Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 5

4650:

understandable). I pointed them to a wikipedia namespace location where they could learn about wiki image syntax, in the (perhaps misguided) opinion that they were having difficulty navigating the wikipedia namespace and needed a little help making that last step from here to there. Vanjagenije told them "go back to the start and try again, you can't get there from here". So, I'm confused why you think that was actually helpful. It didn't look helpful to me. But maybe it's just that we had different impressions of the OP's expertise — I thought they were someone who already knew about wikis and where to find information about them, but just needed a little more specific navigation to the right page — like someone who is driving in an unfamiliar neighborhood and stops to ask for directions, but is close to where they are trying to go and does know how to drive. Vanjagenije's answer seemed to me the sort of thing that would be appropriate only for a complete newbie. —

1716:– While I agree that we should not be banning left-aligned images altogether under a level 3 heading (or any level heading for that matter), I still think the preference in that position is right-aligned, unless the situation is better suited for left-aligned. I realize from all the feedback above and in past discussions that there are and will be plenty of exceptions (e.g., short section, images are stacking up to the right, etc.). However, when the section is long enough and has multiple images, it does look better to stagger them right then left, and not the other way around. The guideline could be rephrased to reflect that. Instead of just "avoid", it could be "try to avoid", and/or "use left-aligned images sparingly". That way, it's still a matter of preference but with some encouragement to keep them to the right when immediately under a section header. My 2¢ anyway. -- 1702:: When I was originally slapped upside the head for disobeying this rule (probably in 2006 or 2007), at the time I was told that doing this caused some sort of horrible problem in certain browsers for some technical or accessibility reason - not the one noted above - but one I have since forgotten. It wasn't an issue before a level three heading or in the middle of a level three subsection, though. So who remembers what this technical issue was and has it been resolved? As an aside, I disfavor banning left-aligned images, there are a lot of good reasons to use them, decent graphic layout and design being the big one for me - all right-aligned images in a long article looks cruddy. 1516:. Furthermore, in a wall of text, some readers can have difficulty in scanning from one line to the next down, and their gaze can bounce back to the start of the same line or the next line up or a different line on the page, and the text becomes "jumbled". However, say there is a picture of a man on the left: now when they've finished the line by the man's head, their gaze is directed to the line by the man's neck, and then the line by the man's shoulder, etc. This helps them through the text: the images on the left provide visual cues that can be used to identify the start of the next line down. Dyslexia style guides, such as 2096:'s page over an image of him at a fairly important meeting in which you can only see his head. There appear to be quality issues as well, but it got me wondering - would a photograph of a person that doesn't show the person well be appropriate if it showed an event important to their life? Or does the policy cited in the Gloria Steinem example apply to the entire article, not just the lead? My instincts tell me that once you have a few good pictures of the biography subject, documenting events in that person's life may help the article if they do fit the other criteria for inclusion. 2896:. For instance, articles on minor states of the Holy Roman Empire are often rather short, but they are nevertheless "afflicted" with comparatively very lengthy infoboxes (and since infoboxes for former countries are narrower than normal, it makes those damn infoboxes even longer). Often, the infobox spreads over the entire length of the article, so that in order to respect the anti-sandwiching rule any image will have to be relegated to the bottom of the article, out of view. Now imagine when there are two infoboxes on top of each other....-- 868:

left-aligned images is that readers' eyes follow images, so they can distract readers from the text. However, if the aim is to draw people's attention to the image, before they read the text, then left-aligned images can work well. Placing images on the right and left, so that text is sandwiched, can also have the effect of drawing attention to the text too, depending on how it's done. For all these reasons I think placement should be left to editorial discretion, because everything depends on context.

2843:: I still very much think large sections of text sandwiched between images looks awful. Show me a newspaper or magazine that does it routinely. I don't think you can. It's a major layout sin because it doesn't make things any easier for the reader. The fact that you can find GAs, or even FAs, that do this to me speaks more to the poor or uninformed quality of reviewing (especially in the former category) than it does to the desirability of allowing this amateurishness. 3258:, stating, "This really isn't done anymore." Like I noted in that revert of his change, the 220px default matter is still done, and for good reasons -- browser complications. There is also the general factor that images that are too big can negatively affect the look of sections in articles (such as sections that are small). 220px is the default size, after all. The last thing we need are people generally setting the image size to 300px or to 450px, as in 2660:, in the first, I see citations sandwiched between an image of Numismatist Farran Zerbe on the left and images of Lewis and Clark on the right. In other words, the entire References and bibliography section is sandwiched. When I look at the second again, I realize that it depends on window width; on my display, there is a ton of sandwiching; it's ~1920 pixels wide. If I shrink it to ~1280 pixels wide, there's a lot less sandwiching, but still 2-3 35: 406:, for example, I had originally placed some images on the left (in order to have alternating left/right placement of images), but other editors insisted on moving them to the right because of the disputed MOS provision. I am not currently convinced that this provision is necessary; if starting a section or subsection with a left-placed image really does make it harder to read the text, I would like to see more evidence of this. — 3824:. So "upright=1.35" with the default of 220px displays the image at 300px (297 rounded), with preference set to 250px it displays at 340px (337.5 rounded), 300px preference displays at 410px (405 rounded), and 400px preference displays at 540px (540 rounded). You can confirm these numbers, as I have, by changing your Preferences, going to a page containing an image with "upright=1.35" (such the first row of image examples at 3380: 1876:… 2. In most cases, images should contain a caption… 3. Where possible, charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent… 4. Detailed image descriptions…should be placed on the image description page 5. Images should be inside the section they belong to… It may be I read the preference for right aligned in a See also article, but I do not recall, so I must defer. 459:, then you pretty much have to stagger images, or resign yourself to having a string of images that hangs down one or more screenfuls past the text. I believe that the stagger-left-and-right rule has been pushed hard at FAC in the past, with the result that some editors believed that all articles must always do this, even if they contain almost no images. 3546: 1237:, which states "Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion", I shall remove the guidance on right-aligning below sub-headings. The guideline still states "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages". If I misread consensus, please undo the close and list the discussion at AN/RfC. Thanks. 4563:. The first response was more helpful because it attempted to help educate the OP about the talk space landscape, which is important. In the long run, knowing where the best resources are is far more valuable than the answer to any individual question, and the best way to learn about those resources is to actually use them. Teach a man to fish. ― 2167:, guiding editors not to attempt to place images inside paragraphs. The problem of having the alt text appearing inside a block of text potentially applies to screen readers, text-only browsers and anyone who has turned off images in their browser (perhaps on a low-bandwidth connection), so I've tried to summarise those cases concisely. 4798:

work here because the user's font does not scale with their selected thumbnail size. Instead, it should be aimed to have inlines approach 12px (the default font size for most of WP's skins if you don't play with CSS) as to avoid overly-tall or tiny images, that can result from a mismatch of font size

4649:

The OP was asking about wiki image syntax. To get this far, they had obviously learned something about Knowledge (XXG) namespace, but not enough to find the right page (we have the MOS Image page, the image uploading policy, three or four help pages, and who knows how many essays, so the confusion is

4249:

community consensus on this issue. Sure, we can go with local consensus on this, which will be unknown to or ignored by many, and will endlessly ping-pong back and forth as the local mix of editors changes. I was hoping to avoid all that as unnecessary. Regardless, the current guidance here does not

4061:

articles do not comply with each and every guideline, especially when editors go in and change the articles to be a certain way well after the article reached its WP:Good or WP:Featured status. For this case, what proof is there that "the community likes the second statement more than the first"? And

3346:

I'm returning to this section to ask: Shouldn't we note something in MOS:IMAGES#Size and MOS:IMAGELOCATION about why the defaults are preferred, something along the lines of what Masem said above? Right now, when editors are redirected to those sections, they don't get a good idea of why the defaults

1776:

with a suggestion to right-align instead. The accessibility issues normally follow the left alignment (i.e. the start of the line). Style guidelines have exceptions; where there's a good reason to, an article may always depart. But in the absence of any other reason, accessibility is important enough

1758:

in my monobook.css) but it's a hinderance, rather than a bar. I'd certainly prefer to run images R-L-R or put the first L image a little way into the section, but there will be times when you don't do that for reasons of space or aesthetics. If this guidance is to remain, then in my humble opinion it

1067:

But that's not the wording employed: the old wording was just what you've said, i.e. avoid placing a left-aligned photo at a level 3 heading or below, but that has become "avoid placing a photo at the start of any section". Either the old wording should be restored or the paragraph should be removed:

1048:

Since this sentence was moved here from the MOS main page, it presumably had the consensus support of the larger group of editors there. Also, a large photo at the beginning of a level 3 or below section will divorce the section heading from the text, and make the heading appear to be a title for the

684:

I wouldn't object to softening this advice; it's advice about what's good in general, rather than what should be done in absolutely every case. There may be circumstances, such as articles whose sections rarely contain more than one paragraph, for which this might be difficult to apply in practice.

519:

This guidance should be restored to the article. It is consistent with the Forced left justification guidance: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a

360:

We can also move the lead image to the right. This allows the body copy to hold its shape better and allows for even easier scanning of the article. We can break this principle to draw attention to images and figures, of course, but for our example the image is too distracting on the left when placed

4018:

is better, do it. If not, don't do it. This is not guidance, and the effect would be the same if you removed both statements. Clearly, the community likes the second statement more than the first, and the guidance should be modified to reflect community consensus, regardless of how we feel about the

3669:

Another part of the issue is that there is a particular editor who insists on putting these same large image galleries of related content into many other articles, overwhelming the actual content of the articles, and he's very stubborn about putting them back whenever anyone tries to trim them down.

