1348:
created by anyone on
Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created", it is true. However, you cannot say this about PD-Bain. This template has existed for over two years, it is protected (which indicates wide consensus for its continued existence) and is used by 1,758 images as of today. Not exactly what I would call an "incorrect and irrelevant template". I agree with you that "Commons requirements more stringent than the LOC". However, the "No known restrictions on publication" notice has always been widely accepted on Commons, and there are tens of thousands of images from LoC which are hosted on Commons based on this sole assertion by LoC. I don't know of a single instance where an image was deleted because the "No known restrictions on publication" notice was deemed an insufficient indication of copyright status. If you think this should be changed and that all of these images should be deleted because they fail to
1251:(images which the author explicitly placed in the public domain as part of the gift). Other than international concerns, since they are guided by U.S. law only, the Library of Congress is probably more careful about copyright than almost anyone else (probably including Commons). It is just with looooooong experience, it is impossible to tell when something will come out of left field, like a descendent or ex-partner suddenly claiming rights when it was felt the original donor had owned them completely, or a court decision which changes the landscape, or other items like that. They use "public domain" on rights pages sometimes if they are clearly published before 1923 or the donor uses that wording; otherwise I barely ever see it. While the LoC does not own the copyright most of their works, they
1161:"No known restrictions" is LoC-speak for public domain (it just reflects the fact that copyright and other law is extremely complex and it is impossible to predict future court decisions which may unexpectedly create new rights). The Library of Congress purchased the Bain collection (and thus the copyrights) in 1948 and placed them in the public domain, so it does not matter when the photographs were made or if they were published...The LoC only is putting up the photos where they own the negative (i.e. proving that it was authored and owned by the Bain company) rather than any of their prints
1256:
transferred if negatives were sold. (Congress completely changed that; transfers since 1978 require a signed document in writing, so it is now possible to sell a negative but not the copyright). The LoC would most certainly have mentioned that in their collection documentation, but they obviously believe they acquired the copyright, which has probably lapsed anyways (the sale probably would have meant they were "published" in 1948 if they had not been already, so renewal was required in 1975/6) at the latest. Commons has a specific
1339:. The same wording is used for photos of US presidents and first ladies, even though these are clearly PD due to the fact that they're works of the US government. It's just standard LoC vocabulary. You say that "the LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work." I don't want to make any personal attacks, but for someone who isn't even a lawyer to be so dismissive towards LoC is quite immodest. If there's anyone in the US who knows
1298:<--The thing I don't understand, though, is that the Bain Collection was sold to the LoC; doesn't this mean that they therefore also sold the copyrights for the photographs they created themselves to the LoC? What I'm saying is, the Bain News Service created the photograph. They held the copyright until it was sold to the LoC. How is its use still restricted, if the LoC is not claiming any copyright?
1221:, you will see that they say it is up to users to determine whether or not it is acceptable to use an image or not - "In all cases, it is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." The LoC defers all copyright decisions.
213:"At approximately the same time, Posen accidentally rammed the light cruiser Elbing and holed her below the waterline. Elbing was damaged so severely that her engine room was completely flooded and she was unable to move; the captain of the ship ordered Elbing be scuttled to prevent her capture by the British."
