be a size problem. However, I do not think I would agree in any way to redefining notability. If a person meets our notability standards for them to have their own article then they can and should be listed in appropriate lists accordingly. If size becomes a problem then perhaps
3418:. I would furthermore say that they're useless here. Why would someone look first to a country and then alphabetically just to see what type of photographer is there? What would make more sense, if sources can be found for them, would be to create separate pages for e.g. list of photographers. —
1000:, which is tougher than WP:GNG or ANYBIO? Being in several collections or having authored a significant body of work seems reasonable. That said, I am not really sure that stricter criteria are required, since as Hoary says, no one reads this as prose. There is more pressing work to be done here.
3644:
shame to be without that as an editor's tool. There are many and better ways in which this is done using more narrowly defined lists, and categories (though categories do not seem to be able to be used to link to in the way lists are, but they already provide all the sub-dividing Qono dreams of).
2255:
material should be sourced. If you see something that's unsourced, however, your first instinct shouldn't be to remove it. Check the article for a source and copy it over. If it's not there, you can decide whether to do a search for a source or tag it with citation needed. Of course, if you have
858:
I did add any that were in the long list but missing from the country-specific list, but I didn't add the genres, which I've long disliked. I find them restrictive and at times pointless because people do not always fall neatly into them. I usually leave them off for photographers I have written
3913:
In regards to how various lists will be split once they reach an unmanageable size, I think the editors of each list can cross that bridge when they get there. I don't think it something we need to map out right now. That said, lists like "List of 19th-century
British photographers" or "List of
3234:. I don't understand why not. (It's not as if any source considered here were notoriously retrogressive/anarchist/etc, and heavy reliance on it might lead an article propagate that world view.) But this is moot because the source that's primarily in mind here cannot be regarded as reliable. --
2752:
Please be a bit more skeptical if you are going to discuss sourcing; the word of a
Knowledge (XXG) account claiming to be involved in the site in question, saying that it doesn't get information from Knowledge (XXG), when the site itself clearly says otherwise (and this is backed up by a quick
3990:
I'm interested in improving all areas of
Knowledge (XXG). Editors are free to edit wherever they please, but if we're counting, this list is more trafficked than the article on Antanas Sutkus (249 pageviews vs. 6,119 in the last 30 days). Given that measure, one might argue this list is more
4332:(as in notable enough to have an article). Theoretically, the only reason we can't build an article out of sourced descriptions and commentary on Hobo's photographs is that that information would make little sense without the photos themselves, and those won't be under copyright forever.
3721:
That reason for the list evaporated quite some time ago. (Actually I may have been the person who instituted the "no red links" rule.) There's nothing necessarily wrong with a creation outliving its original purpose and gaining another, quite different purpose. But what's the purpose? --
3651:
I think we're creating unnecessary work for ourselves. Across the board, articles on photographers are given little editor input, and I speak as someone who has probably touched base with most of them. I hope we choose a solution that requires as little effort as possible to maintain.
947:
I agree with Hoary's comments, in particular that the one million annual visitors means excluding many quality photographers and potentially pandering to the agenda of museums that can stage blockbuster-type shows. Excellent artists who show at smaller but high quality galleries
4284:
who are notable but not "notable" in the sense of already having their own article. I gave a clear method of determining this (having an entry in an encyclopedic work on the topic), which would rule out random non-notable people who call themselves renowned photographers.
3217:: "A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved."
537:
Depends on what you mean by nationality? Where they were born, where they grew up, where they plied their trade which could be multiple countries? Can you describe the internationality of the coverage that will be provided by each of the authorities you plan to use?
3098:
not only cites
Knowledge (XXG) in the same fashion but its giving the photographer's name in Japanese order because he was born before 25 January 1868, without any indication that that is what it is doing, is a tell-tale sign that it copied our article with its
4688:
I'm in favour of putting them all in the one list. I was originally thinking that organising by period seemed sensible, but imagined the overlap would make it untenable. However on reflection, given you seem to be taking overlap in your stride, it seems OK.
3544:. (that is informative in its own right by way of notes and leads our readers to even more information because of the references) Having an RfC for a page with zero sources for BIO info and sub-classification within their field is not a good thing.--
4673:
If this list is to be chopped up, I'd much rather it were chopped up by period than by sex. How about people active –1874, 1875–1899, 1900–1924, 1925–1949, 1950–1974, 1975–1999, 2000–2024? (Of course, a lot of people would make multiple appearances.) --
3104:
1028:
is also useful here. I understand that nobody reads this as prose; "readable prose" is just a phrase used to mean article content excluding references and other code. For the list to be useful, it needs to be a reasonable size and have some sort of
2273:- I have not examined the policy but, only existing articles are allowed in the list, and for there to be an article there must be adequate sources in that article, otherwise we would take it to at AfD. I cannot see this being maintained. --
912:
it even if it were one quarter the length. So I don't know why anyone would want to invest a lot of time and energy in shortening it. However, if you must, then let's consider: "photographers with works in the collection of four or more
3191:) does not restrict the number of times a reliable source can be used. A diversity of sources may be preferable, but a reliable source is better than no source. There should be no limit on the number of times a reliable source is used.
2206:
use inline citations, but the standard isn't that we only use citations on
Knowledge (XXG) when we absolutely must, but that we use citations whenever we can, otherwise it is original research, which goes against Knowledge (XXG) policy
2380:
I thought it was a given that lists include people who don't have their own articles, but it doesn't really matter here, since I only said it to summarize my reasoning given in mor detail at the AFD, as an explanation for my answer to
2581:, Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) is not a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death because to an unknown extent, some of their data is sourced from Knowledge (XXG) or Wikidata. The PIC entries for
4204:, this page would be expanded massively, but that's normally dealt with by splitting articles, not blanking information that is reliably sourced and interesting but doesn't meet some arbitrary page-specific inclusion criterion.
4178:
This was talked about a bit above. Obviously I don't support inclusion of vanity content cited to primary sources by the non-notable photographers themselves. I'm talking about people who, for instance, have short entries in
4181:
205:
3801:; anyway, one or two photographers that we people discussing the matter here on the talk page can be expected to know -- and try to provide a sample, or samples, of fully formed entries. (Some way above, I did this for
828:
If you're replacing the list of photographers with a link to the country's list article, it is best that you migrate the members of that list as well, including the designations that the photographers have been tagged
732:
I'm not recommending new notability guidelines for photographer entries, or even for lists of photographers, but I do think that for this high-level list, we should have stricter, objective guidelines for inclusion.
4703:
I'll be candid and say that if I'd be taking overlap in anybody's stride, it wouldn't be my stride. Sorry, but I have no appetite for doing even a co-conspirator's share of what would probably be a lot of work. (As
4133:
Arguing that an article is a waste of time or putting effort into it a waste of time is just deplorable. Blocking people trying to improve articles for accessibility for our readers is shocking to see.... should be
2655:
but not 500 times. Seriously? it is US-centric, does not include many artists on the page and leads to the page being entriely referenced form a single database. We are looking for diversity of sources, as always.
3212:
is just bad form as it causes the page to be heavily dependent on that source. As well, it appears from above that a source is not really required when the linked article contains the DOB with source. Quoting the
4185:, but about whom we do not have enough to build a standalone article here at the moment. My reasoning is that, if any of the above proposals about including sourced dates, etc., pass, then one-line substubs like
3889:
can be categorised under multiple titles. Unless someone's total repertoire can be categorised as, for example, "street photography", whcich is not often, then I usually give up categorising out of frustration. -
2362:, you're proposing a radical change to the list as it is now. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to make this proposal, but please do so under a new subheading, one that will draw people's attention to it. --
1159:
The PIC is published by the New York Public
Library, which is absolutely a reliable source. Knowledge (XXG) is not a source for the PIC, it merely points to Knowledge (XXG) articles when there is a corresponding
2408:
This isn't a question of "should we include non-notable individuals." Lists of examples of people should, as a rule, include only notable examples (as opposed to lists that can be exhaustive, etc.). That's just
1409:, one might think you would like to bend a bit, accept the views of more experienced editors (and I do not mean me) and get on with things? it's a waste of time to beat a dead horse on this one. Just a thought.)
3805:-- I know him fairly well, but for some reason keep forgetting his name -- but he's little known and atypically pigeonholable.) Let me kick this off, unashamedly ripping off the intro to the linked-to article:
2781:- If it takes material from Knowledge (XXG), that's a problem. Doesn't matter if it's US-centric, though -- nobody's saying we should only include material from there. Surely nobody would say we discount e.g.
1371:
This is not the history of photography, as another editor mentions above. Chronological ordering serves no evident purpose other than providing a historical order, which we are not interested in in this list.
2999:(not "clarified") that PIC does not use Knowledge (XXG) as a source; this claim is contradicted by the explicit wording used on PIC itself, and by a critical reading of the content cited to Knowledge (XXG).
1065:
I use it all the time as a spam radar. This could be an argument for bringing back those from the country-specific lists I so unhesitatingly moved (and more, where those lists were more thorough than this).
2176:
4596:
Entirely agree. Let's get rid of the separation by gender (it's always been a sexist, male-dominated industry) but do include a separate list of women photographers for the many researchers interested.