3181:

Should we be setting an image size to cater to the user not logged in and guessing what size monitor they have. Or should we be using the default image size so that people can set their default image size to bigger or smaller. Someone is arguing that "267px" is the optimal size for a user not logged

1493:

Accessibility is the purpose of this rule. The advice is specifically about ===Level 3=== subheadings, which do not have a horizontal rule under them. People with dyslexia and other conditions find it more difficult to locate the first word in a section if there is an image "blocking" it. Most of

816:

It was not I that mentioned the article in the first place and I am free to comment on what I like. I did however inform the Montacute House talk page that the article has been mentioned here so people involved there can comment on the concerns raised. Please fell free to comment on the situation at

4682:

The regular responders at the Help Desk are very knowledgeable and would likely be able to provide the same guidance you did. Teahouse too, probably. The difference is that your answer left the OP without the knowledge that those two places are the best places to start with any how-to question. The

4218:

I believe that "most" is meant to mean "more than 50%", but not necessarily much more than 50%. For an article with a few images and a lot of text, then having three on the right and one on the left (Mandruss's example of 75%) would be reasonable. However, it's necessary to take all the facts and

2099:

What kind of guideline should we be using when figuring out how many pictures to include in an article? It's clear that "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can," but is there an amount of picture-less text at which we should strive

1955:

The text in that proposal is actually the same wording that existed before this discussion started. Then DrKiernan, on the basis that someone changed it without consensus more than a year ago, reverted back the original wording. That proposal below would undo DrKiernan's revert. Personally, I think

1512:

But alternating images left and right improves accessibility. When all the images are on the right, it creates a wall of text effect where the start of every line on the left looks identical. This is more intimidating to dyslexics and more difficult to read. Alternating images left and right breaks

3694:

Is there an actual issue with the number of images in the article? It would be a bad idea to put hard limits on the number or ratio of allowable images—context and consensus should be what determines it. For instance, when I read the opening comment here, I assumed it was a small article flooded

1936:

which seems to have been last edited a month ago. It now seems to me that much of that (inconclusive)discussion provides better alternative wordings for a guideline on image placement. For the impatient or busy: read the LAST proposal first! So please take a moment to see whether you prefer the

1533:

Yes, alternating images can be helpful. I am not advocating that they be banned, or even discouraged. However, placing an image exactly where the eye expects to find text, in a place with no visual element to help you find the first word of the text (because we do not choose to have a horizontal

880:

Yes, the original advice discouraged placement directly under subsection headings, since these heading types do not use horizontal line separators. It appears that multiple editors so far agree that there will be a few exceptions (noted above in addition to the one you mentioned), and as a result,

715:

I completely agree. It doesn't seem like it needs to be an absolute rule. I would support rephrasing the guideline so that it sounds more like a preference that has exceptions. Articles early on in development with limited content wouldn't be handicapped by the guideline, but at the same time, the

3417:

that WT:MoS be established as Knowledge (XXG)'s official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages, which may include this one. The goal is to centralize discussion and make help easier to find without increasing

3197:

We recommend that users not set image sizes as to allow default thumbnail settings to work and to work with the device's web browser (mobile interface different from desktop, for example). However, there are times that you want to display an image at a larger size, and we do allow pixel sizing as

2928:

template that allow you to place images next to the infobox along the right side of the article. You wouldn't be forced to dump them to the bottom. As for the larger issue of sandwiching text, I think it should be avoided when possible with the awareness that it is sometimes simply unavoidable. I

2227:

was good quality, but the subject occupied much less of the frame and was a little less neutral POV. Anyway, I think it would be useful to enumerate some "best practices" for lead images if it hasn't been done already. If it hasn't been done, I'll gladly start a new discussion about adding such.

945:

Very true, you have been reverted. I am sorry Bede, but you are being used as a stooge by Andy Mabbitt who is just trolling for trouble as usual. All major changed to a GA should be discussed on the talk page with the primary authors who have to maintain the page. As Mabbitt and his sidekick Moxy

2678:

My screen is clearly narrower than yours, and I think this may explain the discrepancy, not only in what we're seeing but also in our opinions. On wide screens, sandwiching is not going to be a problem because the text will not be cramped, and so there looks to be no reason for the advice not to

2443:

has a picture of the Mona Lisa. Is this an unnecessary distraction to the reader, when other images are available and a picture of an anonymous woman laughing would put more focus on the laugh (which is the article subject) and less on the person doing it (which is irrelevant to the article)? It

4685:

Your type of answer also reinforces the misuse of project talk pages. These pages are for discussion of improvements to the associated project pages, per the prominently placed and highlighted instruction at the top of each such page. If the community feels that this organizational structure is

745:

which just passed GA with all of its sections beginning with pix on the left. There are many beautiful, high quality photos in the article but its hard to fit them within their sections without starting the section with a photo. So I sympathize with the editors but.... at the same time, it also

431:

contains this language about forced left justification: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image

881:

the guideline should be rephrased to reflect that. Though exceptions do exist, many left-justified images are simply placed there by mistake or for no good reason at all. Therefore, there's a good case for keeping the guideline, albeit in some modified form perhaps assigned a lower priority. --

776:

has been mentioned and it seems no one has mentioned accessibility concerns. Montacute House is a great example of what not to do with images as outlined by our policy - images on the left - forcing big images beyond any recommendations - hiding of images - sandwiching of text ... all are a

655:. We can always discuss it at a later date and see if consensus changes. Personally my objections are practical, rather than principled, that it is difficult to balance the "eyes to text" rule with this. This is countered to my satisfaction by the sensible interpretation taken by editors like 841:

issues, it is a classical example of what not to do. On the issue of finding a new way of phrasing, I am in favour of that as long as it doesn't get too long and difficult to interpret, so some care would need to be taken with this. Maybe the order of these is significant. The most important

4143:

Apparently, my tone these days naturally comes off as "a bit confrontational, accusatory, and un-Wikipedian" to certain editors; that was not my intention in this case. In my experience, though, from what I see on this site day in and out, confrontational and accusatory are very Wikipedian.

1649:. I have put a notice on the WikiProject Accessibility talk page, pointing people to this discussion. I myself am somewhat in favour of removing this part of the guideline, but I think the best approach is to get accessibility-minded editors to weigh in before a final decision is made. — 867:

I don't recall the disputed text ever being in the MoS. There used to be advice not to place images on the left directly under third-level headings, because it caused some technical problem, but that was found no longer to pertain so it was removed (writing from memory). The only issue with

3771:

As the one who reverted your earlier change, your new version looks much better to me. But is it really accurate? It seems to imply that if I set a default thumbnail of 225px I will not see any change in size compared to if I set a default thumbnail of 220px. I would have thought that with

659:, previously discussed on this page - that these different rules have to be reasonably balanced. For anyone interested all the evidence so far indicates that this is inherited from practice in newspapers and has a basis in fact, but it does not seem to have been tested for online reading.-- 1956:

some form of the guideline should remain, perhaps as a recommedation as opposed to a requirement. That would help alleviate situations where editors are left-aligning images for no good reason at all, giving us something we can direct them to when editors disagree and/or are reverted. --

627:

retired from Knowledge (XXG) shortly after this discussion was started, so we're not likely to hear back from the editor who brought the issue to the floor. SabreBD, you (and any other editor) are certainly welcome to continue the discussion, but if not, we can consider the case closed.

1478:

Generally left aligned is used when text is not long enough to support two images, so they are split left and right. Guttering does not work on multiple browsers. General image limit should be one image per 300 words or so except for gallery articles to conform with GA articles.

3285:

I agree with your revision (that is, undoing Adam's change). We do want to avoid setting absolute pixel sizes - we have tools to make screen-flow layouts work well with relative sizing (eg that's the purpose of "upright"). Once in a while it is needed, but that's an exception.

4799:

and thumbnail default size. Or to put it this way, while relative sizing works great when we have only one major variable in play, the user's default thumb size, it doesn't work well when there are two, and it's better here to use hard pixel counts to avoid the variations. --

2055:

Regarding "In general images may be of any ratio appropriate to the subject material. In the case of portraits used in infoboxes or lists of people then portrait-aligned images of the golden ratio are preferred," do contributors here feel that the golden ratio is best. See:

3047:

supplanting it with one of the other two. I say #3 is preferred per WP:IMAGELEAD since it's the image used to identify Ms. Moretz to the reader (#1 hides half of her face; #2 is at a 45-degree angle from the camera). There has been no argument and no real edit war, but the

4250:

facilitate a local consensus as it can be used to support either position with pretty much equal strength. Like I said, guidance that nets out as, "Do what you think is best" is not useful guidance and only complicates matters and contributes to instruction creep. ―

498:

Was a consensus ever reached? I would imagine that the disputed provision – which was in place for more than a year – should be kept in the article until consensus deems otherwise. I've been citing this rule over the past year, and just now realized it was removed.

1416:. This advice says to put that image where it is, not immediately after the ===Chief of staff=== subheading. Do you think that image looks strange in its current place, but woud stop trying to look strange if you put the image immediately after the subheading? 2687:

sections) look OK because in the first the text is a single block, so all the lines start and end on the same vertical lines, and in the second the images are the same size, so the text looks neat between them. However, the addition/rearrangement of images in the

4706:

As it seems can't even try to be helpful to a passerby here without stirring up far more heat than light, I am removing this talk page from my watchlist. You can ping me if for some reason you need my attention here, but I think there are already enough cooks.

365:

And since I don't want to bother sorting through your contributions, would you tell me why you're so upset about this? You're sounding very much like your favorite ox is being gored because this MOS page contains standard advice about improving readability.

1350:, I'm confused by this response. How does "try putting that image one inch lower on the screen, after a little bit of text" make the image subjects "turn disdainfully from their own pages"? The image faces the same direction regardless of whether you have 4545:, but although there is a "border" option it doesn't have any parameters and there doesn't seem to be a way to choose the color of the border. It would also be possible to include the border in the image file before uploading it, but probably a bad idea. — 1475:

for consistency. All images should be aligned right for the sight impaired, unless there is a compelling reason. In a classroom, it enables real-time class participation both in acquisition of topics and in reading comprehension speed of the written text.

4316:

related to standards around generated timelines. The suggestions seem to violate the suggested size guidelines. It would probably be best if interested parties could comment to either support the 800 pixel width suggestions or give reasons against them.

2100:

to be breaking up the text with images? I don't know if I am missing somewhere else these questions are answered, but I thought a little more explanation might make this section a bit more flushed out for those of us clueless as to what style is best. -

2664:

lines are sandwiched. At any width over 830, the image of The Eagle Tavern forms one side of a sandwich. The first shows a ton of sandwiching at the narrower width too. And you're right - the quoted comment of Daniel Case is OT; sorry. Struck.

125:

page. But the current WP:MOS makes no mention of this recommendation, which really doesn't make much sense anyway, at least for full section headers; there may or may not be a case to be made for or against left-aligned images in subsection headers.

4180:

If that's the intended guidance, it's far from clear. Also, many editors believe that judicious use of left-right placement is more visually attractive, and they would consider that a reason. If the guidance excludes that reason, it should say so.

2573:

to add "*Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox." and "*Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable."

4498: 2949:

I think the "rule" is unnecessary. Yes, two images should not be placed on the same line (that could be a rule), but I don't see why it should be "hard" to read text which is between two images that are parallel for a slight length on each side.