1465:
They did not sell the copyright - the sold the photos themselves as well as some negatives. This does not mean copyright was transferred. You are mixing up owning the object itself with owning the copyright or intellectual property. Think of it this way, when a library owns a book or manuscript, that
1090:
that the image is in the public domain. My demands are not unreasonable - they are necessary. I am now adding an "oppose" to this comment. I have explained what needs to be done. At this point, either more information needs to be provided to demonstrate the image's PD status or the image needs to be
1700:
The problem is, there really aren't that many
English sources for this information (and my German isn't nearly good enough to look through German sources), so everything more or less has to come from the handful of sources that do exist. It just seems a little extreme to me to have 20-odd citations
1685:
I used to do that myself but did at least mention "for the whole paragraph" in the inline cite. But then, each para ideally should be sourced from more than publication and if it isn't now, somebody else will add a sentence in these para that is from another source, which will confuse things either
1347:
itself is a part of LoC. When professionals at LoC say that there are no known restrictions on publication, it means that even though they might not be 100% sure of PD status, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever come and sue you for using them. As for the assertion that "templates can be
1255:
obtain special collections from time to time, and individual collections can have terms from a donor, or can be purchased (along with copyright) outright. Prior to 1978 (when the 1976 Copyright Act came into effect), most case law indicated that unless a contract specified otherwise, copyright was
972:
being in the public domain. 2) The description of the Bain collection says "The bulk of the collection dates from the 1900s to the mid-1920s, but scattered images can be found as early as the 1860s and as late as the 1930s." - Anything published after 1923 would still fall under copyright
844:
I understand why you used bolding in the infobox, but I really dislike it—looks icky, and lends weight to the 'wrong' information. I think the real problem is too much information in the infobox. I understand (believe me) the compulsion to not 'lose' any pieces of data, but if the data is not even
662:
I was a little concerned about the length of the article at first, but after a look see the length fora ship class in service for such a short time seems appropriate. One question though: did the ships mount any type of electronic equipment? I know that it is too earlier for radar, but what about
1356:
the place for disputing
Commons practices, and opposing this FAC solely for the inclusion of this image is disproportionate. I'm sorry for the somewhat harsh language, and this is in no way intended as a personal attack. However, I find it quite disheartening when people become so obsessive about
1318:
I can't believe the issue surrounding this image is taking up a third of the entire FAC nomination. Honestly, Awadewit, this is much ado about nothing. The LoC always uses the phrase "No known restrictions on publication", even for images which are proven to be in the public domain. For instance,
904:
Thanks, I fixed the line in the intro you pointed out, and cleaned up the infobox a bit. I had tried the bolding as a sort of experiment, and I wasn't really sure how I felt about it. I think it's better without. I changed the
Commons link to the standard one; I'm not really sure where that came
1379:
I stand by my oppose. I am not going to repeat myself. I have explained my reasons, which are entirely legitimate. (By the way, if you want to know why so few FA reviewers are willing to look at images, this exchange is a perfect example of the treatment that drives reviewers away.)
685:
is the best technical reference I've yet come across, but it doesn't mention anything about the issue. Neither does Conway's, but I wouldn't expect it to, really. I'll keep digging (I'm away from home, and only brought a couple of books with me) and see what I can turn up.
1260:
tag for this collection to indicate that they may be PD for reasons other than normal U.S. rules; images from there have always met
Commons requirements. In fact, it is one of the two collections (the other being federal government works) the LoC is putting on
1500:
If they didn't sell the copyright, then they didn't sell the photographs. They merely licensed them (for example, the reason one cannot freely copy and redistribute music; it wasn't sold in the legal sense, it was licensed for personal use).
973:
and we would have to establish that the owner had been dead for over 70 years or some other method if we wanted to claim that it was in the PD. Thus, we need to know the details about this image. First and foremost, when was it published?
1570:
Actually the
Library of Congress provides more specific information regarding certain collections within its Prints and Photographs division, and the George Grantham Bain collection is one of them. See "About the George Grantham Bain
1670:
As far as I know, that's not necessary. Every line is sourced to the citation at the end of the paragraph. If portions of a paragraph are not sourced to the ending citation, there are the appropriate citations where they need to be.
1593:
Apparently, one minute of research would have resolved this issue. The ship was scrapped in 1924, therefore it is extremely likely that the image is from 1923 or before. I have added this information to the image description page.
704:
Just to follow up, I haven't been able to find anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc. in any of my books, or on Google books. Short of archival documents, it doesn't look like the information exists.
752:
Please audit your use of "however"; in two places it appears twice in close succession. Use it only when necessary, and where contradiction is indicated. Consider using "although", "though", or "but" instead.
527:
Quite, although I was thinking in terms of individuals ships, not classes (likely, both types of categories are needed). Interesting. This indicates to me a greater failing among ship articles category system
1217:, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply." (emphasis added) Moreover, the LoC cannot "place" anything into the PD. Finally,
1434:
For my part, I simply don't understand your objection. Bain News
Service held the copyright; they sold it to the LoC. How is it still in copyright if the LoC is not claiming to hold a current copyright?
1209:
That is incorrect. If a photo is known to be in the PD, the LOC says so - "no known restrictions" is their way of getting around not knowing for sure whether or not something is in the PD. In their
849:
speeds, the complement figures as flagship, etc), then it probably doesn't belong in a summary, right? Another item I wouldn't detail there is the boats: a simple '10' would suffice in the infobox.