565:(the Armenian form of whose name is different): born in the Ottoman empire, more specifically perhaps in what is now Armenia (but I didn't check), worked in what is now Armenia for part of his career.
3961:'s comment strikes me as a highly articulate (much better than I can muster, for sure) way to say that the juice is in the articles, not the lists, and our time is better spent there. I tend to agree.
2417:-- lists that include non-notable examples inevitably turn into heaping piles of steaming spam). This question is just about whether inline citations are needed for basic biographical information. —
3910:
I think the work required to reach this ideal doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that ideal. Even with 200 entries, if 10 editors put work in, that's 20 entries each. Over time, that's manageable.
1991:). These policies still apply if the material is cited in another article, and we can't rely on Knowledge (XXG) articles as a source of information because Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable source (
4519:; or separate by nationality—we already have the following country-specific lists (but, apart from Japan, none for the countries with the longest lists of photographers: USA, UK, Canada, Germany):
2630:. The Photographers' Identity Catalog is published by the New York Public Library. It uses trusted sources for its information, including The Getty Research Institute's Union List of Artist Names,
2315:, this list is useless if all it is is a list of links to articles—that's what categories are for. This list should include both links to articles and entries on photographers who, like Hobo, are
1390:
the purpose of chronological ordering, and one that is more helpful to readers than alphabetical order, which is arbitrary and provides no value. What purpose does alphabetical ordering serve?
3874:
prints); "List of British photographers L–R" (probably contravenes MoS); or both "List of British photographers active 1975–1999" and "List of British photographers active 2000–"; or what? --
1935:. Thus, per status quo, there is no mandatory requirement for "nationality, date of birth, and date of death" to be cited — but, best practice is to source statements wherever they appear per
485:
399:
2504:
chosen for that list." What you're suggesting is a change in this criteria here... adding people not notable enough for their own article to this list that doesn't contain any sources. --
3094:
and repeats Japanese Knowledge (XXG)'s unsourced claim that he was born in Kamakura (note that I'm not saying he wasn't born in Kamakura -- I'm saying the info came from Knowledge (XXG));
4377:"If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be
3991:
important. This is all moot; discussions about how to focus editor effort might be more appropriate on WikiProject pages. Discussion here should focus on how best to improve this list (
3914:
British photographers active 1900–1950" or similar sublists like you mentioned would be a potentially useful way to split up those articles once they got to be too large on their own.
3514:
908:"this list will exceed the 50kB 'readable prose' size guideline given for article sizes". Yes, and this won't matter in the slightest, because it's not prose and nobody would want to
1248:, you say that PIC "is a reliable source for nationality and birth and death information". I thought I'd look. Up for the challenge of, uh, leaving my comfort zone, I looked at the
961:
4371:
split into various "List of X women photographers" articles. We potentially give the appearance of a canonical list of photographers, but which predominantly only contains men.
3084:
I don't buy that: a COI editor tells us "Don't worry -- my website doesn't take its information from Knowledge (XXG)", despite the fact that the website itself says otherwise:
199:
577:: "son of Syriac-Armenian photographer Pascal Sébah" (and some unspecified lady); presumably born in either what is now Egypt or what is now Turkey; active in Constantinople.
4793:
807:
Sorry I am trigger happy and rushed ahead with splitting up by country. There are often many articles in those lists of photographers by country that were not in this list. -
691:
With this new formatting, this list will exceed the 50kB "readable prose" size guideline given for article sizes. To mitigate this, I would like to come up with some kind of
48:, but as long as nationality, date of birth, and date of death are sourced in their respective articles, they shouldn't be removed from this list just for lacking a citation.
2909:, if not from Knowledge (XXG)? Per my analysis below, it seems highly unlikely that the information was originally taken from any source other than English Knowledge (XXG).
1130:
I suggest that PIC is NOT a suitable reference for use in Knowledge (XXG). One of its major sources IS Knowledge (XXG), hence any such reference is circular and useless?
250:
1541:
chronological order; I just think that it would be more troublesome than name order. (More complex too, as you'd need name order among the entries for a given year.) --
2827:. Very helpful. I just wanted to confirm, since this currently is the major point of contention on whether or not the PIC is a reliable source, that Knowledge (XXG) is
3506:
2063:
If the DoB info, etc. is cited on entry's article, it is attributable, but only on that article's page. The citation does not carry over to other pages automatically.
3928:
That seems a lot of time and effort by people whose Knowledge (XXG)-photographic energies would be far better employed elsewhere. My recent work creating the article
557:. Their years of birth and death, where known, seemed helpful, so I added them. (Feel free to delete them if you don't like this innovation.) But their Armenianness?
2436:
currently in the article would be more useful if incorporated into a longer article. If this list included his dates, the article would be a complete content fork.
1033:. It seems that we're generally in agreement that photographers listed here should be notable and follow Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guidelines for lists.
3706:
Each of these strikes me now as a rather desperate attempt to come up with one or more uses for something that outlived its original usefulness over a decade ago.
2312:
600:
The various attributes tagged to photographers ("abstract", "advertising", "aerial") can be used to start new lists such as "List of abstract photographers", etc.
533:
Many of the nationalities listed for these photographers are incorrect. I plan on correcting this information using sources like PIC, ULAN, and other authorities.
466:
3586:
It would be good to add information. I often am puzzled by such questions as "Um, who was that amateur photographer who left a pile of glass plates of scenes in
1924:
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
1285:
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
573:: "born in Constantinople, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire, to a Syrian Catholic father and an Armenian mother"; active in what are now Egypt and Turkey.
1214:
the nice side-effect of establishing some kind of baseline notability as well, though, again, it should not be the only source used for determining notability.
96:
131:
2256:
reason to challenge the factual nature of the information, then go ahead and remove it pending a citation, but not just because it doesn't have a citation. —
2049:, "If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material."
4788:
3944:
is feeble. Is there no photographer article that you're equipped to improve and whose improvement seems more worthwhile than work on this or other lists? --
456:
882:
prints are Fine Art, their resale value will appreciate, and your handing over a wad of moolah for them will make you feel like a Fine Art connoisseur." --
3840:
assuming that it would be well sourced and cited properly. Even better, for select entries we could add an image that exemplifies the photographer's work.
702:." Using the NYPL Photographers' Identities Catalog as a reliable source, this might be around 1000 photographers total, which should keep us around 50kb.
4314:
people who just don't have articles yet, but I don't think you're asking about that, right? It sounds like that wouldn't apply to the example you gave? —
3676:
asks various questions. Should the list(s) (or we) do this, or do that? Each, in context, is sensible enough. I mean, given that the goal is (goals are)
1943:. Noting further, that this proposal was in line of the status quo itself and a no consensus close implies there is no deviation from current policies. --
1775:. While this additional information shouldn't be a requirement, annotating the entries with this information provides useful information for the reader.
4653:" of the latter. The same principle should be applicable elsewhere (though it might need advocacy and agreement beforehand in some discussion page). --
3208:. Using a source 573 times on a single page is why we have things like the "reliance on a single source template. Diversity of sources is good. Using a
1987:) clearly states "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." This is especially important for content regarding living persons (
1562:
I appreciate the concern over the potential difficulty of implementation, but which ordering do you think would be more helpful to the reader, and why?
4798:
432:
4783:
1252:. An unspecified amount of the (minimal) data is described as from Knowledge (XXG) and/or Wikidata. If this is true, then no, it's not reliable. --
137:
4418:
3854:
OK, let's take the first of your little list of links: British photographers. No need to say within this that he's British. Do you then envisage:
4412:
2180:
793:
I was referring to them being split alphabetically, not by country. By country is something else again, and could/should operate in parallel.
4642:
4484:
4460:
3518:
1405:
their being many differing views here that you could at least try to accommodate on at least one or two points. Coming from an editor with a
957:
4598:
4496:
4490:
4472:
4436:
4400:
4388:
2647:
2496:"Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or
246:
242:
82:
2456:
423:
394:
4193:
would be an acceptable place to incorporate the three pieces of information in the article at the moment) will be useless content-forks.
4778:
4478:
4466:
4454:
4442:
4394:
3779:
reader to find out more about photographers, depending on what that reader's interest is, be it a particular subject matter or country.
3502:
4751:
4383:
I have followed that rule in moving women to the women's lists. Here are the women's articles (with number of entries in parenthesis):
4515:
But why are we even separating by gender? We could instead have one list for all photographers; or a "List of male photographers" and
4448:
4424:
4406:
4254:
this seems like a bypass of article notability rules. We're building an encyclopedia of notable people and things, not a general list.
873:
Hey, "Fine Art photographer" (preferably so capitalized) is unambiguous and unrestrictive. It means "I am an Artist. Therefore these
949:
151:
4536:
4430:
3521:. I support efforts to add useful information, and to start building this list toward something that could be accepted as Featured.
3510:
837:
752:
220:
3714:. And then one realizes: that misspelled red link wouldn't have stood out back then, four years before the start of the article on
156:
72:
3513:, etc. Too much information in a list would make it difficult to use. But too little information reduces the value of a list. See
3032:
I'm frankly shocked anyone would consider this an appropriate conversation to hold on an article talk page, let alone answer yes.