2829:

section will work much better than it does now with images sized and placed on both sides so that it that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text. Are you willing to, or would you support or disagree with

1519:, invariably recommend left justification for text, but I've never seen one that says the text should not be left-justified against an image, and they often recommend breaking the text up with images and using images to help locate information. 1330:: It's a silly, blanket, unnecessary rule that often results in people and buildings turning disdainfully from their own pages. Frequently, it just looks plain wrong. Pages need be aesthetically pleasing in order to attract people to read them. 1569:. In fact I thought it had already been removed, and I ignore it anyway. It often makes sense to left-align an image directly under a section heading; I'm particularly thinking of things like ground-floor plans of country houses for instance. 2679:

sandwich. On smaller screens, however, the text will be broken up into far more blocks of different widths and sizes: that's when problems with readability occur. On the Eritrea article, I would say the two blocks of sandwiched text (in the

3266:

article, or higher. It's that huge image size at the Gone Girl (film) article that brought me back to the "220px default" guideline; I was about to cite it, as I've often done, and then saw that it was removed. I have this guideline on my

2972:

Infoboxes are a different situation, I agree. You can't move them to the other side. The most you can do is write a longer intro and expand the article to force the beginning of the text down further to where image placement is less of an

965:

Your behavior is simply appealing and I see you dont have the maturity level to talk with others in a proper manner. You make wild accusations and insult people at every turn. Your behavior needs to be amended ASAP - you look like a

4080:

It used to be the case that articles with all images on the right would be criticised at FA, & pressured to change. I'm not sure this still applies. Now screen sizes are so varied, the ideal image placement is in rather a mess.

2145:, it causes the paragraph to be terminated and a new paragraph started after the image, which interrupts the text flow, and that has accessibility issues. I've fixed the two pages, but I think that we need a guideline about this. -- 3458:—is more suitable to use in the infobox over the rationales of facial distortion, recognizability, profile vs. full face, distance, aesthetics, awkwardness, etc. The discussion is pretty deadlocked and it is veering close to 515:"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." 116:"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." 1430:

For me, if images are placed on the left, especially if there is a short paragraph, it tends to disrupt the section headers and move them over. I tend to dislike this, unless it looks okay with the format of the article.

2184:

Just confirming that this would be very confusing for screen reader users like myself, as it would completely and utterly break up the flow of the sentence or paragraph for us if an image was placed in the middle of it.

1871:

says, “Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers.” 1. Images should include and

4222:

Is there a difficult dispute going on here? This seems like something that is usually resolved by editors talking it through. And, since someone mention GAs above, then I note that compliance with this guideline is

451:

I think Rich's example shows a well-laid out article that has relatively few images compared to the volume of text. There is one left-justified image, placed in the middle of a section rather than at the very first

320:

that was removed from the MoS, and then some time later mysteriously resurfaces here. What the MoS actually said in the version to which you provided a link was this: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below

904:

guidance, showing that images can be staggered left and right where appropriate without placing images on the left at the start of a section. Since I did not work on the article, please feel free to revert my edit.

1605:. I am not insensitive to the needs of those with disabilities, but surely we should be finding technical fixes to assist with those issues rather than creating protocols that detract from the quality of articles. 381:

Upset? The only thing that upsets me is having to watch hobby-horse riders trying to ride roughshod over sensible and hard-working editors. You might like to consider what common sense has to say about this issue.

650:

I have been doing a bit of research on this issue, which so far has been rather inconclusive, but I have no objection to the restoration of the original wording. My reading of the consensus here matches that of

2859:

Let me just qualify this a little, though, by saying that I have no objection to one, or sometimes two, lines sandwiched between text—sometimes that's unavoidable. I have certainly done it myself enough times.

2620:

The two comments quoted are on a different topic. Neither of the examples sandwich text between images: the images are alternated left and right, as recommended. Sandwiching has been deprecated since at least

4203:

It could be sharpened up. The guidance probably has articles with few images mainly in mind. In particular it might say that the lead image should normally be on the right, which is a very strong convention.

3739:

That was reverted with the explanation that it emphasized absolute size over relative size. Therefore I am proposing the following change which is shorter and does not change the emphasis on relative size:

3651:

concerns might also come into play. In that specific article, the individual tables could be broken out into separate sub-articles that would be better to manage image # and total delivered content bytes.

3786:

Keep in mind there are very limited values of default thumb sizes that a user can select, with no choice as close as your 220px / 225px example. So that might be a non-situation we have to deal with. --

2929:

don't believe this should be interpreted as a hard & fast rule against doing so. Perhaps the guideline could be improved, but it shouldn't be abolished altogether for the reasons mentioned above. --

2131:, both of which placed an image into the middle of a paragraph (in one case, in the middle of a sentence), I find that this page doesn't have any guidance against doing this. If the image has either 1750:: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - apparently attributed to Douglas Bader - would seem to be the right attitude here. There is an accessibility issue (although I 1234: 3695:

with a gallery of every image from a Commons category—but they're mostly small images organized in tables. This may still be more excessive, but it's not merely a gallery disguised as an article.

2875:

Hi! The first thing I thought to do was see if wired.com had large sections of text sandwiched between images in articles. I didn't have to go far; that's what I see on their home page. And in

4062:

why would you start this section and then state "this is not a request for opinions about the issue"? People are obviously going to weigh in on this matter here at this talk page if they want to.

4166:

The guidance is to place images on the right, unless there is a reason to place them on the left, such as to stagger images, to avoid stacked images, or to have people face the text, and so on.

2713:, I'd appreciate it; I think the Culture section will work much better than it does now with sandwiching that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text.-- 1029:

I really see no reason to keep this wording: like SlimVirgin, my recollection is that it was removed from the accessibility guideline because it was found to have no impact on accessibility.

1914:"Usually, run images right-left-right-left; or put the first left-aligned image a little way into the section. However, there may be times when you do something else, for aesthetic reasons." 3466:. I myself don't feel confident weighing in, but I do wonder if there are any other editors who would like to express their opinion on the matter or keep an eye on the discussion. ~Cheers, 1194: 4102:

Your point about changes after GA approval is valid, although there must be a ton of that going on. I guess there's no way to really know, short of polling a large number of GA reviewers.

3975: 237:; perhaps I overlooked its addition and removal withint hat frame but I did check a number of revisions where I can see no mention of the requirement. WhatamIdoing, when you laid it down 3828:), refreshing or purging that page to remove any cached images, then viewing the HTML source with your web browser (where you will actually see those pixel sizes in the image tags). -- 3597:

Is there a guideline, MOS section, etc. concerning how many images is too many, relative to the amount of text in the article or on some absolute scale? As an example, take a look at

2213:

to use in infoboxes or leads of BLPs? I typically see portrait photos, but when someone changes an image, I'd love to have a policy/guideline to point to. For example, I reverted

1015:

I think this guideline is unhelpful, and should be removed (or reworded so it is optional). This is pretty much just a style issue that should be dealt with on an individual basis.

4401:

I hope you don't mind that I shortened it slightly and replaced the 'outdated fixed width in px syntax' in the Japanese flag example with relative sizing using 'upright=factor'...

3076:

I was wondering if there is syntax or if a syntax could be created that would display an image flipped either vertically or horizontally without having to upload a separate file?--

2577:

I propose removal of the current text: "However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar."

3865:

Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (displays at 300px based on the default thumbnail width of 220px, but may appear larger or smaller based on settings in

145:

it was being placed here. Quite a lot of minor image-related stuff had accumulated in the main MOS page and was moved over here, where it actually belongs, in the fall of 2011.

4111:

Your tone, frankly, seems a bit confrontational, accusatory, and un-Wikipedian. I came in good faith with an issue that I feel is important, not to get involved in a fight. ―

3223:, although the wording is not as clear now as it was a year or so ago: both have become more of a "how to force the image size" rather than a "why not to force the size". -- 101: 3567:(see the tag in the image). It is certainly an option if it can pass the copyright test, but in the meantime, you are invited to vote for whichever one you'd prefer in the 2591: 2587: 1806:

Left aligning is often necessary (for stacking, for images where people are looking to the right) and sometimes the only place to fit it is directly under the heading. --

93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 163:

Where was this discussed? And why, if what you say is true, was material removed from the main MoS page in 2011 not added to this page until the middle of last year?

2092:

Is it possible to get more clarification on what are the best/most appropriate images for photographs other than lead? For example, there's a mini edit war over on

2975:

In a more perfect wikiworld, we'd give readers the ability to fold up the infobox and let the picture pop up where we want them to see it. But we're not there yet.

2548: 219:

on the main MoS page despite you claiming that it was; it had been removed from there more than six months earlier. So I repeat, where was your addition discussed?

4048:

here to this talk page to discuss this topic. If he is reading this now, he should not continue that discussion at my talk page, especially since it got off track.

2019:

section, there are two images placed simultaneously, which is sandwiching the text, should one of them be removed and placed at a different location or we use the

3933: 534:

Did we come up with any evidence that left aligned images at the beginning of section are actually a problem? I think that would pretty much settle the matter.--

1498:

do not have any restrictions on the proportion of images, by the way), then it becomes obsolete, but while they are allowed, this rule improves accessibility.

1165: 1161: 3497: 3455: 3198:

needed. However, another option is to consider the "upright" parameter if we are talking about an image that is not, generally, in landscape orientation. --

1108: 1107:

26 October 2006 because '"float left" images should not come immediately after second-level (===) headings. Instead they should be immediately before': See

3842:

I don't think we should go into too much detail about size options, when the majority of or readers are not logged in and so get the default thumb size. --

3182:

in, and that the "vast majority of readers" are not logged in so get the small default size. The page is at Little Syria, Manhattan. What do you think? --

1542:

still have left-aligned images. You are only supposed to avoid them in the sole and fairly rare case of starting a ===Level 3=== (notice the presence of

799:

Moxy, you are just stirring a very old pot and we all know that you have ulterior motives, I suggest that you drop this now, before you overtax yourself.

3563:

It is a very nice image, although I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image, whether it was taken by a fan or if it's a professional image -

3752:

Would appreciate any discussion, since I think the current text does not adequately explain it. For those not familiar with "upright" I made a chart at

2747:

I would like to object. Sandwiched text does depend on screen width, but it can be very difficult to read and this guideline is here with good reason.--

1833:. Even if it's kept as it is, the guideline is not a bad one; however, it would be better to educate our editors in what works best for more readers. 1173: 778: 2610:

I intend to remove it, unless there's more than one objection soon, in which case I think an RFC should be used to more strongly determine consensus.--

3037: 3034: 189:

in October and November 2011. The fact that you didn't look any further back than last summer is not proof that it wasn't on the page before then.