1052:
I'm pretty sure that it would be harder to do a more in-depth look than the LOC would do. "No known restrictions" sounds like this passes the "acceptable copyright status" requirement of
1352:
that they are PD, then you are perfectly allowed to make such a proposal on the
Commons Village Pump, although I doubt it will get a single support vote. However, this FAC is clearly
1398:
Awadewit, my sincere apologies...we aren't meaning to hassle you...It's just that, in good faith, Parsec and I disagree and believe that the image can be used. Again, apologies, —
1686:
way. I've had to add more inline cites during FARs of many early FAs I worked on that tried to get away with one inline cite per paragraph. It is just not sufficient, IMO. --
252:
I added the gun calibers and the torpedo bulkhead to the infobox; there isn't a field for double bottom percentage/watertight compartments or anything like that, is there?
1086:
when it comes to copyright. It proves nothing. Finally, templates can be created by anyone on
Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created. This one
681:
Thanks, I haven't yet found anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc, although I'm sure they mounted at least some time of optical rangefinder. Gröner's
449:
Thanks, Ed, for taking care of that. I checked through the article for other endashes that have the same problem, but I think (and this is just my understanding of
40:
934:- We have to prove that this image is in the PD - "no known restrictions" is not sufficient. What reason do you have to believe that this is in the PD?
424:
390:
505:(the first ship class FA that comes to mind) and it has the basically just the same categories that this one does. Do you mean something like, say,
30:
17:
510:
968:
prove their public domain status - that is part of the policy, particularly at
Commons, where this image is hosted - "no known restrictions"
205:"Bilge keels were later added, which helped to improve the rolling problem. However, they were maneuverable and had a small turning radius."
663:
signal detection equipment or a military radio. I will not hold this against you, I am merely curious if you found any info on this matter.
1013:
These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply.
506:
327:
1000:
There are no copyright markings or other indications on the images to indicate that they were copyrighted or otherwise restricted, AND
1715:
Agreed here. I've never had, and can't see, a problem with having one cite at the end of a paragraph if it is all from one source. —
1608:
Think of all the minutes you could have saved (not to mention goodwill) if you had done that minute of research on the front-end. --
931:
1235:
I will firmly stand by my statement ;-) The LoC never says "public domain" on any image description page I have ever seen; they
767:
Proofread the article for other repetitions. "All four ships" appears three times in the second paragraph of the introduction.
836:
I've done a bunch of MOS cleanup and a little copyediting just now; overall this is in good shape. A few minor remaining issues:
1728:
1710:
1695:
1680:
1664:
1646:
1617:
1603:
1583:
1548:
1510:
1475:
1444:
1411:
1389:
1366:
1307:
1274:
1230:
1176:
1130:
1100:
1077:
1045:
982:
959:
944:
914:
895:
820:
806:
790:
776:
762:
741:
714:
695:
672:
652:
624:
605:
568:
550:
533:
522:
492:
462:
444:
426:
410:
392:
363:
349:
313:
290:
241:
176:
131:
103:
82:
1466:
does not mean they own the copyright to that book or manuscript. Copyright is independent of ownership of the object itself.
1344:
1655:
I'd like to see an inline cite after each sentence that has a date or number. If that is fixed, I'll change to support. --
950:
Why is that insufficient? It's in the George Bain collection, which is generally held to be PD, unless otherwise noted.
996:
2. The image is from a late 19th or early 20th century collection for which there is no evidence of any rights holder:
1009:
Images from the collection have been used and published extensively without anyone stepping forward to claim rights.
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1324:
856:
578:
197:"As designed, the ships did not handle particularly well, even in calm seas, and their motion was quite stiff. "
532:) in general - they should be categorized with the naval equivalents of year of establishment/disestablishment (
122:
94:, and I feel it's at or close to FA. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks.
1082:
The LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work. Moreover, I must reiterate that "no known restrictions" means
321:
64:
841:
I left an inline comment in the lead, regarding a snaky sentence that isn't cohesive and needs to be split.
574:
1060:}} template if the images aren't allowed on there? I think that you might be going a bit overboard here...
419:
385:
255:
Nevermind, I added the figures to the "Notes" field in the infobox. I guess that's as good a place as any.
502:
150:
582:
1266:
453:) that the only one that needed spaces was the one you pointed out (31 May – 1 June). Thanks again.
1706:
1676:
1642:
1506:
1440:
1303:
1270:
1257:
1172:
1156:
1126:
1006:
The acquisition paperwork for the collection does not contain any evidence of any restrictions, AND
955:
910:
876:
816:
786:
710:
691:
668:
598:
586:
564:
518:
458:
359:
307:
286:
113:
99:
78:
1599:
1577:
I see no objection against designating this image with the standard Bain collection PD template.