187:
979:
914:
699:
1830:...never make readers search for verifiability and sources in other articles that may or may not have supporting references. --
350:
326:
126:
4646:
4560:
4542:
772:
764:
554:
1585:- Already sorted by country, so chronological is thrown off. People can get a sense of the time period from the birth date. —
301:
4548:
4524:
4341:
4306:
Yes, though you did not specify a specific inclusion criteria in that post. The Encyclopedia of Japanese Photographers was a
4293:
4215:
4190:
3694:
I rather cynically suggested (some way above) that this list was a useful for us disinterested editors to spot new COI junk.
3485:
You can have both alphabetical and chronological if you make this a sortable list. Different forms of list are allowable per
3267:
3120:
3041:
3008:
2918:
2762:
2532:
2482:
2445:
2394:
2332:
3486:
692:
117:
4073:
3474:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3320:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3285:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3177:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3142:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2620:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2560:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1973:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1917:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1765:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1730:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1340:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
776:
748:
345:
4616:
4566:
4530:
4061:
4035:
3715:
3559:
3541:
3334:). It should be removed and designations should only be added if reliable sources support those designations. See also:
768:
760:
618:
This will make for a more useful list and will allow editing individual entries to say why the photographer is notable.
510:
I've added continents to this list to provide some hierarchy and I'm planning some further cleanup on this list. I will
4196:
Obviously if we incorporated a line of text on all the people currently on the list, as well as all the others who are
3590:? Early 20th century, Japanese, male, name neither long nor unusually short." First sentence of the relevant article: "
181:
4554:
4516:
4510:
3929:
953:
756:
4650:
3490:
3494:
1955:
258:
237:
55:, Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) is not a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death.
3059:
makes clear, the PIC does not use Knowledge (XXG) as a source, and so its use on Knowledge (XXG) is not circular.
2523:
and similar works, regardless of whether they currently have articles on en.wiki, that would solve both problems.
177:
161:
4620:
3414:- These are not the sort of basic facts as a birthdate or nationality. Without citations they are, by and large,
2567:
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
2294:, it's assumed that this sort of basic information is already present and verified in their respective articles.
1288:
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
3452:: With a relatively clear consensus here, I propose that the unsourced attributes listed in the key be removed.
3156:
The consensus is that if a source is deemed reliable, there should not be a limit on how many times it is used.
1030:
269:
4602:
4259:
3966:
3742:
3381:
3363:
3299:
The consensus is that the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) should not be retained.
3222:
2986:
2872:
2661:
2054:
1797:
1693:
1685:
1523:
1414:
1377:
1302:
1204:
1150:
1085:
1005:
969:
922:
307:
698:
For this primary list, I suggest a high bar like "photographers with works in the collection of four or more
227:
708:
475:
4230:
4197:
3537:
3335:
2410:
2353:
2316:
2134:
2064:
2021:
2000:
1996:
1940:
1827:
1025:
45:
4612:
2638:, Library of Congress Authorities, and the Virtual International Authority File. It is a reliable source.
2566:
1714:
841:
833:
4372:
2500:, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the
1350:. Lists should provide context and useful structure and ordering by chronology is one way of doing that (
918:
666:
107:
4573:
4505:
4364:
4065:
3710:
it is, at the age of one month. What stands out is that little known (and still redlinked) photographer
3498:
2299:
1900:
1604:
431:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
76:
3025:
2578:
2493:
2183:, really lead readers to educational information any better than the invidual subject articles would?
1351:
637:
The new BOLD vesion, now reverted, lost all this information, so I would oppose that old new version.
122:
52:
4189:(which is likely to get soft-deleted in two days or so, because I !voted based on the assumption that
3797:, I think I understand. Let's take one or two well known photographers -- perhaps one of those listed
1600:
2889:
2854:
2810:
2106:
I agree, and it is particularly important to cite sources for the nationality of living persons, per
574:
4329:
4201:
2357:
2320:
2158:
2082:
511:
355:
4756:
4737:
4694:
4628:
4586:
4368:
4316:
4278:
4274:
4255:
4239:
4220:
4108:
4042:). We can make this a well-cited, useful list, and we should talk about the best way to get there (
4018:
3985:
3962:
3894:
3756:
3752:
3738:
3711:
3673:
3657:
3440:
3420:
3377:
3359:
3218:
3214:
2982:
2881:
2868:
2787:
2657:
2419:
2278:
2258:
2050:
1883:
1863:
1793:
1689:
1681:
1621:
1587:
1519:
1507:
1486:
1410:
1373:
1298:
1200:
1146:
1099:
1081:
1071:
1016:
1001:
965:
864:
812:
784:
213:
193:
4732:
2199:
2139:
2046:
1992:
1021:
997:
4638:
4338:
4290:
4212:
3526:
3517:
for some discussion on the topic. At the moment this list has little value, and is comparable to
3300:
3264:
3157:
3117:
3038:
3005:
2915:
2759:
2600:
2529:
2479:
2442:
2391:
2329:
2157:
Our purpose is to lead our readers to educational information......not to make it easier for you
1320:
274:
3108:
2846:
1680:, since your bold edits are the reason for this RFC, why not let an uninvolved party close this?
4186:
4038:
is a well-cited list of about 200 photographers that is largely the result of a single editor (
2081:
I am more concerned with nationality..... that is a point of contention on many many many bios
1406:
1744:
There is unanimous consensus that date of birth and date of death should be added to entries.
1710:
1457:
order. Chronological order is trickier than name order, as the years for some are unknown. --
562:
103:
4043:
3992:
3737:
I might point out that I started with a couple of questions and Qono modified it to add more.
3254:
That being said, since Qono was trying to prove PIC was "reliable" and not circular sourcing
3188:
2249:
Should it? Sure. Is it ok to remove it just because there's no inline citation? Probably not.
607:
list, I will incorporate the tags into readable prose, formatting entries as something like:
3933:
3402:
3304:
3161:
2972:
2682:
2604:
2295:
2188:
2148:
1896:
1814:
1664:
1435:
1324:
1187:
1135:
798:
716:
642:
627:
566:
543:
271:
4082:
2501:
2414:
2107:
1988:
1936:
561:: "Her parents were Armenian", but there doesn't seem to be any other Armenian connection.
41:
4717:
4679:
4658:
4328:
Well, there's "notable" (as in, notable enough to be included in a list) and then there's
4161:
4091:
3949:
3879:
3823:
3731:
3727:
3634:
3575:
3239:
3056:
2944:
2905:
Could you explain where PIC got its information on the 19th-century Japanese photographer
2900:
2885:
2864:
2850:
2824:
2806:
2720:
2699:
2367:
2239:
2045:. Listverify only applies to contentious items or items likely to be challenged. To quote
1849:
1792:
but there is no need for a supporting source if the DOB/DOD source appears in the article.
1546:
1473:
1462:
1257:
1236:
1056:
938:
887:
586:
415:
388:
3415:
3331:
2208:
570:
4752:
Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#is_there_a_corresponding_guideline_to_DUPCAT_for_lists?
4174:
Should this list include information on photographers who don't have their own articles?
3563:
553:
I just noticed that there were no Armenian photographers, so I copied in the content of
4690:
4624:
4582:
4139:
4104:
4051:
4029:
4014:
4000:
3941:
3919:
3890:
3845:
3802:
3784:
3764:
3700:
3695:
3653:
3622:
3549:
3457:
3436:
3343:
3196:
3064:
2953:
2836:
2732:
2643:
2506:
2461:
2352:
This list should include both links to articles and entries on photographers who, are
2274:
2216:
2166:
2115:
2090:
2072:
2029:
2008:
1949:
1879:
1835:
1780:
1749:
1646:
1634:
1617:
1567:
1500:
1395:
1359:
1219:
1165:
1095:
1067:
1038:
987:
860:
849:
823:
808:
780:
738:
674:
658:
519:
2677:
above. Also the way it was being used blows the 50k concern above out of the water.
1984:
929:(site of the museum) is some way off the bus route whereby Japanese tourists "do" the
4772:
4333:
4285:
4207:
4013:
Where are Qono's "10 editors" who will "put work in" if they are not here already? --
3932:
has reminded me that coverage of significant US photographers, though good at times (
3614:
3522:
3259:
3149:
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
3112:
3033:
3000:
2910:
2754:
2524:
2474:
2437:
2386:
2347:
2324:
1809:
and agree no separate ref needed if in article. I would also support years active.
1291:
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
930:
578:
3292:
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
1895:- I can't really see any downside to this and would provide extra depth to the list
1312:
Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
1294:
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
1279:
Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
3610:
611:
859:
articles on. If there's consensus in favour of them then I will copy them over. -
3751:
I added the questions in the RfC to capture all of the concerns that resulted in
273:
4763:
4744:
4721:
4712:.) I'm busy with very different WP work (on my hard drive), as well as "RL". --
4698:
4683:
4662:
4632:
4606:
4590:
4346:
4323:
4298:
4263:
4246:
4165:
4143:
4112:
4095:
4055:
4022:
4004:
3970:
3953:
3923:
3898:
3883:
3858:
3849:
3827:
3809:
3788:
3768:
3746:
3661:
3638:
3626:
3587:
3579:
3553:
3530:
3461:
3444:
3427:
3406:
3398:
3385:
3367:
3347:
3272:
3243:
3226:
3200:
3125:
3068:
3046:
3013:
2990:
2976:
2968:
2957:
2923:
2893:
2876:
2858:
2840:
2814:
2794:
2767:
2736:
2727:
used as a source for the PIC, and so it is not circular. See my proposal below.