3187: 1933: 21: 3031: 4313: 3744:

Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (displays at 300px based on the default thumbnail width of 220px, but larger if the

3731:

if the default thumbnail width is 220px (220 multiplied by 1.35 then rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 equals 300), but larger defaults in

2364:

Not necessarily; "Northwest exposure showing construction of the Pentagon" contains a verb but isn't a sentence because the verb is nonfinite.

1494:

us won't notice the slightly greater amount of searching our eyes do, but some disabled people definitely do. If you ban left-aligned images (

554:

The overall MOS guidance instructs right justification. An article was provided above that captures this basic rule of typography and design:

3735:

will result in proportionally larger images (340px if the default is 250px, 410px if the default is 300px, or 540px if the default is 400px).

432:

coding ..." Regarding alternating image locations: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." It doesn't say you

3772:

thumbnail=220px I would see upright=1.35 at 297px, and with thumbnail at 225px I would see upright=1.35 at about 304px, noticeably larger. —

3601:, which by my count has 872 words of readable prose and 430 images. Is this appropriate? If not, what guideline or policy does it violate? — 3414: 2414: 4002:

To my ears, "most cases" means well upwards of 50%, probably at least 75%. If this statement reflects community consensus, why do so many

3564: 3240: 3183: 2067: 936: 241:

but I am totally lost. I know you've suggested it cam from the MOS itself - did it come from another page not the main one? Else where?

4368: 3040:

are all free-use and made at about the same time. The third is currently being used within the infobox; however, editors have made the

455:

If you have a large number of images relative to the text, e.g., at an image-spam-attracting and otherwise underdeveloped article like

3489: 681:

I believe that "George" is simply operating under another name these days. His fourth, perhaps? He happens to be blocked this month.

302:

It's also standard practice for professional layout work. The first word is supposed to be in a predictable, easy-to-spot location.

4542: 4006:

use both left and right placement? Many of those that don't only have one or two images. The above statement is closely followed by:

3805: 3163: 1495: 1383:: It looks strange, and there are many better things to base image placement on, like trying to get images to face the text (Like in 4472: 4431: 4387: 3979: 2654: 2601: 1093:

and it is easier to relate the photos to the text. Can anyone suggest how this can be done to achieve that and keep to this manual?

609:. I've reverted the changes for now on the basis that consensus regarding its removal isn't very clear. Perhaps an RfC is needed. -- 51: 17: 1616: 577:

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see consensus for George Ponderevo's removal. Shouldn't it be place back in the guide?--

3168: 1793: 257: 4833:

I agree that px, rather than upright, is the more common use case for inline images, because they're cheek-by-jowl with text.

3418:

opportunities for forum shopping. Participation is welcome, especially from editors who have fielded questions of this kind.

2261:

Anyone? I'll take silence as an okay to add my own guidelines as a bold edit. Wanted to start discussion before that though.

1448:, are you talking about the header above or the header below the left-aligned image? It shouldn't affect the ones above it. 1195:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 10#Left-aligned images under subsection headers and image squeezing

555: 353: 4686:

merely bureaucratic noise to be ignored, the community should change the instructions accordingly. I don't believe they do. ―

2692:

section, regardless of screen width, created at least three blocks of text, starting and ending on different vertical lines.

2220: 1881: 1517: 1484: 3859:

Based on the confusion caused by mentioning 250px, perhaps the following instead (current text followed by suggested text).

4099:

I knew of nothing about this on your talk page. Sometimes people think about the same issues independently from each other.

3477: 1255:

Should the part of the guideline "avoid placing left-aligned images directly below ===Level 3=== subheadings" be removed?

402: 4510: 4494: 2778:

says (point 5) "Images should be inside the section they belong to ... and not ... at the end of the previous section" --

325:, as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it.", which is not at all what you've added here. 2709:: Agreed. I'm not going to open an RFC, though I would still support the change. If you can improve the formatting of 3810:

adjust a thumbnail's size to Factor times the default thumbnail size, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10

1588:. Per my comments above (" This is pretty much just a style issue that should be dealt with on an individual basis."). 1097: 4337: 4322: 3756:

which shows its effects at each of the available thumbnail size settings in preferences (120px to 400px). Thanks. --

4245:

Good point as to GA criteria, and I retract that argument. I was under the mistaken impression that GA represents a

3493: 3451: 3158: 2337:

If the caption forms a complete sentence, then it should end in a stop. If it's not a sentence, then it shouldn't.

1942: 1920: 1838: 624: 387: 330: 224: 168: 131: 42: 3628: 2444:

seems like this might fall under the "allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page" of

520:

page is done by placing ..." The guidance is flexible and allows for alternating locations if the context allows.

233:

I am also bemused. I cannot find any evidence that the text was in the Manual of Style at any point going back to

4371:. Well, it's not a new thing on Knowledge (XXG). I posting it here just to inform about this addition. Cheers! -- 4345: 3516: 2224: 1982: 1877: 1830: 1480: 1436: 1400: 3539: 3408:

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Knowledge (XXG)

1759:

needs to be understood as only a suggestion as to how we should arrange images, all other things being equal. --

4712: 4655: 4620: 4550: 3893: 3777: 3679: 3606: 3117: 3081: 2023: 1777:

to make right the default. (A paragraph down would also fix, but I think right is the more practical advice.)

2734:

with the comment "format per mos". Did my edit introduce sandwiching? (It also moved two images above the '

1908:

graphic design considerations. But such may not (yet) exist ... ? Perhaps the following text, pinched from

4846: 4826: 4811: 4779: 4754: 4716: 4701: 4677: 4659: 4644: 4624: 4603: 4578: 4554: 4536: 4502: 4477: 4436: 4410: 4392: 4364: 4349: 4326: 4301: 4265: 4240: 4213: 4196: 4175: 4153: 4126: 4090: 4071: 4034: 3987: 3953: 3911: 3897: 3883: 3854: 3837: 3798: 3781: 3765: 3704: 3683: 3664: 3643: 3610: 3580: 3558: 3533: 3482: 3472: 3427: 3402: 3356: 3321: 3298: 3280: 3235: 3210: 3191: 3171: 3142: 3121: 3107: 3085: 3066: 3015: 2984: 2959: 2938: 2905: 2883: 2879:

from the home page too, even more so, though the images on the right side are ads. Not an uncommon sight.--

2869: 2850: 2834: 2803: 2790: 2762: 2742: 2717: 2701: 2673: 2648: 2634: 2614: 2554: 2518: 2501: 2480: 2457: 2425: 2401: 2373: 2359: 2346: 2331: 2306: 2288: 2255: 2196: 2179: 2157: 2109: 2082: 2045: 1986: 1965: 1946: 1924: 1885: 1860: 1842: 1817: 1798: 1768: 1742: 1725: 1708: 1694: 1680: 1663: 1639: 1621: 1597: 1580: 1555: 1528: 1507: 1488: 1457: 1440: 1425: 1404: 1373: 1342: 1322: 1264: 1246: 1206: 1077: 1058: 1038: 1024: 998: 975: 958: 940: 932: 920:

You were no less entitled to make those changes than any other editor. Unfortunately, you've been reverted.

914: 890: 874: 857: 826: 811: 790: 764: 725: 710: 694: 674: 637: 618: 595: 567: 549: 529: 508: 490: 468: 445: 420: 391: 375: 334: 311: 262: 228: 198: 172: 154: 135: 3504: 2586:"Literally most of all Featured Articles have at least one image starting a section on the left." (both at 2580:

Looking through the archives, it looks like we have rough consensus for this, with Whatamidoing opposing :

781:. look at Montacute House on an old screen or your mobile phone and you will see why all this is a concern. 4822: 4406: 4318: 4236: 3699: 3500:. None of them are perfect, but I prefer image 1 which has no facial distortion and shows the full face. 2856:

to stack them and make the browser treat them as a single object. Or find a way to make a video slideshow.

2278: 2245: 1635: 1575: 1551: 1503: 1453: 1445: 1432: 1421: 1409: 1388: 1369: 1054: 705: 690: 464: 371: 307: 194: 150: 3937: 3268: 3021: 2445: 2294: 2223:

was a well-lit, high quality, neutral POV, fairly recent portrait shot (which seems ideal to me) and the

4530: 4468: 4427: 4383: 4045: 3983: 3524:

If there are people who are interested in giving an opinion on this issue it would be much appreciated.

3064: 2980: 2865: 2774:

Your edit of 20:24, 12 November 2014 went against MOS because you put images at the bottom of sections.

2380: 2353: 2325: 1938: 1916: 1834: 383: 326: 220: 164: 127: 4818: 4520: 4443: 4402: 4058: 3025: 842:

guidelines should probably go first. After that, "where possible" might be useful. Just a suggestion.--

2625:. Cramped text is more difficult to read and is unappealing visually. I think the advice should stay. 4341: 3804:

Appearance are 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px (default), 250px, 300px, and 400px. As explained at

3423: 2799:

is an admin. IMO, screen reader software should adapt; it's a pattern it could easily recognize. --

2421: 1978: 1676: 1611: 3220: 4708: 4651: 4616: 4546: 3889: 3850: 3773: 3675: 3671: 3639: 3618: 3602: 3317: 3231: 3138: 3113: 3103: 3077: 2901: 2786: 2697: 2630: 2514: 2397: 2369: 2342: 2302: 2153: 2078: 1856: 1789: 1738: 1655: 1524: 1318: 1260: 1242: 1202: 1166:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Left-side images under section headings—reversion?

1073: 1034: 486: 412: 253: 141:

As the edit summary says, it is "from" the MOS, meaning that it was removed from the main MOS page

4741:

Do I recall that someone offered to create one? It would be a useful addition to the policy page.

1868: 1826: 1472: 4696: 4639: 4573: 4260: 4191: 4121: 4029: 3467: 2955: 2934: 2644: 2541: 2476: 2453: 2191: 2105: 1961: 1721: 1593: 1020: 923: 886: 757: 721: 633: 614: 588: 504: 4763:, but since maybe it's not visible enough in a footnote, here it is moved to the main guideline 3888:

Looks ok to me. I think the fact that this changes based on preferences is worth pointing out. —

3459: 1546:

equals signs) subsection with an image. I'd guess that this affects less than 1% of articles.