1544:
1471:
1385:
1226:
1096:
1041:
978:
940:
802:
772:
758:
737:
729:
649:
317:
556:
1053:
891:
866:
617:
543:
485:
416:
382:
397:
Julian, what did you do in that diff? I honestly can't tell, even with the edit summary. :/ —
142:
1362:
1265:; they are probably as sure about their copyright status as any other in their collection.
267:
Yes, the "they" refers to the class, not the bilge keels. I'll fix that misplaced modifier.
811:
I've incorporated that information into the article, thanks for helping do some research!
431:
Ah, apologies. I hate how hard it is to see spacing changes in diffs. Thanks and cheers, —
165:
90:
I rewrote and greatly expanded this article over the past month or so. It recently passed
1215:
These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain
781:
I cut out most of the "however"s and fixed the "all four ships" repetition in the intro.
146:
1003:
The records of the U.S. Copyright Office do not indicate any copyright registration, AND
1702:
1672:
1638:
1502:
1436:
1299:
1168:
1122:
951:
906:
812:
782:
706:
687:
664:
592:
560:
529:
514:
454:
355:
303:
282:
95:
74:
1718:
1691:
1660:
1634:
1613:
1595:
1572:
1540:
1467:
1401:
1381:
1222:
1092:
1067:
1037:
974:
936:
798:
768:
754:
733:
645:
434:
400:
339:
231:
53:
1262:
732:. I believe this characteristic was common to German capital ships of the period.
887:
613:
539:
481:
1160:
1057:
1578:
1575:
1358:
1320:
728:"Stiffness" related to the vessel's roll characteristics, and is influenced by
354:
I dropped a line at FTC Gerry's talk page, maybe he can help us out with this.
1167:
is indeed one of the glass negatives, so it should be perfectly fine for use.
157:
1218:
1210:
1018:
1574:
and "George Grantham Bain Collection: Rights and Restrictions Information".
1244:
1687:
1656:
1609:
1248:
1240:
577:
that looks like we're going to create a category tree along the lines of
450:
188:
1539:
I have asked two Commons admins to comment here. Hopefully they will.
797:
I will add some substantive comments on design to article talk page.
872:
tag makes the Commonscat link look like a reference. Why not use the
415:"31 May–1 June 1916" → "31 May – 1 June 1916" (notice the spacing). –
264:
describes them As a non-sailor, I don't know exactly what that means.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
644:- sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
1633:? I say this with a deep sense of irony and a growing loathing of
1319:
photographs in the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection
1343:
about copyright, it's clearly the Library of Congress, since the
1323:, yet the phrase "No known restrictions on publication" is still
1032:
Commons requirements are more stringent than the LOC's - Commons
330:); I'm not sure if they would know, but it'd be your best bet. :/
559:
and see how the project wants to set up that category system.
589:. Once this is implemented, they'll be added to the article.
511:
Category:Ship classes that were removed from service in 1920
1239:
use the "no known restrictions" terminology. For example
149:(respective links checker tools), and the ref formatting (
905:
from, but I usually don't mess with those. Thanks again.
478:. Missing categories for started and end of service? --
378:
91:
57:
501:
Can you be a little more specific, please? I checked
112:: All images (4) seem to be appropriately licensed.
1219:if you read the entire rights statement on the LoC
507:Category:Ship classes that entered service in 1909
153:script) of the article all check out fine.--Best,
1740:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
994:
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
194:Underwater protection figures for the infobox?
1746:No further edits should be made to this page.
1629:Since when did "extremely likely" constitute
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1357:what is really a non-issue. Best regards. --
377:- MoS compliance may require attention; see
1036:that images prove that they are in the PD.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
1701:to "Gröner, p. 23" when 5 or so would do.
1247:(U.S. federal government photograph), or
1211:own definition of "no known restrictions"
845:mentioned in the text (like the range at
614:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
540:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
482:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
1321:are known to be in the public domain
191:numbers for the guns in the infobox?
1056:. Also, why would Commons have a {{
1243:(an item published in the 1600s),
24:
932:File:SMS Westfalen LOC 25466u.jpg
336:*facepalm*... Cheers Parsec! :) —
208:Does "they" refer to "the class"?
987:So it isn't PD, per say...but...
555:Alright, I'll bring that up at
534:Category:Establishments by year
1345:United States Copyright Office
1:
1155:I brought this up on Commons
1159:; Carl Lindberg states that
579:Category:20th century ships
31:featured article nomination
1763:
1729:01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1711:01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1696:01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1681:00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1665:23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
1647:16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
1618:23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
1275:00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
929:Oppose based on criteron 3
696:12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
683:German Warships: 1815–1945
673:06:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
653:13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
523:12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
493:02:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
463:12:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
445:03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
427:02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
411:02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
393:01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
364:12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
350:13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
302:Hmm. You could try asking
291:11:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
281:Thanks for your comments!