2716:
2703:
2686:
2678:
2665:
2537:
2513:
2487:
2468:
2450:
2426:
2399:
2371:
2337:
2303:
2282:
2265:
2243:
2231:
2220:
2192:
2184:
2170:
2152:
2144:
2119:
2094:
2076:
2058:
2033:
2012:
1904:
1887:
1870:
1853:
1839:
1818:
1810:
1801:
1784:
1717:
1697:
1668:
1660:
1650:
1638:
1625:
1608:
1594:
1571:
1550:
1527:
1511:
1490:
1477:
1439:
1431:
1418:
1399:
1381:
1363:
1306:
1261:
1240:
1223:
1208:
1191:
1183:
1169:
1154:
1139:
1131:
1103:
1089:
1075:
1060:
1042:
1009:
991:
973:
942:
891:
868:
853:
816:
802:
794:
788:
742:
727:
720:
712:
678:
654:
646:
638:
631:
623:
590:
569:: claimed as Armenian; born in the Ottoman empire; active in what is now Egypt.
547:
539:
523:
428:
354:. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical
3567:
3187:. As far as I can tell, Knowledge (XXG)'s content guideline on citing sources (
2385:
question. I might make a separate proposal tomorrow: my poor phone is dying...
4713:
4675:
4654:
4157:
4087:
4039:
3977:
3958:
3945:
3905:
3875:
3834:
3819:
3775:
3723:
3630:
3625:(1900–1957), amateur photographer who lived on and energetically photographed
3571:
3235:
2723:, who is responsible for the PIC, has clarified below that Knowledge (XXG) is
2712:
2695:
2363:
2235:
1845:
1557:
1542:
1534:
1499:
The question presents two alternatives. Which one of them are you opposing? --
1494:
1469:
1458:
1253:
1232:
1052:
934:
883:
662:
582:
4705:
4153:
4135:
4100:
4047:
4034:
This list is the result of input from 2,266 editors. Or, on the other side,
3996:
3915:
3841:
3794:
3780:
3760:
3570:
on the Fox Movie Flash team of commercial photographers-in-the-streets.) --
3545:
3453:
3339:
3192:
3079:
3060:
2949:
2832:
2747:
2728:
2639:
2291:
2212:
2162:
2111:
2101:
2086:
2068:
2025:
2004:
1945:
1831:
1776:
1745:
1677:
1642:
1563:
1391:
1355:
1245:
1228:
1215:
1161:
1048:
1034:
983:
845:
734:
670:
515:
3095:
2906:
2590:
2582:
1249:
878:
3085:
2753:
investigation), should not be accepted on its face as you have done here.
2586:
3111:-- the information is "unknown" if Knowledge (XXG) doesn't include it).
925:: he's important in Estonian ethnography, but who cares about that? And
3937:
558:
3103:(also, it says Kikuchi's birthplace is unknown, when a quick Googling
2785:
as a reliable source about British people, even if it's UK-centric. —
1178:
and includes Knowledge (XXG) under that title. If that does not mean
514:
in my edits, but I welcome any feedback on these coming improvements.
338:
320:
4359:
Can we improve upon the segregation of male and female photographers?
1319:
The consensus is that each section should be sorted alphabetically.
2519:
of nationality. If all the entries under "Japan" were cited to the
1709:. I think this is the way most people will be looking for things.
1094:
And for warning of new articles that will often require cleanup. -
926:
2067:
clearly states "statements should be sourced where they appear".
4611:
Note that we do have categories that should work well for that:
4504:
Those articles above with few entries may be better merged into
2177:
List of Fellows of the Australian Institute of Company Directors
2041:
if the DOB is sourced in the article, then its use on this page
978:
The "photographers with works in the collection of four or more
58:
For more information, see the discussion and closing statements
40:
Best practice is to source statements wherever they appear, per
3703:.") Though on reflection this would be very hard to implement.
1659:
If you are meaning two separate sub lists then possibly okay.
3397:
but only if appropriately referenced in the subject article.
3358:. they are a highly useful at-a-glance form of categorization.
3091:
Data from: Knowledge (XXG) (visit site); Wikidata (visit site)
2597:
and in this discussion as citing Knowledge (XXG) and Wikidata.
283:
275:
67:
15:
3755:'s revert and am happy to be named a co-author of the RfC if
2140:
four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations
669:. I encourage you to provide feedback on this matter there.
474:
34:
Entries should be sorted alphabetically within each section.
3936:), can be non-existent (Harding, till recently) or feeble (
3515:
Knowledge (XXG):Categories, lists, and navigation templates
1737:
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
1282:
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
37:
Date of birth and date of death should be added to entries.
4731:
With categories, when gender is involved it's typically a
1518:
Clarified. If you read the entries, they are fairly clear.
1199:
every entry, why not just point there), and c) UC-Centric.
4068:. I don't know what the purpose was: as Northamerica1000
1145:
I agree with that. It's particularly US-centric, for one.
844:, documentary, journalistic, and fine-art photographer".
2356:
enough for a mention in an encyclopedia article but not
2319:
enough for a mention in an encyclopedia article but not
4069:
3798:
3707:
3255:
3251:
3209:
3100:
2594:
2455:
Most people remove red links in lists as per the essay
665:: I've added a section about this subject area tagging
212:
31:
The current consensus for this article is as follows:
3617:
in the Sea of Japan." Useful entry in a page such as
1453:
about chronological order. The entries have to be in
614:(born 1974), documentary and ethnographic photography
4367:
predominantly contains male photographers, with the
3818:
Is this the kind of thing that you have in mind? --
3699:
book on religious fanatics in the US?" "Oh, right,
3648:
the latter and not the former, but others disagree).
980:
museums with more than one million visitors annually
915:
museums with more than one million visitors annually
700:
museums with more than one million visitors annually
427:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
4709:
1599:Alphabetical — just easier to do that way. Cheers
836:was tagged "(Doc, Jour, Art)", so his entry on the
226:
4641:as just one, arbitrarily chosen example. She's in
2634:by John Hannavy, The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s
1080:I am learning some good techniques in this thread!
2981:Why don't you let an uninvolved party close this?
3493:, contain more information than mere names. See
85:for general discussion of the article's subject.
59:
4072:, it had no advantage that I can think of over
3602:
3507:List of Australian Open men's singles champions
3297:
3154:
2575:
2313:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gorō Hobo
1944:
1929:
1742:
1676:The clear consensus is for alphabetical. Also,
1317:
952:) would be lost. It also ignores the fact that
3596:
2632:Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography
2043:is attributable to a reliable published source
1861:- Seems like good information to have here. —
346:alphabetical index of Knowledge (XXG) articles
3107:that he was born in Wakamatsu, in modern-day
2831:used as a source for the PIC. Is that right?
1983:. Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of verifiability (
8:
4156:, but who has mentioned blocking anyone? --
3687:Trouble is, there's little understanding of
3613:who lived on and energetically photographed
2473:I'm not talking about red links, though...?
2694:, it's circular (to an unknown extent). --
4794:List-Class History of photography articles
4182:The Encyclopedia of Japanese Photographers
4060:Though yes, I did do a lot of work on it,
2350:. This agreement aside, when you say that
747:Yes. We already have a template for this:
383:
315:
289:
287:
2346:I agree with part of what you're saying,
4173:
3210:single source 573 times as was done here
921:, whose work I first encountered at the
4419:List of New Zealand women photographers
4086:from Steidl does look tempting....) --
3607:, January 24, 1900 – November 15, 1957)
3489:. The best lists, the ones that become
2783:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
2457:Knowledge (XXG):Write the article first
707:instead the approach to take is as per
441:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Photography
385:
317:
4710:my attitude to this page is deplorable
4413:List of Australian women photographers
4307:
4303:
3536:The page should start with following
3376:changed !vote to facilitate concensus.
3089:
2181:List of deputy members of the Storting
1923:
1348:Chronological sorting by date of birth
4643:Category:Austrian women photographers
4485:List of Argentine women photographers
4461:List of Norwegian women photographers
3680:, how can we more efficiently attain
3519:Category:Photographers by nationality
840:should ideally include that info as "
7:
4497:List of Egyptian women photographers
4491:List of Nigerian women photographers
4473:List of Austrian women photographers
4437:List of Japanese women photographers
4401:List of Canadian women photographers
4389:List of American women photographers
3314:The following discussion is closed.
3171:The following discussion is closed.
2614:The following discussion is closed.
2521:Dictionary of Japanese Photographers
1967:The following discussion is closed.
1759:The following discussion is closed.
1334:The following discussion is closed.
421:This article is within the scope of
4789:Top-importance Photography articles
4479:List of Chinese women photographers
4467:List of Spanish women photographers
4455:List of Mexican women photographers
4443:List of Swedish women photographers
4395:List of British women photographers
3684:without undesirable side-effects?