4615:

You don't think educating the OP about the wikipedia space landscape is equally as important? —

2846:

If you really feel a need for both images and you can't put them anywhere else, consider using

4297: 4232: 4209: 4149: 4086: 4067: 3949: 3825: 3753: 3696: 3568: 3398: 3352: 3276: 3252: 3011: 2757: 2496: 2262: 2229: 2164: 1671:- the blanket rule does not work in all cases and is better addressed on a per-article basis. 1631: 1627: 1570: 1547: 1499: 1449: 1417: 1413: 1365: 1050: 910: 852: 716:

advice would encourage editors to strive for better image placement as the article expands. --

700: 686: 669: 656: 563: 544: 525: 460: 441: 367: 303: 190: 146: 4228: 3648: 4794:

as inline images are a different matter from those running alongside prose. Relative sizing

4525: 4515:

This is a talk page for discussion the Manual of Style, this is not a help page. Try asking

4457: 4416: 4372: 3623:

No actual maximum image counts are specified as far as I know, but 430 images is a lot, and

3390: 3263: 3056: 3003: 2976: 2861: 2840: 2796: 2093: 1360: 1353: 4516: 3463: 3092: 2142: 2132: 1867:

I must defer to DrKiernan. It may be I am remembering a complaint from a student in class.

215:

That's not really answering the question though is it. When you added this material it was

122: 4807: 4749: 4171: 3971: 3962: 3866: 3794: 3745: 3732: 3660: 3554: 3419: 3294: 3206: 2876: 2417: 2175: 1813: 1764: 1689: 1672: 1606: 1514: 897: 869: 838: 773: 746:

clearly distracts from the reading of the text. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. --

742: 4054: 4003: 3998:

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.

3624: 1934:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Images#Clarification on justification, "sandwiching"

4840: 4773: 4671: 4597: 3907: 3879: 3843: 3833: 3761: 3632: 3598: 3310: 3248: 3224: 3131: 3096: 2922: 2897: 2820: 2779: 2706: 2693: 2666: 2626: 2507: 2390: 2365: 2338: 2298: 2146: 2074: 2061: 2030: 1852: 1785: 1734: 1703: 1650: 1520: 1314: 1313:. I think this is unnecessary instruction creep essentially driven by personal choice. 1256: 1238: 1198: 1069: 1030: 971: 822: 786: 482: 407: 249: 3488:

For those interested in the discussion, there are actually three images to consider -

481:. Horror! It has whole paragraphs 'sandwiched' between two images facing each other.-- 4687: 4630: 4564: 4251: 4182: 4112: 4020: 4019:

issue individually (this is not a request for opinions about left-right placement). ―

3576: 3529: 3512: 2951: 2930: 2640: 2528: 2472: 2449: 2320: 2187: 2101: 1957: 1873: 1717: 1589: 1016: 882: 749: 717: 652: 629: 610: 580: 500: 3902:

No further comments added, so I made the change as shown in my previous comment. --

2892:

My objection to the anti-sandwiching rule concerns mainly the case of images facing

4314:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards

4293: 4205: 4145: 4082: 4063: 3945: 3944:. And, yes, I see the discussion immediately above this section about lead images. 3447: 3394: 3348: 3272: 3007: 2750: 2489: 1630:

be higher quality if the left-aligned image were the first thing in that section?

906: 845: 662: 559: 537: 521: 437: 3711:

Suggest update to existing text about "upright=1.35" to better explain its effects

3303:

I wasn't thinking about that comparatively minor change. I was thinking about the

1626:

Can you give an example of how it "detracts from the quality of articles"? Would

1113:

Guidance to place left-aligned images above section headings instead of below was

601:

That was my point above as well. Although George started a discussion immediately

3862:

Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").

3719:

Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").

352:

You might also consider what professional sources say about this issue. Look at

4108:

Being clear about my intent here is not an attempt to dictate what is discussed.

3439: 2657: 2604: 2386: 2283: 2250: 1384: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3727:

Lead images should usually be no wider than 300px. That is equivalent to using

2825:: If you can improve the formatting of Eritrea, I'd appreciate it; I think the 1387:). It is essentially useless if you have good taste of where images should go. 1096:

I have determined where this guideline came from and why it was it removed. At

4800: 4742: 4167: 3934:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Elements of the lead section

3787: 3653: 3550: 3287: 3244: 3216: 3199: 2880: 2831: 2800: 2775: 2769: 2739: 2714: 2670: 2611: 2524: 2319:

When should an image caption end in a full stop/period? I notice that today's

2171: 1909: 1808: 1760: 1347: 1333: 989: 949: 901: 802: 428: 4415:

It looks good on both things. Hope this guideline will be helpful. Thanks! --

1733:

I usually alternate my images L-R-L-R, and so forth. Image columns look bad.

1109:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Archive 58#Multiple images in an article

4835: 4768: 4666: 4592: 3976:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_12#Template:Images

3903: 3875: 3829: 3757: 983: 967: 818: 782: 3347:

are the general rule; they are simply told that they are the general rule.

741:

The reason I came to this discussion is because I came across this article

4281: 4219:

circumstances into mind, e.g., the presence of an abnormally long infobox.

2607:

with images staggered and sandwiching text the same way. It looks great.

295:, and related information (more about the complaint above) as far back as 3572: 3525: 3508: 3443: 2436: 1087:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lake_Disappear&oldid=534270207

2588:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_4#Image placement: Reason?

1977:, not really seeing the use or value for this given the comments above. 4590:

I cried because I had no wifi... until I met a man who had no browser.

4292:

I'd put "Tiffany c. 1908" myself. Having it all in parentheses is odd.

3095:, and I've never seen it done, so the answer is almost certainly no. -- 2826: 2710: 4486:

How to use wiki markup to make a colored border around a single image?

3006:

regarding the placement of images in the article. Thanks in advance.—

2431:

Use of famous people or paintings in ledes of weakly related subjects

2008: 986:; now just stop trolling and go and find something productive to do. 4010:

Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left.

3462:, and there's accusations of vandalism and edit warring and lack of 3251:, the wording has not been as clear since February 3, 2015, because 3127: 2597:

Most important is that this doesn't reflect our actual best work:

2584:"putting the image above the hed is appropriate" per Daniel Case and 2415:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Captions#Formatting_and_punctuation

4490: 478: 456: 287:

It's been in the MOS pages in one form or another for years. See

3723:

I made what I thought was a minor change to better explain that:

4683:

OP clearly did not know that yet, or they would have gone there.

2440: 1235:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

1090: 4057:

use both left and right placement?" question, many WP:Good and

1897:: I'd also like to see the guideline give a useful - that is, 3383: 2738:', which Daniel Case said was appropriate in that OT quote).-- 2735: 2170:

Feel free to amend, revert, or otherwise improve my effort. --

1904:- reference to, or incorporate, another guideline: one on the 29: 3803:

The available values for "thumbnail size" in Preferences: -->

3167:

to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate.

3004:

Talk:Kobe_Bryant#Continuation_of_image_sandwiching_discussion

121:, apparently to make this guideline consistent with the main 4040:

Mandruss, did you become aware of this matter because it is

2439:

opens with a photo of the actress Goldie Hawn laughing, and

4541:

The options for how to format images here are described at

4456:. I think this is better to describe geometrical shapes. -- 1049:

photo. This easily confuses readers and should be avoided.

558:. I await evidence that justifies this change of guidance. 1754:

have a horizontal line under level 3 headings courtesy of

114:

I've removed the following text from the Location section:

1162:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Question

3542:

image? Shows a smiling, full face, looking to the left.

2592:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_4#Location

2163:

I've added a couple of sentences as an introduction for

2088:

Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: Non-Lead Photographs

1912:

above, then tweaked, would be a useful starting point?

896:

I adjusted the image locations and forced sizing in the

4791: 4560: 4360: 4285: 4041: 3941: 3305: 3259: 3255: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3041: 2731: 2727: 2689: 2684: 2680: 2622: 2570: 2468: 2215: 2127: 2121: 1187: 1181: 1154: 1147: 1141: 1135: 1129: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1104: 1086: 296: 292: 288: 238: 234: 186: 119: 3393:

to reach a consensus on the layout of images. Thanks.—

3256:

changed the "220px default" wording without discussion

1513:

the text into more manageable blocks, see for example

605:

removing the text, it really should have been started

2209:

Are there any guidelines about what images would be

2001:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1538:

one of those helpful moments. Under this rule, you

1226:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

187:

in this large series of edits by Gradiose and myself

4014:In other words, the guidance here is: If you think 3306:

substantial changes that occurred on 27-28 May 2014

2795:Yup; there's contradictory advice out there; IIRC, 4280:Are image captions supposed to be in parenthesis? 3271:, but I somehow overlooked Adam Cuerden's change. 2730:of mine improved the Eritrea article, but it was 2413:Punctuation in captions is covered in depth here: 400:I've been affected by this issue a few times. In 2323:does both, so I was wondering what the rule was? 1995:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 4286:is this the proper caption "Tiffany circa 1908" 3812:. That math can be done on Knowledge (XXG) via 1412:, can you tell me what looks strange? Look at 358: 4764: 4761: 1932:: I've just skimmed the section below titled 4369:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Images#Border 4008: 3996: 3932:Opinions are needed on the following matter: 3002:Your are invited to help form a consensus at 1229:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1174:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Accessibility 779:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Accessibility 8: 3806:Knowledge (XXG):Extended image syntax § Size 3126:You would need to file a feature request at 2918:Not necessarily. There are options like the 3715:The page currently contains the following: 2639:alternating is different from sandwiching. 1068:it never had consensus in the first place. 3389:You are invited to join the discussion at 2435:Have noticed a couple of these recently - 1688:, better left to the editors on the page. 1534:rule for level 3 subsection headings), is 4338:Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750#Gallery usage 2726:Perhaps some context will help. I think 777:concern for accessibility as outlined at 323:a subsection-level heading (=== or lower) 2839:Since my name was invoked here and ECHO 1268: 4664:Do I have to turn the hose on you two? 3434:Disagreement over image at Jamie Dornan 3112:Is it possible for one to be created?-- 2029:? Or is it fine to leave it as it is. — 1117:9 August 2007, after full guidance was 1091:https://en.wikipedia.org/Lake_Disappear 3177:Setting an image size or using default 2137: 2133: 1851:What does WP:ACCESS say specifically? 1756:h3 { border-bottom: dotted 1px #DDD; } 1233:In line with the discussion below and 514: 115: 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4543:Knowledge (XXG):Extended image syntax 4282:Is this the proper caption "(c.1908)" 2315:Image captions and full stops/periods 1271: 7: 3993:Left placement - inaccurate guidance 3974:has been proposed for deletion, see 3543: 2463:Animated images in sidebar templates 2351:Forms a sentence = contains a verb? 1274: 1220:The following discussion is closed. 982:I'm glad you find me so 'appealing' 118:It was added back in July last year 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style 2068:List of Royal Flying Corps generals 354:this article on web page formatting 4629:I don't understand the question. ― 1937:options outlined there. Thanks! 28: 900:article according to the current 4355:New stuff about border on images 3544: 3378: 2506:It also shouldn't be thumbed. -- 1628:Douglas MacArthur#Chief of staff 1414:Douglas MacArthur#Chief of staff 436:to stagger them right-and-left. 33: 2877:the second article I clicked on 2841:summoned me from the vasty deep 1359:===Subheading=== One paragraph 1098:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style 299:. This is not new information. 4365:Help:Visual file markup#Border 4044:? On my talk page, I directed 3954:13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 3241:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3215:I normally directed people to 3184:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3055:. Am I correct in reverting? — 2998:Another sandwiching discussion 2426:18:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 1: 4847:01:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 4827:00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 4812:00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 4780:00:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 4755:23:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 4737:px–upright equivalence table? 4327:05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC) 4312:A discussion is happening at 3748:setting is 250px or greater). 3446:disagree over which image of 3391:Talk:Kobe_Bryant#Image_layout 3157:If anyone has an interest in 3016:22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 2985:20:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2960:18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2939:01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2906:00:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2884:22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 2870:04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 2835:02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 2804:02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 2791:00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) 2763:23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 2743:23:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 2718:09:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC) 2702:08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) 2674:23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 2669:: How wide is your window? -- 2649:21:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 2635:21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 2615:20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 2486:No, its a bit over the top.-- 2293:I see no reason to expand on 2119:Having just noticed edits to 1987:00:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 1966:17:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1947:02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1925:02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1886:10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1861:08:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1843:02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) 1247:11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1025:15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC) 403:United States v. Wong Kim Ark 4717:08:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4702:07:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4678:07:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4660:06:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4645:06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4625:05:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4604:07:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4579:05:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4555:05:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4537:15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 4503:07:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 4478:15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 4437:02:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 4411:02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 4398:Thanks for the notification. 4393:00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 4350:18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 4302:12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 4266:00:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 4241:23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4214:12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4197:12:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4176:10:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4154:08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4127:05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4091:12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4072:05:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 4035:04:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 3988:03:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3415:proposal at the Village Pump 3159:interactive annotated images 2555:00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2519:21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2502:20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2481:20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2467:am I the only one who finds 2458:09:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 2015:In the above articel at the 1818:15:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 1799:23:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 1769:19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1743:00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1726:15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 1709:23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1695:19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1681:19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1664:18:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1640:01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1622:17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1598:16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1581:16:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1556:01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1529:08:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 1508:17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1489:15:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1458:01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1441:21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1426:17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1405:15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1374:17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1343:12:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1323:09:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1302:Here's the third paragraph. 1300:Here's the second paragraph. 1289:Here's the third paragraph. 1287:Here's the second paragraph. 1265:09:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1207:11:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 1078:08:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 1059:05:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 1039:22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 4053:As for your "hy do so many 3912:23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 3898:23:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3884:23:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3855:11:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3838:08:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3799:05:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3782:05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3766:04:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3670:See e.g. recent history of 3067:06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 2402:12:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2374:12:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2360:11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2347:11:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2332:10:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2307:07:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 2289:02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 2256:19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1298:Here's the first paragraph. 1283:Here's the first paragraph. 356:, for example, which says: 4863: 3376: 3357:01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 3322:00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 3299:03:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 3281:03:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 3236:12:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 3211:05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 3192:04:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 3172:02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 3143:20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 3122:18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 3108:21:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 3086:20:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 2565:Location - sandwiching OK. 2205:BLP Lead Image Guidelines? 