274:was the 4th member of the
262:German Warships: 1815–1945
242:01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
177:01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
132:19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
104:13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
83:13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1604:17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1584:21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1549:18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1511:17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1476:17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1445:17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1412:00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1390:17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1367:16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1308:15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1231:14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1177:12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1131:11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1101:02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1078:02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1046:03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
983:01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
960:20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
945:19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
915:10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
896:04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
821:23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
807:15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
791:22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
777:15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
763:15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
742:03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
715:23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
625:14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
606:15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
569:02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
551:01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1743:Please do not modify it.
1258:commons:Template:PD-Bain
1121:I've removed the image.
573:There's a discussion at
260:"Stiff" is how Gröner's
36:Please do not modify it.
65:Nassau class battleship
1023:
924:Image review (Part 2)
610:Glad to hear that! --
503:Iowa class battleship
56:19:29, 14 April 2009
1591:Image issue resolved
583:Category:1900s ships
224:have to do with the
587:Category:1901 ships
970:is not the same as
730:metacentric height
1063:
857:Commonscat-inline
604:
173:
86:
1754:
1745:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1581:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1213:, the LOC says "
1162:
1075:
1073:
1070:
1061:
1021:
881:
875:
871:
865:
861:
855:
622:
620:
603:
601:
590:
548:
546:
490:
488:
442:
440:
437:
408:
406:
403:
381:as an example. –
347:
345:
342:
299:Looks alright :)
239:
237:
234:
171:
168:
163:
160:
156:
139:Technical Review
125:
116:
71:
48:The article was
38:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1741:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1579:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1054:FA criterion #3
1022:
1017:
879:
873:
869:
863:
859:
853:
623:
618:
612:
599:
591:
549:
544:
538:
491:
486:
480:
438:
435:
433:
404:
401:
399:
343:
340:
338:
278:class, so... :)
235:
232:
230:
169:
166:
161:
158:
128:
123:
114:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1760:
1758:
1749:
1748:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1650:
1649:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1587:
1586:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1263:Flickr commons
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1088:does not prove
1050:
1049:
1048:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1001:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
920:
919:
918:
917:
899:
898:
884:
883:
850:
842:
838:
837:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
795:
794:
793:
765:
745:
744:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
699:
698:
676:
675:
656:
655:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
611:
537:
530:Category:Ships
496:
495:
479:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
413:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
334:
331:
300:
294:
293:
279:
268:
265:
258:
257:
256:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
211:
210:
209:
203:
202:
201:
195:
192:
180:
179:
147:external links
143:Disambiguation
135:
134:
120:
115:NuclearWarfare
88:
87:
73:Nominator(s):
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1759:
1747:
1744:
1738:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1635:wikilawyering
1632:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1582:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1566:
1565:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:Carl Lindberg
1264:
1259:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1062:no offense...
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1008:
1005:
1002:
999:
998:
997:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
935:
933:
930:
926:
925:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
886:
885:
878:
868:
858:
851:
848:
843:
840:
839:
835:
832:
831:
822:
818:
814:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
766:
764:
760:
756:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
716:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
700:
697:
693:
689:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
674:
670:
666:
661:
658:
657:
654:
651:
647:
643:
640:
639:
626:
621:
615:
609:
608:
607:
602:
596:
595:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
547:
541:
535:
531:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
489:
483:
477:
474:
473:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
443:
441:
430:
429:
428:
425:
423:
420:
418:
414:
412:
409:
407:
396:
395:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
380:
376:
373:
372:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
348:
346:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
319:
318:BB35 Restorer
315:
312:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
266:
263:
259:
254:
253:
251:
250:
243:
240:
238:
227:
223:
219:
215:
214:
212:
207:
206:
204:
199:
198:
196:
193:
190:
187:
186:
185:
182:
181:
178:
175:
174:
172:
164:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
136:
133:
130:
129:
126:
117:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
101:
97:
93:
85:
84:
80:
76:
70:
69:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1742:
1739:
1716:
1652:
1651:
1630:
1626:
1590:
1567:
1399:
1353:
1349:
1340:
1315:
1297:
1252:
1236:
1214:
1164:
1087:
1083:
1065:
1033:
1012:
995:
969:
965:
928:
927:
923:
922:
921:
846:
833:
725:
682:
659:
641:
593:
475:
432:
421:
417:Juliancolton
398:
387:
383:Juliancolton
374:
337:
324:
310:
275:
271:
261:
229:
225:
221:
217:
183:
155:
154:
138:
119:
118:
110:Image review
109:
89:
72:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1653:Weak oppose
1571:Collection"
1334:description
862:inside the
228:class? :) —
151:WP:REFTOOLS
92:MILHIST ACR
964:1) Images
877:Commonscat
1703:Parsecboy
1673:Parsecboy
1639:Dhatfield
1503:Parsecboy
1437:Parsecboy
1300:Parsecboy
1169:Parsecboy
1165:Westfalen
1123:Parsecboy
1091:removed.