3503:List of India women Test cricketers
1407:grand total of 459 main space edits
693:quantifiable criteria for inclusion
364:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Indexes
306:It is of interest to the following
75:for discussing improvements to the
4449:List of Danish women photographers
4425:List of French women photographers
4407:List of German women photographers
4304:Did either of you read my comment?
2020:- but has to be supported as per
1826:- but has to be supported as per
1047:This is sounding more reasonable,
954:modes of distribution are changing
486:WikiProject History of photography
14:
4537:List of Bangladeshi photographers
4431:List of Dutch women photographers
3511:List of Archbishops of Canterbury
3487:Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone lists
3470:The discussion above is closed.
3281:The discussion above is closed.
3256:a day before asking this question
3138:The discussion above is closed.
2636:Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
2556:The discussion above is closed.
1913:The discussion above is closed.
1726:The discussion above is closed.
838:List of Bangladeshi photographers
753:List of Bangladeshi photographers
102:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
4799:WikiProject Photography articles
3088:, for instance, explicitly says
444:Template:WikiProject Photography
414:
387:
337:
319:
288:
257:
97:Click here to start a new topic.
19:
4784:List-Class Photography articles
4647:Category:Austrian photographers
4561:List of Slovenian photographers
4543:List of Norwegian photographers
2967:that may use PIC as a source.
2674:
2323:enough for their own articles.
2137:, which refers specifically to
1844:Yes, this would be helpful. --
773:List of Slovenian photographers
765:List of Norwegian photographers
555:Category:Armenian photographers
461:This article has been rated as
4572:See also the mixed list/prose
4549:List of Albanian photographers
4525:List of Japanese photographers
4191:List of Japanese photographers
3668:Broad question: What's it for?
3101:unique Knowledge (XXG) styling
348:falls within the scope of the
1:
4373:Knowledge (XXG) policy states
4074:Category:Street photographers
3307:) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
3164:) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
2823:Thanks for this information,
2607:) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
2360:enough for their own articles
2202:is about when you absolutely
1688:) 22:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1535:Whichever it is, I oppose it.
1465:) 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1327:) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
777:List of Turkish photographers
749:List of Chinese photographers
483:This article is supported by
435:and see a list of open tasks.
94:Put new text under old text.
4617:Category:Women photographers
4567:List of Korean photographers
4531:List of Polish photographers
4062:List of street photographers
4036:List of street photographers
3716:William Klein (photographer)
3560:List of street photographers
3542:List of street photographers
2290:- As the list doesn't allow
2133:unless strictly required by
1752:) 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
962:can't be precisely predicted
769:List of Polish photographers
761:List of Korean photographers
687:Stricter notability criteria
367:Template:WikiProject Indexes
4649:; because the former is a "
4621:Category:Male photographers
4555:List of Greek photographers
4517:List of women photographers
4511:List of women photographers
3603:
2251:- That is, yeah, of course
1931:This proposal is closed as
1537:No, really, I don't really
1274:RFC on changes to this page
1024:is a great place to start.
757:List of Greek photographers
4815:
4779:WikiProject Index articles
4347:00:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
4324:23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4299:22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4264:15:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4247:15:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4221:07:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4166:07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4144:00:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4113:13:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4096:00:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
4056:16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
4023:13:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
4005:16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3971:05:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3954:00:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3924:15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3899:07:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3884:04:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3850:02:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3828:02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3789:01:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3769:01:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3747:01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3732:01:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3662:13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3639:05:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3580:05:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3554:15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3531:00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3495:List of computer criminals
3445:13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
3428:04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3407:09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3368:04:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3348:15:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3273:09:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3244:13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3227:04:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
3215:"one source" template page
3201:14:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3126:08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3069:15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3055:As the above comment from
3047:06:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3014:08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2924:08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2894:17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2877:05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2859:21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2841:20:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2815:20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2795:04:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2768:08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2704:13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2687:10:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
2666:21:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2648:21:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2577:The consensus is that per
2538:01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2514:14:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2488:14:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2469:14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2451:14:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2427:13:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2400:14:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2372:12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2338:05:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2304:18:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2283:13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2266:04:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2244:13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2221:02:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2193:04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2171:14:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2153:09:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2120:01:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
2095:15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2077:15:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2059:06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2034:16:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
2013:14:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1905:18:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1888:13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1871:04:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1854:13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1840:16:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1819:10:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1802:21:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1785:21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1626:13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1609:01:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
1595:04:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1572:01:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1551:23:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1528:00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1512:23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1478:23:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1440:10:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1419:03:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1400:01:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1382:21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1364:21:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1307:21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1262:05:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1241:04:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1224:17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1209:17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1192:10:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1174:The PIC explicitly states
1170:17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1155:16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1140:11:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1104:06:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1090:05:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1076:05:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1061:05:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1043:03:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1010:03:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
992:02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
974:02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
943:01:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
892:01:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
869:18:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
854:17:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
817:07:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
803:07:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
789:07:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
743:17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
721:07:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
679:15:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
647:10:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
632:07:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
591:09:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
548:07:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
524:03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
467:project's importance scale
4651:non-diffusing subcategory
3597:
3540:like they have done with
3462:15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
3386:06:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2991:22:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
2977:09:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
2958:15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2737:15:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
1718:01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1698:22:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1669:10:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
1651:15:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
1451:Distinctly unenthusiastic
1250:PIC entry for Anne Geddes
482:
460:
409:
332:
314:
132:Be welcoming to newcomers
4764:16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4745:16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4722:03:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
4699:16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4684:14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4663:14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4637:On this point, consider
4633:11:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4607:10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
4591:07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
3472:Please do not modify it.
3317:Please do not modify it.
3283:Please do not modify it.
3174:Please do not modify it.
3140:Please do not modify it.
2617:Please do not modify it.
2595:in an earlier discussion
2558:Please do not modify it.
2494:Knowledge (XXG):Red link
1970:Please do not modify it.
1960:17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
1915:Please do not modify it.
1762:Please do not modify it.
1728:Please do not modify it.
1337:Please do not modify it.
950:like this Berlin example
923:Estonian National Museum
4229:- This is standard for
3667:
2502:list-selection criteria
2492:It's about non links...
709:List of English writers
424:WikiProject Photography
4733:non-diffusing category
4613:Category:Photographers
4152:Feel free to deplore,
3309:
3166:
2609:
2175:Do these, for example
1962:
1754:
1329:
842:Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
834:Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
479:
296:This article is rated
127:avoid personal attacks
4574:Photography in Turkey
4506:List of photographers
4365:List of photographers
4080:book. Though the new
3499:List of culinary nuts
3028:sourcing acceptable?
996:Well then, how about
933:in one week flat. --
478:
300:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
251:Auto-archiving period
152:Neutral point of view
77:List of photographers
2673:It is circlar. See
1182:what does it mean?
596:Subject area tagging
447:Photography articles
157:No original research
28:Summary of consensus
4381:into new articles."
4363:It bothers me that
2995:No, Davidrlowe has
2311:Per my comments at
1369:Alphabetical please
358:on Knowledge (XXG).
351:WikiProject Indexes
4708:points out above,
4639:Lotte Meitner-Graf
3096:"Kikuchi Shingaku"
480:
302:content assessment
138:dispute resolution
99:
4615:, which includes
4344:
4296:
4218:
3270:
3123:
3044:
3011:
2921:
2765:
2535:
2485:
2448:
2397:
2335:
1481:
1386:Historical order
832:So, for example,
575:Jean Pascal Sébah
563:Ohannes Kurkdjian
501:
500:
497:
496:
493:
492:
382:
381:
378:
377:
282:
281:
118:Assume good faith
95:
66:
65:
4806:
4761:
4759:
4742:
4740:
4337:
4321:
4319:
4289:
4282:
4244:
4242:
4211:
4083:Planet Lithuania
4066:Northamerica1000
4033:
3989:
3981:
3934:Rondal Partridge
3909:
3838:
3608:
3606:
3600:
3599:
3425:
3423:
3319:
3263:
3176:
3116:
3083:
3037:
3004:
2914:
2907:Kikuchi Shingaku
2904:
2845:That is correct
2792:
2790:
2758:
2751:
2619:
2591:Kikuchi Shingaku
2528:
2512:
2509:
2478:
2467:
2464:
2441:
2424:
2422:
2390:
2328:
2263:
2261:
2105:
1972:
1959:
1954:
1868:
1866:
1764:
1592:
1590:
1561:
1503:
1498:
1466:
1339:
1020:
919:Johannes Pääsuke
827:
731:
667:to the RfC below
567:Gabriel Lekegian
449:
448:
445:
442:
439:
418:
411:
410:
405:
402:
391:
384:
372:
371:
370:Indexes articles
368:
365:
362:
341:
334:
333:
323:
316:
299:
293:
292:
291:
284:
276:
262:
261:
252:
231:
230:
216:
147:Article policies
68:
23:
22:
16:
4814:
4813:
4809:
4808:
4807:
4805:
4804:
4803:
4769:
4768:
4757:
4755:
4738:
4736:
4581:Any thoughts? -
4579:
4502:
4361:
4317:
4315:
4272:
4240:
4238:
4176:
4064:was created by
4027:
3983:
3975:
3903:
3832:
3670:
3609:was an amateur
3594:
3483:
3481:Broader comment
3478:
3421:
3419:
3315:
3310:
3294:
3289:
3172:
3167:
3151:
3146:
3109:Tendō, Yamagata
3077:
2948:date of death.