2083:20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 2046:14:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 491:22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 469:16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 446:14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 421:16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) 392:01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 376:01:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 4336:Please see discussion at 4042:addressed on my talk page 3705:21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 3091:There's nothing shown at 2197:15:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) 2180:12:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC) 2158:10:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) 999:09:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 976:01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 959:17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 941:16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 915:15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 891:12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 875:22:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 858:13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 827:20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 812:20:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 791:23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 765:16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 726:05:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 711:20:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 695:02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 675:22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 638:22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 619:19:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 596:18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 568:01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC) 550:00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC) 530:23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 509:20:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 335:16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 312:16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 263:15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 229:14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 199:06:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 173:05:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 155:02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC) 136:22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 3808:, "upright=Factor" will 3684:16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 3665:15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 3644:15:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 3627:may be applicable, also 3611:20:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 3581:11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3559:10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3534:10:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3483:17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 3428:18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 3403:17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2110:16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 1998:Please do not modify it. 1825:to include reference to 1496:WP:Good article criteria 1223:Please do not modify it. 4105:Maybe an RfC is needed. 837:I totally agree on the 4012: 4000: 3569:Jamie Dornan Talk page 3161:, I've made a post on 3153:Annotated image policy 2448:, but I'm not sure. -- 1660:(no relation to Jimbo) 1275:Currently discouraged 1272:Currently recommended 817:hand if you wish. -- 417:(no relation to Jimbo) 363: 4229:Good article criteria 2525:MOS:ACCESS#Animations 699:Which month is that? 361:early in the article. 46:of past discussions. 4511:Парис "Анима" надаль 4495:Парис "Анима" надаль 4448:I only changed back 4308:Band timeline images 3674:and its talk page. — 3519:) 10:57, 16 May 2015 2590:), more at and near 1878:TheVirginiaHistorian 1831:TheVirginiaHistorian 1481:TheVirginiaHistorian 1168:for more discussion. 293:2009 in the main MOS 3672:trihexagonal tiling 3538:Hi all, what about 2653:When I look at two 2523:Doesn't conform to 2115:Splitting sentences 1213:Request for comment 4332:Opinions requested 4055:good articles (GA) 4004:good articles (GA) 3026:Chloë Grace Moretz 2600:We have a zillion 2066:Duncan Pitcher in 1089:looks better than 4606: 4476: 4435: 4391: 3826:User:Zyxw/upright 3754:User:Zyxw/upright 3521: 3507:comment added by 3169:T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) 3072:Flipping an image 2776:MOS:ACCESS#Images 2569:In 2011, the MOS 2287: 2254: 2165:MOS:IMAGELOCATION 1693: 1662: 1352:===Subheading=== 1341: 1307: 1306: 1190:16 September 2009 1157:22 September 2009 1150:18 September 2009 1144:17 September 2009 1138:17 September 2009 1132:15 September 2009 1125:the previous day. 997: 957: 873: 810: 556:Smashing Magazine 419: 235:20 September 2011 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 4854: 4843: 4838: 4804: 4776: 4771: 4752: 4747: 4699: 4694: 4674: 4669: 4642: 4637: 4600: 4595: 4589: 4576: 4571: 4533: 4528: 4514: 4466: 4447: 4425: 4381: 4263: 4258: 4194: 4189: 4124: 4119: 4046:Hike The Monicas 4032: 4027: 3967: 3961: 3846: 3823: 3791: 3733:user preferences 3730: 3657: 3635: 3629:WP:NOTREPOSITORY 3622: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3520: 3501: 3480: 3475: 3470: 3382: 3381: 3313: 3308: 3291: 3264:Gone Girl (film) 3227: 3203: 3134: 3099: 3059: 2927: 2921: 2855: 2849: 2824: 2797:User:Daniel Case 2782: 2773: 2760: 2753: 2536: 2532: 2510: 2499: 2492: 2393: 2384: 2356: 2328: 2281: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2248: 2242: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2218: 2194: 2149: 2143:location options 2141:, or any of the 2139: 2135: 2130: 2124: 2094:Petro Poroshenko 2042: 2041: 2028: 2022: 2000: 1869:WP:ACCESS#Images 1829:as suggested by 1811: 1797: 1782: 1757: 1706: 1692: 1658: 1619: 1614: 1609: 1578: 1573: 1397: 1394: 1391: 1363: 1361:File:Example.jpg 1356: 1354:File:Example.jpg 1340: 1338: 1331: 1294:===Subsection=== 1281:===Subsection=== 1269: 1225: 1184:18 November 2007 996: 994: 987: 956: 954: 947: 939: 930: 926: 872: 855: 848: 809: 807: 800: 763: 760: 708: 703: 672: 665: 625:George Ponderevo 594: 591: 547: 540: 477:I had a look at 415: 384:George Ponderevo 327:George Ponderevo 261: 246: 221:George Ponderevo 165:George Ponderevo 128:George Ponderevo 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 4862: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4841: 4836: 4802: 4788: 4774: 4769: 4750: 4743: 4739: 4697: 4688: 4672: 4667: 4640: 4631: 4598: 4593: 4574: 4565: 4531: 4526: 4508: 4488: 4461: 4441: 4420: 4376: 4363:some tips from 4359:Hi, I recently 4357: 4342:Dennis Bratland 4334: 4310: 4278: 4261: 4252: 4192: 4183: 4122: 4113: 4030: 4021: 3995: 3972:template:Images 3969: 3965: 3959: 3930: 3844: 3813: 3789: 3728: 3713: 3655: 3633: 3616: 3595: 3545: 3502: 3478: 3473: 3468: 3436: 3413:There is now a 3410: 3387: 3386: 3379: 3375: 3311: 3304: 3289: 3225: 3217:MOS:IMAGES#Size 3201: 3179: 3155: 3132: 3097: 3074: 3057: 3029: 3000: 2925: 2919: 2853: 2847: 2827:Eritrea#Culture 2818: 2780: 2767: 2751: 2748: 2567: 2534: 2530: 2508: 2490: 2487: 2465: 2433: 2391: 2378: 2354: 2326: 2317: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2214: 2207: 2192: 2147: 2128:Tay Rail Bridge 2126: 2120: 2117: 2090: 2053: 2037: 2036: 2031: 2026: 2024:multiple images 2020: 2013: 2011:image placement 2005: 1996: 1979:Thargor Orlando 1930:Further Comment 1809: 1783: 1778: 1755: 1704: 1617: 1612: 1607: 1576: 1571: 1395: 1392: 1389: 1358: 1351: 1334: 1332: 1221: 1215: 990: 988: 950: 948: 928: 922: 921: 898:Montacute House 846: 843: 839:Montacute House 803: 801: 774:Montacute House 758: 747: 743:Montacute House 706: 701: 663: 660: 589: 578: 538: 535: 247: 242: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4860: 4858: 4850: 4849: 4830: 4829: 4787: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4760:Already there 4738: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4709:David Eppstein 4684: 4680: 4652:David Eppstein 4617:David Eppstein 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4547:David Eppstein 4487: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4459: 4439: 4418: 4399: 4374: 4356: 4353: 4333: 4330: 4319:Walter Görlitz 4309: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4277: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4220: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4050: 4049: 3994: 3991: 3968: 3957: 3929: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3890:David Eppstein 3872: 3871: 3870: 3863: 3801: 3774:David Eppstein 3750: 3749: 3737: 3736: 3721: 3720: 3712: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3676:David Eppstein 3619:David Eppstein 3603:David Eppstein 3599:Wythoff symbol 3594: 3593:Image overload 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3435: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3409: 3406: 3377: 3374: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3178: 3175: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3114:TriiipleThreat 3078:TriiipleThreat 3073: 3070: 3028: 3019: 2999: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2963: 2962: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2887: 2886: 2851:multiple image 2817: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2637: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2469:this excessive 2464: 2461: 2432: 2429: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2316: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2221:previous image 2206: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2168: 2116: 2113: 2089: 2086: 2073:For examples. 2071: 2070: 2064: 2062:Duncan Pitcher 2052: 2049: 2032: 2012: 2006: 2004: 2003: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1950: 1949: 1927: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1864: 1863: 1846: 1845: 1820: 1801: 1771: 1745: 1728: 1711: 1697: 1683: 1666: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1600: 1583: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1477: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1325: 1305: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1297: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1216: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1191: 1185: 1170: 1169: 1158: 1151: 1145: 1139: 1133: 1126: 1111: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1062: 1061: 1042: 1041: 1027: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 894: 893: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 713: 682: 643: 642: 641: 640: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 517: 496: 495: 494: 493: 472: 471: 453: 426: 425: 424: 423: 395: 394: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 318:misinformation 300: 297:2007 in LAYOUT 289:2009 in ACCESS 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 178: 177: 176: 175: 158: 157: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4859: 4848: 4845: 4844: 4839: 4832: 4831: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4817:Fair enough. 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4797: 4793: 4786:Inline images 4785: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4772: 4765: 4762: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4753: 4748: 4746: 4736: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4700: 4695: 4693: 4692: 4681: 4679: 4676: 4675: 4670: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4643: 4638: 4636: 4635: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4605: 4602: 4601: 4596: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4577: 4572: 4570: 4569: 4562: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4535: 4534: 4529: 4522: 4518: 4512: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4485: 4479: 4474: 4470: 4465: 4464: 4455: 4451: 4445: 4440: 4438: 4433: 4429: 4424: 4423: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4389: 4385: 4380: 4379: 4370: 4367:help page to 4366: 4362: 4354: 4352: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4331: 4329: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4315: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4287: 4283: 4275: 4267: 4264: 4259: 4257: 4256: 4248: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4221: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4202: 4198: 4195: 4190: 4188: 4187: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4164: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4128: 4125: 4120: 4118: 4117: 4110: 4107: 4104: 4101: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4033: 4028: 4026: 4025: 4017: 4011: 4007: 4005: 3999: 3992: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3964: 3958: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3927: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3868: 3864: 3861: 3860: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3821: 3817: 3811: 3807: 3802: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3734: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3710: 3706: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3693: 3692: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3650: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3630: 3626: 3620: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3592: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3481: 3476: 3471: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3385: 3372: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3176: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3160: 3152: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3129: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3071: 3069: 3068: 3065: 3063: 3060: 3054: 3051: 3046: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3027: 3023: 3020: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 2997: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2947: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2924: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2857: 2852: 2844: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2822: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2777: 2771: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2682: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2608: 2606: 2603: 2598: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2575: 2572: 2564: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2462: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2442: 