952:Parsecboy
907:Parsecboy
813:Parsecboy
783:Parsecboy
707:Parsecboy
688:Parsecboy
665:TomStar81
594:Parsecboy
561:Parsecboy
515:Parsecboy
455:Parsecboy
356:Parsecboy
304:FTC Gerry
283:Parsecboy
96:Parsecboy
75:Parsecboy
1596:Awadewit
1541:Awadewit
1468:Awadewit
1382:Awadewit
1341:anything
1223:Awadewit
1093:Awadewit
1038:Awadewit
1034:requires
975:Awadewit
937:Awadewit
867:refbegin
799:Kablammo
769:Kablammo
755:Kablammo
734:Kablammo
646:Ealdgyth
642:Comments
575:WT:SHIPS
557:WP:SHIPS
451:MOS:DASH
328:contribs
314:contribs
216:What do
200:"Stiff"?
184:Comments
54:Karanacs
50:promoted
1627:Comment
1568:Comment
1316:Comment
1084:nothing
1058:PD-Bain
888:Maralia
834:Support
726:Comment
660:Support
585:--: -->
581:--: -->
476:Comment
375:Comment
189:Caliber
1580:Durova
1359:BomBom
1237:always
1163:. The
852:Using
276:Nassau
270:Well,
226:Nassau
222:Elbing
1631:proof
1350:prove
1331:their
619:talk
600:Chat
545:talk
536:). --
487:talk
316:) or
272:Posen
218:Posen
16:<
1707:talk
1692:talk
1677:talk
1661:talk
1643:talk
1614:talk
1600:talk
1545:talk
1507:talk
1472:talk
1441:talk
1386:talk
1363:talk
1337:page
1325:used
1304:talk
1271:talk
1249:here
1245:here
1241:here
1227:talk
1173:talk
1157:here
1127:talk
1097:talk
1042:talk
979:talk
966:must
956:talk
941:talk
911:talk
892:talk
882:box?
847:four
817:talk
803:talk
787:talk
773:talk
759:talk
738:talk
711:talk
692:talk
669:Talk
650:Talk
565:talk
519:talk
459:talk
379:here
360:talk
322:talk
308:talk
287:talk
220:and
145:and
124:Talk
100:talk
79:talk
1720:Ed
1688:mav
1657:mav
1610:mav
1403:Ed
1354:not
1069:Ed
1019:LOC
436:Ed
402:Ed
341:Ed
333:Ok.
233:Ed
141:--
52:by
1723:17
1709:)
1694:)
1679:)
1663:)
1645:)
1637:.
1616:)
1602:)
1547:)
1509:)
1474:)
1443:)
1406:17
1388:)
1365:)
1328:on
1306:)
1273:)
1253:do
1229:)
1175:)
1129:)
1099:)
1072:17
1044:)
1016:—
981:)
958:)
943:)
913:)
894:)
880:}}
874:{{
870:}}
864:{{
860:}}
854:{{
819:)
805:)
789:)
775:)
761:)
740:)
713:)
694:)
671:)
648:-
597::
567:)
521:)
513:?
461:)
439:17
405:17
362:)
344:17
289:)
236:17
162:RU
102:)
81:)
59:.
33:.
1705:(
1690:(
1675:(
1659:(
1641:(
1612:(
1598:(
1543:(
1505:(
1470:(
1439:(
1384:(
1361:(
1302:(
1269:(
1225:(
1171:(
1125:(
1095:(
1064:—
1040:(
977:(
954:(
939:(
909:(
890:(
815:(
801:(
785:(
771:(
757:(
736:(
709:(
690:(
667:(
616:|
563:(
542:|
528:(
517:(
509:/
484:|
457:(
422:·
388:·
358:(
325:·
320:(
311:·
306:(
285:(
170:Ө
167:C
159:₮
127:)
121:(
98:(
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.