2898:
2788:
2786:
2745:
2615:
2610:
2574:
2569:
2564:
2510:
2505:
2465:
2460:
2420:
2418:
2259:
2257:
2099:
1968:
1963:
1952:
1926:
1921:
1864:
1862:
1760:
1755:
1739:
1734:
1633:: Going off of
1588:
1586:
1555:
1501:
1484:
1335:
1330:
1314:
1276:
1128:
1031:WP:LISTCRITERIA
1014:
821:
725:
689:
598:
531:
508:
446:
443:
440:
437:
436:
403:
397:
369:
366:
363:
360:
359:
297:
278:
277:
272:
249:
173:
168:
167:
166:
143:
113:
30:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4812:
4810:
4802:
4801:
4796:
4791:
4786:
4781:
4771:
4770:
4767:
4766:
4758:Rhododendrites
4739:Rhododendrites
4729:
4728:
4727:
4726:
4725:
4724:
4670:
4669:
4668:
4667:
4666:
4665:
4599:180.150.38.239
4578:
4577:
4570:
4564:
4558:
4552:
4546:
4540:
4534:
4528:
4521:
4501:
4500:
4494:
4488:
4482:
4476:
4470:
4464:
4458:
4452:
4446:
4440:
4434:
4428:
4422:
4416:
4410:
4404:
4398:
4392:
4385:
4360:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4318:Rhododendrites
4279:ThatMontrealIP
4275:Rhododendrites
4267:
4266:
4256:ThatMontrealIP
4249:
4241:Rhododendrites
4175:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4169:
4168:
4147:
4146:
4130:
4129:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4121:
4120:
4119:
4118:
4117:
4116:
4115:
4098:
4011:
4010:
4009:
4008:
4007:
3986:ThatMontrealIP
3963:ThatMontrealIP
3942:Antanas Sutkus
3911:
3901:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3773:
3772:
3771:
3757:ThatMontrealIP
3753:ThatMontrealIP
3739:ThatMontrealIP
3701:Carl De Keyzer
3674:ThatMontrealIP
3669:
3666:
3665:
3664:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3584:
3583:
3582:
3482:
3479:
3477:
3476:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3447:
3430:
3422:Rhododendrites
3409:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3378:ThatMontrealIP
3371:
3370:
3360:ThatMontrealIP
3350:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3296:
3295:
3293:
3290:
3288:
3287:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3252:Of course not.
3246:
3229:
3219:ThatMontrealIP
3203:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3153:
3152:
3150:
3147:
3145:
3144:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3072:
3071:
3050:
3049:
3030:Of course not.
3021:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
2983:ThatMontrealIP
2979:
2961:
2960:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2882:ThatMontrealIP
2869:ThatMontrealIP
2818:
2817:
2798:
2797:
2789:Rhododendrites
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2740:
2739:
2707:
2706:
2689:
2668:
2658:ThatMontrealIP
2650:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2568:
2565:
2563:
2562:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2453:
2430:
2429:
2421:Rhododendrites
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2375:
2374:
2341:
2340:
2306:
2285:
2268:
2260:Rhododendrites
2246:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2051:ThatMontrealIP
2036:
2015:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1928:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1919:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1890:
1873:
1865:Rhododendrites
1856:
1842:
1821:
1804:
1794:ThatMontrealIP
1787:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1741:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1732:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1690:ThatMontrealIP
1682:ThatMontrealIP
1671:
1654:
1653:
1628:
1614:Alphabetically
1611:
1597:
1589:Rhododendrites
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1520:ThatMontrealIP
1487:ThatMontrealIP
1442:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1411:ThatMontrealIP
1374:ThatMontrealIP
1366:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1299:ThatMontrealIP
1296:
1295:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1243:
1201:ThatMontrealIP
1196:
1195:
1194:
1147:ThatMontrealIP
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1082:ThatMontrealIP
1017:ThatMontrealIP
1002:ThatMontrealIP
966:ThatMontrealIP
958:myriad of ways
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
830:
745:
688:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
635:
634:
616:
615:
597:
594:
551:
550:
530:
527:
507:
504:
499:
498:
495:
494:
491:
490:
481:
471:
470:
463:Top-importance
459:
453:
452:
450:
433:the discussion
419:
407:
406:
404:Top‑importance
392:
380:
379:
376:
375:
373:
342:
330:
329:
324:
312:
311:
305:
294:
280:
279:
270:
268:
267:
264:
263:
233:
232:
170:
169:
165:
164:
159:
154:
145:
144:
142:
141:
134:
129:
120:
114:
112:
111:
100:
91:
90:
87:
86:
80:
64:
63:
57:
56:
49:
38:
35:
26:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4811:
4800:
4797:
4795:
4792:
4790:
4787:
4785:
4782:
4780:
4777:
4776:
4774:
4765:
4760:
4753:
4750:FYI I opened
4749:
4748:
4747:
4746:
4741:
4734:
4723:
4719:
4715:
4711:
4707:
4702:
4701:
4700:
4696:
4692:
4687:
4686:
4685:
4681:
4677:
4672:
4671:
4664:
4660:
4656:
4652:
4648:
4644:
4640:
4636:
4635:
4634:
4630:
4626:
4622:
4618:
4614:
4610:
4609:
4608:
4604:
4600:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4588:
4584:
4575:
4571:
4568:
4565:
4562:
4559:
4556:
4553:
4550:
4547:
4544:
4541:
4538:
4535:
4532:
4529:
4526:
4523:
4522:
4520:
4518:
4514:
4512:
4507:
4498:
4495:
4492:
4489:
4486:
4483:
4480:
4477:
4474:
4471:
4468:
4465:
4462:
4459:
4456:
4453:
4450:
4447:
4444:
4441:
4438:
4435:
4432:
4429:
4426:
4423:
4420:
4417:
4414:
4411:
4408:
4405:
4402:
4399:
4396:
4393:
4390:
4387:
4386:
4384:
4382:
4380:
4374:
4370:
4366:
4358:
4348:
4343:
4340:
4335:
4331:
4327:
4326:
4325:
4320:
4313:
4309:
4305:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4295:
4292:
4287:
4280:
4276:
4271:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4265:
4261:
4257:
4253:
4250:
4248:
4243:
4236:
4232:
4231:WP:LISTPEOPLE
4228:
4225:
4224:
4223:
4222:
4217:
4214:
4209:
4205:
4203:
4199:
4198:WP:NOTEWORTHY
4194:
4192:
4188:
4184:
4183:
4167:
4163:
4159:
4155:
4151:
4150:
4149:
4148:
4145:
4141:
4137:
4132:
4131:
4114:
4110:
4106:
4102:
4099:
4097:
4093:
4089:
4085:
4084:
4079:
4078:Retrospective
4075:
4071:
4067:
4063:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4045:
4041:
4037:
4031:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4020:
4016:
4012:
4006:
4002:
3998:
3994:
3987:
3979:
3974:
3973:
3972:
3968:
3964:
3960:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3951:
3947:
3943:
3939:
3935:
3931:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3921:
3917:
3912:
3907:
3902:
3900:
3896:
3892:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3881:
3877:
3873:
3870:
3866:
3862:
3860:
3856:
3855:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3847:
3843:
3836:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3825:
3821:
3817:
3813:
3811:
3807:
3806:
3804:
3800:
3799:way back when
3796:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3777:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3754:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3729:
3725:
3719:
3717:
3713:
3712:Willian Klein
3709:
3704:
3702:
3697:
3692:
3690:
3685:
3683:
3679:
3675:
3663:
3659:
3655:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3628:
3624:
3620:
3616:
3612:
3605:
3593:
3589:
3585:
3581:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3538:WP:LISTVERIFY
3535:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3512:
3508:
3504:
3500:
3496:
3492:
3488:
3480:
3475:
3473:
3468:
3467:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3448:
3446:
3442:
3438:
3434:
3431:
3429:
3424:
3417:
3413:
3410:
3408:
3404:
3400:
3396:
3393:
3392:
3387:
3383:
3379:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3354:
3351:
3349:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3336:WP:LISTVERIFY
3333:
3329:
3326:
3325:
3321:
3318:
3312:
3311:
3308:
3306:
3302:
3291:
3286:
3284:
3279:
3278:
3274:
3269:
3266:
3261:
3257:
3253:
3250:
3247:
3245:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3230:
3228:
3224:
3220:
3216:
3211:
3207:
3204:
3202:
3198:
3194:
3190:
3186:
3183:
3182:
3178:
3175:
3169:
3168:
3165:
3163:
3159:
3148:
3143:
3141:
3136:
3135:
3127:
3122:
3119:
3114:
3110:
3106:
3102:
3097:
3093:
3092:
3087:
3086:"Yosuke Imai"
3081:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3048:
3043:
3040:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3022:
3015:
3010:
3007:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2946:
2942:
2939:
2938:
2925:
2920:
2917:
2912:
2908:
2902:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2838:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2803:
2800:
2799:
2796:
2791:
2784:
2780:
2777:
2776:
2769:
2764:
2761:
2756:
2749:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2690:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2669:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2626:
2625:
2621:
2618:
2612:
2611:
2608:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2573:NOT RELIABLE:
2561:
2559:
2554:
2553:
2539:
2534:
2531:
2526:
2522:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2508:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2484:
2481:
2476:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2463:
2458:
2454:
2452:
2447:
2444:
2439:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2428:
2423:
2416:
2412:
2411:WP:LISTPEOPLE
2407:
2406:
2401:
2396:
2393:
2388:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2359:
2355:
2354:WP:NOTEWORTHY
2349:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2339:
2334:
2331:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2317:WP:NOTEWORTHY
2314:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2286:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2269:
2267:
2262:
2254:
2250:
2247:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2205:
2201:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2136:
2135:WP:LISTVERIFY
2132:
2129:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2103:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2065:WP:LISTVERIFY
2062:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2022:WP:LISTVERIFY
2019:
2016:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
2001:WP:SOURCELIST
1998:
1997:WP:LISTVERIFY
1995:). See also:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1965:
1964:
1961:
1957:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1941:WP:LISTVERIFY
1938:
1934:
1918:
1916:
1911:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1867:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1828:WP:LISTVERIFY
1825:
1822:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1805:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1757:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1747:
1736:
1731:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1596:
1591:
1584:
1581:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1483:
1482:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1311:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1026:WP:LISTPEOPLE
1023:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:Baltic states
928:
924:
920:
916:
911:
907:
893:
889:
885:
881:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
825:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
744:
740:
736:
729:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
701:
696:
694:
686:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
613:
610:
609:
608:
606:
601:
595:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:Samvel Sevada
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
549:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
529:Nationalities
528:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
506:Major cleanup
505:
503:
488:
487:
477:
473:
472:
468:
464:
458:
455:
454:
451:
434:
430:
426:
425:
420:
417:
413:
412:
408:
401:
396:
393:
390:
386:
374:
357:
353:
352:
347:
343:
340:
336:
335:
331:
328:
325:
322:
318:
313:
309:
303:
295:
286:
285:
266:
265:
260:
256:
248:
244:
241:
239:
235:
234:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
172:
171:
163:
162:Verifiability
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
139:
135:
133:
130:
128:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
109:
105:
104:Learn to edit
101:
98:
93:
92:
89:
88:
84:
78:
74:
70:
69:
61:
54:
50:
47:
46:WP:LISTVERIFY
43:
39:
36:
33:
32:
29:
25:
18:
17:
4730:
4580:
4509:
4503:
4378:
4376:
4362:
4311:
4308:for instance
4251:
4234:
4226:
4206:
4195:
4180:
4177:
4081:
4077:
3930:John Harding
3871:
3868:
3857:
3808:
3720:
3705:
3693:
3688:
3686:
3681:
3677:
3671:
3618:
3611:photographer
3591:
3484:
3471:
3469:
3449:
3432:
3411:
3394:
3355:
3352:
3327:
3316:
3313:
3298:
3282:
3280:
3248:
3231:
3205:
3184:
3173:
3170:
3155:
3139:
3137:
3090:
3029:
2996:
2940:
2828:
2801:
2782:
2779:Probably Not
2778:
2724:
2691:
2670:
2652:
2635:
2631:
2627:
2616:
2613:
2599:
2593:were listed
2576:
2557:
2555:
2520:
2497:
2382:
2351:
2308:
2287:
2270:
2252:
2248:
2227:
2203:
2138:
2130:
2042:
2038:
2017:
1980:
1969:
1966:
1933:no consensus
1932:
1930:
1914:
1912:
1892:
1875:
1858:
1823:
1806:
1789:
1772:
1761:
1758:
1743:
1727:
1725:
1711:Morgan Leigh
1707:Alphabetical
1706:
1673:
1630:
1613:
1583:Alphabetical
1582:
1538:
1467:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1427:
1387:
1368:
1347:
1336:
1333:
1318:
1297:
1179:
1175:
1129:
909:
877:
874:
697:
690:
636:
617:
612:Aida Muluneh
604:
602:
599:
571:Pascal Sébah
552:
532:
509:
502:
484:
462:
422:
349:
308:WikiProjects
254:
236:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
146:
71:This is the
27:
4237:notable. —
4044:WP:TALK#USE
3993:WP:TALK#USE
3859:Martin Parr
3810:Martin Parr
3803:Tomio Kondō
3627:Sado island
3623:Tomio Kondō
3615:Sado island
3604:Kondō Tomio
3592:Tomio Kondō
3588:Sadogashima
3026:WP:CIRCULAR
2675:#Use of PIC
2587:Yosuke Imai
2583:Anne Geddes
2579:WP:CIRCULAR
2296:PraiseVivec
2131:Oppose - no
1897:PraiseVivec
1601:Markbassett
1352:WP:LISTPURP
438:Photography
429:photography
395:Photography
200:free images
83:not a forum
53:WP:CIRCULAR
4773:Categories
4330:WP:NOTABLE
4202:WP:NOTABLE
4134:ashamed.--
3057:Davidrlowe
2945:Davidrlowe
2901:Davidrlowe
2886:Davidrlowe
2865:Davidrlowe
2851:Davidrlowe
2825:Davidrlowe
2807:Davidrlowe
2721:Davidrlowe
2358:WP:NOTABLE
2321:WP:NOTABLE
2159:WP:PROVEIT
2083:WP:PROVEIT
1126:Use of PIC
298:List-class
4691:Lopifalko
4645:and also
4625:Lopifalko
4583:Lopifalko
4334:Hijiri 88
4286:Hijiri 88
4208:Hijiri 88
4187:Gorō Hobo
4105:Lopifalko
4030:Lopifalko
4015:Lopifalko
3891:Lopifalko
3759:prefers.
3696:Lopifalko
3654:Lopifalko
3558:You like
3437:Lopifalko
3260:Hijiri 88
3113:Hijiri 88
3034:Hijiri 88
3001:Hijiri 88
2911:Hijiri 88
2755:Hijiri 88
2525:Hijiri 88
2498:non-links
2475:Hijiri 88
2438:Hijiri 88
2387:Hijiri 88
2348:Hijiri 88
2325:Hijiri 88
2309:Hell yeah
2292:red links
2275:Lopifalko
2200:WP:MINREF
2047:WP:LIKELY
1993:WP:WINARS
1880:Lopifalko
1635:Lopifalko
1618:Lopifalko
1468:reworded
1176:Data from
1096:Lopifalko
1068:Lopifalko
1022:WP:ARTIST
998:WP:ARTIST
861:Lopifalko
824:Lopifalko
809:Lopifalko
781:Lopifalko
659:Lopifalko
140:if needed
123:Be polite
73:talk page
4619:(but no
4508:or into
4200:but not
3523:SilkTork
3491:Featured
3450:Proposal
3105:revealed
2941:Proposal
2653:Possibly
1859:Why Not?
1631:Proposal
1160:article.
622:Agreed.
238:Archives
108:get help
81:This is
79:article.
4312:notable
4070:left it
3938:Jim Dow
3672:Above,
3189:WP:CITE
2997:claimed
2802:Comment
2018:Support
1824:Support
1807:Support
1790:Support
1493:, and
1428:Opppose
603:Within
559:Ida Kar
512:be bold
465:on the
400:History
361:Indexes
356:indexes
327:Indexes
255:90 days
206:WP refs
194:scholar
3872:giclée
3869:inkjet
3399:Aoziwe
3301:Cunard
3158:Cunard
2969:Aoziwe
2717:Aoziwe
2679:Aoziwe
2601:Cunard
2589:, and
2415:WP:NOT
2288:Oppose
2271:Oppose
2232:Aoziwe
2228:Oppose
2185:Aoziwe
2145:Aoziwe
2108:WP:BLP
2039:Oppose
1989:WP:BLP
1937:WP:NOR
1811:Aoziwe
1661:Aoziwe
1639:Aoziwe
1539:oppose
1504:rose64
1491:Aoziwe
1446:Oppose
1432:Aoziwe
1321:Cunard
1184:Aoziwe
1180:source
1132:Aoziwe
879:giclée
875:inkjet
795:Aoziwe
728:Aoziwe
713:Aoziwe
655:Aoziwe
639:Aoziwe
624:Aoziwe
540:Aoziwe
304:scale.
178:Google
42:WP:NOR
4714:Hoary
4676:Hoary
4655:Hoary
4527:(130)
4403:(102)
4397:(112)
4391:(320)
4379:split
4375:that
4369:women
4158:Hoary
4088:Hoary
4040:Hoary
3978:Hoary
3959:Hoary
3946:Hoary
3906:Hoary
3876:Hoary
3835:Hoary
3820:Hoary
3776:Hoary
3724:Hoary
3631:Hoary
3598:近藤 福雄
3572:Hoary
3416:WP:OR
3332:WP:OR
3236:Hoary
2847:Quono
2713:Hoary
2696:Hoary
2413:(and
2364:Hoary
2236:Hoary
2234:. --
2209:WP:OR
1846:Hoary
1558:Hoary
1543:Hoary
1495:Hoary
1470:Hoary
1459:Hoary
1254:Hoary
1233:Hoary
1053:Hoary
960:that
956:in a
935:Hoary
927:Tartu
884:Hoary
829:with.