2438: 2430: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2388: 2382: 2381:It Is Me Here 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2355:It Is Me Here 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2327:It Is Me Here 2322: 2314: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2285: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2226: 2222: 2217: 2212: 2204: 2198: 2195: 2190: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2144: 2140: 2129: 2123: 2114: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2097: 2095: 2087: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2069: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2040: 2035: 2025: 2018: 2010: 2007: 2002: 1999: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874:alt attribute 1870: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1781: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1710: 1707: 1701: 1698: 1696: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1604: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1574: 1568: 1565: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1386: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1355: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1339: 1337: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1292: 1290: 1279: 1278: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1175: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1099: 1094: 1092: 1088: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1000: 995: 993: 985: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 973: 969: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 955: 953: 944: 943: 942: 938: 934: 929:Pigsonthewing 925: 919: 918: 917: 916: 912: 908: 903: 899: 892: 888: 884: 879: 878: 877: 876: 871: 859: 854: 850: 849: 840: 836: 828: 824: 820: 815: 814: 813: 808: 806: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 788: 784: 780: 775: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 761: 755: 754: 753: 744: 727: 723: 719: 714: 712: 709: 704: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 683: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 671: 667: 666: 658: 654: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 639: 635: 631: 626: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 599: 598: 597: 592: 586: 585: 584: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 552: 551: 546: 542: 541: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 518: 516: 513: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 475: 474: 473: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 449: 448: 447: 443: 439: 435: 430: 422: 418: 414: 411: 410: 405: 404: 399: 398: 397: 396: 393: 389: 385: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 362: 357: 355: 336: 332: 328: 324: 319: 316:No, it's old 315: 314: 313: 309: 305: 301: 298: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 264: 259: 255: 251: 245: 240: 236: 232: 231: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 200: 196: 192: 188: 185:It was added 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 174: 170: 166: 162: 161: 160: 159: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 139: 138: 137: 133: 129: 124: 120: 117: 109: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 4834: 4819:BushelCandle 4795: 4789: 4767: 4766:. Comments? 4744: 4740: 4690: 4689: 4665: 4633: 4632: 4591: 4567: 4566: 4561:your editsum 4524: 4489: 4462: 4453: 4449: 4444:BushelCandle 4421: 4403:BushelCandle 4377: 4358: 4335: 4311: 4279: 4254: 4253: 4246: 4233:WhatamIdoing 4224: 4185: 4184: 4115: 4114: 4023: 4022: 4015: 4013: 4009: 4001: 3997: 3970: 3938:WP:Permalink 3931: 3819: 3815: 3809: 3751: 3738: 3729:upright=1.35 3722: 3714: 3700: 3697:Curly Turkey 3596: 3503:— Preceding 3448:Jamie Dornan 3437: 3388: 3373:Image layout 3269:WP:Watchlist 3253:Adam Cuerden 3180: 3162: 3156: 3075: 3061: 3030: 3022:WP:LEADIMAGE 3001: 2974: 2893: 2858: 2845: 2838: 2816: 2749: 2661: 2609: 2599: 2596: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2568: 2549: 2543: 2533: 2529: 2488: 2466: 2446:WP:LEADIMAGE 2434: 2412: 2352: 2324: 2318: 2295:WP:LEADIMAGE 2263: 2230: 2219:because the 2210: 2208: 2186: 2122:Forth Bridge 2118: 2098: 2091: 2072: 2060:Info box at 2054: 2038: 2033: 2016: 2014: 1997: 1994: 1974: 1929: 1913: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1822: 1807: 1803: 1779: 1773: 1751: 1747: 1730: 1713: 1699: 1685: 1668: 1659: 1651: 1646: 1632:WhatamIdoing 1602: 1585: 1566: 1548:WhatamIdoing 1543: 1539: 1535: 1500:WhatamIdoing 1468: 1450:WhatamIdoing 1418:WhatamIdoing 1380: 1366:WhatamIdoing 1335: 1327: 1310: 1293: 1280: 1254: 1228: 1222: 1219: 1171: 1153:and finally 1095: 1084: 1045: 991: 951: 937:Andy's edits 933:Talk to Andy 924:Andy Mabbett 895: 866: 844: 804: 751: 750: 740: 687:WhatamIdoing 661: 657:WhatamIdoing 623:Apparently, 606: 602: 582: 581: 576: 536: 497: 461:WhatamIdoing 433: 427: 416: 408: 401: 368:WhatamIdoing 364: 359: 351: 322: 317: 304:WhatamIdoing 243: 216: 191:WhatamIdoing 147:WhatamIdoing 142: 113: 110:Location (2) 82: 47: 41: 4792:this change 4527:Vanjagenije 4521:WP:HELPDESK 4493:. Thanks.-- 4458:Rezonansowy 4417:Rezonansowy 4373:Rezonansowy 4276:Parenthesis 4059:WP:Featured 3980:70.51.44.60 3867:preferences 3746:preferences 3058:ATinySliver 2977:Daniel Case 2862:Daniel Case 2571:was changed 2387:MOS:CAPTION 2051:Image ratio 1899:immediately 1385:Carnotaurus 946:well know. 40:This is an 4559:I noticed 3940:for it is 3928:Lead image 3822:round -1}} 3464:good faith 3460:incivility 3420:Darkfrog24 3221:WP:IMGSIZE 3042:occasional 2550:Maintained 2418:Sudopeople 1910:User:RexxS 1690:SlimVirgin 1673:Nikkimaria 1348:User:Giano 1100:, it was: 902:MOS:IMAGES 870:SlimVirgin 429:MOS:IMAGES 102:Archive 10 3814:{{#expr: 3260:this case 3249:Redrose64 2898:Lubiesque 2894:infoboxes 2821:DrKiernan 2728:this edit 2707:DrKiernan 2694:DrKiernan 2667:DrKiernan 2627:DrKiernan 2623:June 2006 2366:DrKiernan 2339:DrKiernan 2299:DrKiernan 2282:Please {{ 2249:Please {{ 2225:new image 2216:this edit 2075:Greenshed 2017:Promotion 1853:DrKiernan 1827:WP:ACCESS 1780:Grandiose 1735:BlueSalix 1705:Montanabw 1521:DrKiernan 1473:WP:ACCESS 1446:Iainstein 1433:Iainstein 1315:DrKiernan 1257:DrKiernan 1239:DrKiernan 1199:DrKiernan 1070:DrKiernan 1031:DrKiernan 483:Lubiesque 244:Grandiose 94:Archive 7 89:Archive 6 83:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 64:Archive 1 4796:does not 4790:I undid 4691:Mandruss 4634:Mandruss 4568:Mandruss 4473:contribs 4432:contribs 4388:contribs 4361:imported 4255:Mandruss 4247:de facto 4186:Mandruss 4116:Mandruss 4024:Mandruss 3701:¡gobble! 3517:contribs 3505:unsigned 3452:this one 2952:FunkMonk 2931:GoneIn60 2732:reverted 2685:Religion 2658:articles 2655:featured 2641:Frietjes 2605:articles 2602:featured 2473:Frietjes 2450:McGeddon 2437:Laughter 2102:Lciaccio 1958:GoneIn60 1906:relevant 1794:contribs 1718:GoneIn60 1700:Question 1590:FunkMonk 1148:restored 1136:restored 1123:restored 1085:I think 1017:FunkMonk 883:GoneIn60 752:Keithbob 718:GoneIn60 653:Keithbob 630:GoneIn60 611:GoneIn60 583:Keithbob 501:GoneIn60 258:contribs 20:‎ | 4751:(talk) 4491:Example 4294:Johnbod 4227:on the 4206:Johnbod 4146:Flyer22 4083:Johnbod 4064:Flyer22 3946:Flyer22 3649:WP:SIZE 3479:Parasol 3456:another 3395:Bagumba 3349:Flyer22 3273:Flyer22 3262:at the 3053:persist 3050:editors 3008:Bagumba 2830:that?-- 2752:SabreBD 2711:Eritrea 2690:Culture 2681:Regions 2542:Insert 2491:SabreBD 2034:Indian: 1895:Comment 1774:Replace 1748:Comment 1647:Comment 1577:Corbett 1469:Replace 1188:removed 1180:It was 1155:removed 1142:removed 1130:removed 1128:It was 1119:removed 1115:removed 907:Bede735 847:SabreBD 707:Corbett 664:SabreBD 560:Bede735 539:SabreBD 522:Bede735 438:Bede735 143:because 43:archive 4532:(talk) 4517:WP:T/Q 4454:circle 3963:Images 3847:rose64 3820:FACTOR 3636:rose64 3440:Stemoc 3438:Users 3314:rose64 3228:rose64 3164:WP:IUP 3135:rose64 3100:rose64 3093:WP:EIS 3045:change 3038:images 2973:issue. 2783:rose64 2511:rose64 2394:rose64 2279:(talk) 2246:(talk) 2188:Graham 2150:rose64 2138:|frame 2134:|thumb 2009:Yeezus 1975:Remove 1902:usable 1823:Modify 1814:(talk) 1804:Remove 1731:Remove 1714:Modify 1686:Remove 1669:Remove 1603:Remove 1586:Remove 1567:Remove 1381:Remove 1336:Giano 1328:Remove 1311:Remove 992:Giano 952:Giano 805:Giano 772:Since 607:before 123:WP:MOS 22:Images 4168:DrKay 3625:WP:IG 3551:Lotje 3245:Masem 3128:phab: 3035:three 3032:These 2923:stack 2881:Elvey 2832:Elvey 2801:Elvey 2770:Elvey 2740:Elvey 2715:Elvey 2671:Elvey 2662:dozen 2612:Elvey 2531:Seppi 2172:RexxS 1810:Loeba 1761:RexxS 1656:wales 1544:three 1471:with 1396:james 1390:Reid, 1182:added 1105:added 966:fool. 603:after 479:Bride 457:Bride 452:line. 413:wales 16:< 4823:talk 4803:ASEM 4745:Tony 4713:talk 4656:talk 4621:talk 4551:talk 4499:talk 4469:talk 4463:Rezy 4450:disc 4428:talk 4422:Rezy 4407:talk 4384:talk 4378:Rezy 4346:talk 4340:. -- 4323:talk 4298:talk 4237:talk 4210:talk 4172:talk 4150:talk 4087:talk 4068:talk 3984:talk 3950:talk 3942:here 3936:. A 3908:talk 3904:Zyxw 3894:talk 3880:talk 3876:Zyxw 3851:talk 3834:talk 3830:Zyxw 3816:SIZE 3790:ASEM 3778:talk 3762:talk 3758:Zyxw 3680:talk 3656:ASEM 3640:talk 3631:. -- 3607:talk 3577:talk 3565:here 3555:talk 3540:this 3530:talk 3513:talk 3442:and 3424:talk 3399:talk 3353:talk 3318:talk 3309:. -- 3290:ASEM 3277:talk 3247:and 3232:talk 3219:and 3202:ASEM 3188:talk 3139:talk 3130:. -- 3118:talk 3104:talk 3082:talk 3024:and 3012:talk 2981:talk 2956:talk 2935:talk 2902:talk 2866:talk 2787:talk 2758:talk 2698:talk 2683:and 2645:talk 2631:talk 2515:talk 2497:talk 2477:talk 2454:talk 2441:Face 2422:talk 2398:talk 2389:. -- 2385:See 2370:talk 2343:talk 2303:talk 2211:best 2176:talk 2154:talk 2125:and 2106:talk 2079:talk 1983:talk 1962:talk 1943:talk 1939:yoyo 1921:talk 1917:yoyo 1882:talk 1857:talk 1839:talk 1835:yoyo 1790:talk 1765:talk 1739:talk 1722:talk 1677:talk 1652:Rich 1636:talk 1594:talk 1572:Eric 1552:talk 1525:talk 1504:talk 1485:talk 1454:talk 1437:talk 1422:talk 1410:Reid 1401:talk 1393:iain 1370:talk 1319:talk 1261:talk 1243:talk 1203:talk 1193:See 1164:and 1160:See 1121:and 1074:talk 1055:talk 1046:Keep 1035:talk 1021:talk 984:Moxy 972:talk 968:Moxy 911:talk 887:talk 853:talk 823:talk 819:Moxy 787:talk 783:Moxy 759:Talk 722:talk 702:Eric 691:talk 670:talk 634:talk 615:talk 590:Talk 564:talk 545:talk 526:talk 505:talk 487:talk 465:talk 442:talk 434:have 409:Rich 388:talk 372:talk 331:talk 308:talk 254:talk 239:here 225:talk 195:talk 169:talk 151:talk 132:talk 4842:Eng 4775:Eng 4673:Eng 4599:Eng 4519:or 4460:aka 4452:to 4419:aka 4375:aka 4284:or 4231:. 4225:not 3978:-- 3874:-- 3845:Red 3634:Red 3573:Hzh 3526:Hzh 3509:Hzh 3474:Ton 3469:Ten 3454:or 3444:Hzh 3384:FYI 3312:Red 3226:Red 3133:Red 3098:Red 2781:Red 2736:hed 2535:333 2509:Red 2392:Red 2274:Fir 2271:een 2268:rgr 2265:Eve 2241:Fir 2238:een 2235:rgr 2232:Eve 2148:Red 2136:or 2044:· 2039:BIO 1618:Dui 1613:Mac 1608:Ben 1540:can 1536:not 1364:. 1357:or 1172:At 931:); 217:not 4825:) 4810:) 4715:) 4658:) 4623:) 4553:) 4523:. 4501:) 4471:| 4430:| 4409:) 4386:| 4348:) 4325:) 4300:) 4288:. 4239:) 4212:) 4174:) 4152:) 4089:) 4070:) 3986:) 3966:}} 3960:{{ 3952:) 3910:) 3896:) 3882:) 3869:). 3853:) 3836:) 3818:* 3797:) 3780:) 3764:) 3682:) 3663:) 3652:-- 3642:) 3609:) 3579:) 3571:. 3557:) 3532:) 3515:• 3496:, 3492:, 3426:) 3401:) 3355:) 3320:) 3297:) 3286:-- 3279:) 3243:, 3234:) 3209:) 3190:) 3141:) 3120:) 3106:) 3084:) 3014:) 2983:) 2958:) 2937:) 2926:}} 2920:{{ 2904:) 2868:) 2854:}} 2848:{{ 2789:) 2761:) 2700:) 2647:) 2633:) 2594:. 2553:) 2547:| 2544:2¢ 2527:. 2517:) 2500:) 2479:) 2471:? 2456:) 2424:) 2400:) 2372:) 2345:) 2321:FA 2305:) 2297:. 2286:}} 2284:re 2253:}} 2251:re 2193:87 2178:) 2156:) 2108:) 2081:) 2027:}} 2021:{{ 1985:) 1964:) 1945:) 1923:) 1884:) 1859:) 1841:) 1796:) 1792:, 1788:, 1786:me 1767:) 1752:do 1741:) 1724:) 1679:) 1638:) 1596:) 1554:) 1527:) 1506:) 1487:) 1456:) 1439:) 1424:) 1403:) 1372:) 1321:) 1263:) 1245:) 1205:) 1197:. 1176:: 1076:) 1057:) 1051:LK 1037:) 1023:) 974:) 935:; 913:) 889:) 856:) 825:) 789:) 762:• 756:• 748:— 724:) 693:) 673:) 636:) 628:-- 617:) 593:• 587:• 579:— 566:) 548:) 528:) 507:) 499:-- 489:) 467:) 444:) 390:) 374:) 333:) 310:) 291:, 260:) 256:, 252:, 250:me 227:) 197:) 171:) 153:) 134:) 98:→ 68:← 4837:E 4821:( 4808:t 4806:( 4801:M 4770:E 4711:( 4707:— 4698:☎ 4668:E 4654:( 4641:☎ 4619:( 4594:E 4575:☎ 4549:( 4513:: 4509:@ 4497:( 4475:) 4467:( 4446:: 4442:@ 4434:) 4426:( 4405:( 4390:) 4382:( 4344:( 4321:( 4296:( 4262:☎ 4235:( 4208:( 4193:☎ 4181:― 4170:( 4148:( 4123:☎ 4085:( 4066:( 4031:☎ 4016:x 3982:( 3948:( 3906:( 3892:( 3878:( 3849:( 3832:( 3795:t 3793:( 3788:M 3776:( 3760:( 3678:( 3661:t 3659:( 3654:M 3638:( 3621:: 3617:@ 3605:( 3575:( 3553:( 3528:( 3511:( 3498:3 3494:2 3490:1 3450:— 3422:( 3397:( 3351:( 3316:( 3295:t 3293:( 3288:M 3275:( 3230:( 3207:t 3205:( 3200:M 3186:( 3137:( 3116:( 3102:( 3080:( 3062:/ 3010:( 2979:( 2954:( 2933:( 2900:( 2864:( 2823:: 2819:@ 2785:( 2772:: 2768:@ 2756:( 2696:( 2643:( 2629:( 2540:( 2513:( 2495:( 2475:( 2452:( 2420:( 2396:( 2383:: 2379:@ 2368:( 2341:( 2301:( 2174:( 2152:( 2104:( 2077:( 1981:( 1960:( 1941:( 1919:( 1880:( 1855:( 1837:( 1784:( 1763:( 1737:( 1720:( 1675:( 1634:( 1592:( 1550:( 1523:( 1502:( 1483:( 1452:( 1435:( 1420:( 1399:( 1368:( 1317:( 1296:] 1285:] 1259:( 1241:( 1201:( 1072:( 1053:( 1033:( 1019:( 970:( 927:( 909:( 885:( 851:( 821:( 785:( 720:( 689:( 668:( 632:( 613:( 562:( 543:( 524:( 503:( 485:( 463:( 440:( 386:( 370:( 329:( 306:( 248:( 223:( 193:( 167:( 149:( 130:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index