663:Hoary
583:Hoary
344:This
221:JSTOR
182:books
136:Seek
4754:. —
4718:talk
4706:Moxy
4695:talk
4680:talk
4659:talk
4629:talk
4623:). -
4603:talk
4587:talk
4563:(11)
4557:(13)
4551:(14)
4545:(15)
4539:(28)
4533:(56)
4487:(12)
4481:(14)
4475:(14)
4469:(17)
4463:(17)
4457:(20)
4451:(26)
4445:(28)
4439:(31)
4433:(31)
4427:(35)
4421:(37)
4415:(62)
4409:(92)
4277:and
4260:talk
4162:talk
4154:Moxy
4140:talk
4136:Moxy
4109:talk
4101:Qono
4092:talk
4052:talk
4048:Qono
4019:talk
4001:talk
3997:Qono
3967:talk
3950:talk
3920:talk
3916:Qono
3895:talk
3880:talk
3846:talk
3842:Qono
3824:talk
3795:Qono
3793:OK,
3785:talk
3781:Qono
3765:talk
3761:Qono
3743:talk
3728:talk
3708:Here
3658:talk
3635:talk
3619:this
3576:talk
3568:this
3566:and
3564:this
3550:talk
3546:Moxy
3527:talk
3458:talk
3454:Qono
3441:talk
3403:talk
3382:talk
3364:talk
3344:talk
3340:Qono
3305:talk
3240:talk
3223:talk
3197:talk
3193:Qono
3162:talk
3080:Qono
3065:talk
3061:Qono
2987:talk
2973:talk
2954:talk
2950:Qono
2890:talk
2873:talk
2855:talk
2837:talk
2833:Qono
2811:talk
2748:Qono
2733:talk
2729:Qono
2700:talk
2683:talk
2662:talk
2644:talk
2640:Qono
2605:talk
2507:Moxy
2462:Moxy
2383:this
2368:talk
2300:talk
2279:talk
2240:talk
2230:per
2217:talk
2213:Qono
2204:must
2189:talk
2179:and
2167:talk
2163:Moxy
2161:.--
2149:talk
2116:talk
2112:Qono
2102:Moxy
2091:talk
2087:Moxy
2073:talk
2069:Qono
2055:talk
2030:talk
2026:Moxy
2009:talk
2005:Qono
1999:and
1985:WP:V
1946:qedk
1939:and
1901:talk
1884:talk
1878:. --
1850:talk
1836:talk
1832:Moxy
1815:talk
1798:talk
1781:talk
1777:Qono
1750:talk
1746:Qono
1715:Talk
1694:talk
1686:talk
1678:Qono
1665:talk
1647:talk
1643:Qono
1637:and
1622:talk
1605:talk
1568:talk
1564:Qono
1547:talk
1524:talk
1508:talk
1506:🌹 (
1474:talk
1463:talk
1455:some
1436:talk
1415:talk
1396:talk
1392:Qono
1378:talk
1360:talk
1356:Qono
1325:talk
1303:talk
1258:talk
1246:Qono
1237:talk
1229:Qono
1220:talk
1216:Qono
1205:talk
1188:talk
1166:talk
1162:Qono
1151:talk
1136:talk
1100:talk
1086:talk
1072:talk
1057:talk
1049:Qono
1039:talk
1035:Qono
1006:talk
988:talk
984:Qono
970:talk
939:talk
910:read
888:talk
865:talk
850:talk
846:Qono
813:talk
799:talk
785:talk
739:talk
735:Qono
717:talk
675:talk
671:Qono
643:talk
628:talk
605:this
587:talk
544:talk
520:talk
516:Qono
214:FENS
188:news
125:and
60:here
51:Per
44:and
4762:\\
4743:\\
4576:(5)
4569:(9)
4499:(4)
4493:(7)
4322:\\
4245:\\
4235:are
4046:).
3995:).
3691:.
3689:XYZ
3682:XYZ
3678:XYZ
3621:: "
3426:\\
3395:Yes
3356:Yes
3206:Yes
3024:Is
2863:Hi
2829:not
2793:\\
2725:not
2628:Yes
2459:.--
2425:\\
2264:\\
2253:all
2211:).
2085:.--
2024:.--
1981:Yes
1893:Yes
1876:Yes
1869:\\
1773:Yes
1593:\\
1502:Red
779:. -
711:.
457:Top
228:TWL
4775::
4720:)
4697:)
4682:)
4661:)
4631:)
4605:)
4589:)
4345:)
4342:やや
4297:)
4294:やや
4262:)
4252:No
4227:No
4219:)
4216:やや
4164:)
4142:)
4111:)
4094:)
4054:)
4021:)
4003:)
3982:,
3969:)
3952:)
3922:)
3897:)
3882:)
3848:)
3826:)
3787:)
3767:)
3745:)
3730:)
3660:)
3652:--
3637:)
3601:,
3578:)
3552:)
3529:)
3509:,
3505:,
3501:,
3497:,
3460:)
3443:)
3433:No
3412:No
3405:)
3384:)
3366:)
3353:No
3346:)
3338:.
3328:No
3271:)
3268:やや
3249:No
3242:)
3232:No
3225:)
3199:)
3185:No
3124:)
3121:やや
3067:)
3045:)
3042:やや
3012:)
3009:やや
2989:)
2975:)
2956:)
2943::
2922:)
2919:やや
2892:)
2875:)
2857:)
2839:)
2813:)
2766:)
2763:やや
2735:)
2719::
2715:,
2702:)
2692:No
2685:)
2671:No
2664:)
2646:)
2585:,
2536:)
2533:やや
2511:🍁
2486:)
2483:やや
2466:🍁
2449:)
2446:やや
2398:)
2395:やや
2370:)
2336:)
2333:やや
2302:)
2281:)
2242:)
2219:)
2191:)
2169:)
2151:)
2118:)
2110:.
2093:)
2075:)
2057:)
2032:)
2011:)
2003:.
1903:)
1886:)
1852:)
1838:)
1817:)
1800:)
1783:)
1713:|
1696:)
1674:No
1667:)
1649:)
1624:)
1607:)
1570:)
1549:)
1526:)
1510:)
1489:,
1476:)
1449:.
1438:)
1417:)
1398:)
1388:is
1380:)
1362:)
1305:)
1260:)
1239:)
1222:)
1207:)
1190:)
1168:)
1153:)
1138:)
1102:)
1088:)
1074:)
1059:)
1041:)
1008:)
990:)
972:)
941:)
890:)
867:)
852:)
815:)
801:)
787:)
775:,
771:,
767:,
763:,
759:,
755:,
751:,
741:)
719:)
695:.
677:)
661:,
657:,
645:)
630:)
589:)
546:)
522:)
398::
253::
245:,
208:)
106:;
4716:(
4693:(
4689:-
4678:(
4657:(
4627:(
4601:(
4585:(
4513:.
4339:聖
4336:(
4291:聖
4288:(
4281::
4273:@
4258:(
4213:聖
4210:(
4160:(
4138:(
4107:(
4090:(
4050:(
4032::
4028:@
4017:(
3999:(
3988::
3984:@
3980::
3976:@
3965:(
3948:(
3918:(
3908::
3904:@
3893:(
3878:(
3844:(
3837::
3833:@
3822:(
3783:(
3763:(
3741:(
3726:(
3656:(
3633:(
3595:(
3574:(
3548:(
3525:(
3456:(
3439:(
3401:(
3380:(
3362:(
3342:(
3303:(
3265:聖
3262:(
3238:(
3221:(
3195:(
3160:(
3118:聖
3115:(
3082::
3078:@
3063:(
3039:聖
3036:(
3006:聖
3003:(
2985:(
2971:(
2952:(
2916:聖
2913:(
2903::
2899:@
2888:(
2871:(
2853:(
2835:(
2809:(
2760:聖
2757:(
2750::
2746:@
2731:(
2698:(
2681:(
2660:(
2642:(
2603:(
2530:聖
2527:(
2480:聖
2477:(
2443:聖
2440:(
2392:聖
2389:(
2366:(
2330:聖
2327:(
2298:(
2277:(
2238:(
2215:(
2207:(
2187:(
2165:(
2147:(
2114:(
2104::
2100:@
2089:(
2071:(
2053:(
2028:(
2007:(
1958:)
1956:c
1953:桜
1950:t
1948:(
1899:(
1882:(
1848:(
1834:(
1813:(
1796:(
1779:(
1748:(
1692:(
1684:(
1663:(
1645:(
1620:(
1603:(
1566:(
1560::
1556:@
1545:(
1522:(
1497::
1485:@
1472:(
1461:(
1434:(
1413:(
1394:(
1376:(
1358:(
1323:(
1301:(
1256:(
1235:(
1218:(
1203:(
1186:(
1164:(
1149:(
1134:(
1098:(
1084:(
1070:(
1066:-
1055:(
1037:(
1019::
1015:@
1004:(
986:(
968:(
964:.
948:(
937:(
886:(
863:(
848:(
826::
822:@
811:(
797:(
783:(
737:(
730::
726:@
715:(
673:(
641:(
626:(
585:(
542:(
518:(
489:.
469:.
310::
247:2
243:1
240::
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
110:.
62:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.