Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9

4020:

good sound and video files that deserve recognition. I remember when I bought an old copy of Encarta that they had a tool to browse the media on the CD (which included videos, sound and pictures). Why didn't they separate them out into pictures, videos and movies ? Because all of that media serves the same purpose in the encyclopedia, to explain things in ways that words can't and to make the articles more interesting and relevant. This system also helps to alleviate the criticism of some users that too many "diagrams" are being promoted (at one point a "featured diagrams" was proposed, which would unnecessarily fragment the process). I also agree that a unified criteria for promotion could be created. For example, all media must be of high physical quality (with the exception of historical works) which everyone would interpret as "devoid of static, artifacts or other physical/technical blemishes and of a high bitrate and resolution". Anyways, even if all of the types are unified on one page, why must the criterion be the same? It's just more convenient to group them together and to put them all under one category. If we had featured sound, video and pictures running at full speed overhead would quite great. we would inevitably have, FPC, FPV and FPS boxes updated daily and demotion procedures for each...it just gets too complicated.

268:

angle, quality of specimen, overall composition and aesthetic value. But a map? They're basically all the same. Clearly diagrams can not be judged in the same manner as photos. They're just too different. It also makes it hard to tell someone (and I'm speaking basically for myself just now) that you are going to oppose their nominations just because you don't thing diagrams demonstrate the best images Knowledge (XXG) has to offer. I'm sure that there are varying degrees of brilliance in diagrams, and I think a seperate set of criteria and a seperate page should be erected for them. I just don't think that diagrams are compatible with the idea of a Featured

3085:

why, I would give them less weight. I know these aren't clear cut answers, but when trying to come to a consensus, there can be quite a bit of leeway for the closer. As far as closing your own image, I am ok with the nominator closing it if the consensus is clearly one way or the other. If the consensus is a little more contentious, I would suggest just letting someone else close the nomination. I'm not really sure how others feel about this. If you use common sense and can justify your decision, you should be fine. --

241:

promote thousands of similar images (I mean there are more insects than countries). I think we have done a good job adjusting our expectations to different kinds images and we don't need a separate page to make that distinction clear. I mean, why do you oppose adding such pictures to FP, but not FD? Why does it matter how we categorize them? FPs (and FDs) simply represent really good content. I would, however, support renaming the whole page to featured media or featured files to make this page more inclusive (as I have

378:. The last time the topic was discussed (July 05) the discussion fizzled out without conclusion, so I'd be grateful if contributors from this busier talk page would give their opinion. The basic premise of the discussion is that FPV is getting too large and unwieldy, and was partially (but not completely) converted to a gallery format last summer as a result. It shouldn't stay as its current hybrid, and I am volunteering to fix it once the community decides what format we want the page in. Thanks all ~ 3209:, however it is counted. I also think that it is important for the closer to take into account the reasons given for the votes when there is a close call, as we've seen with the DNA nom. Really bad images won't pass, in any case, and I don't think we have a problem with too many pictures being promoted, especially since there has been activity in the delisting process. With the higher standards of today, a FP barely passing is still much better than one promoted a year ago. -- 220:! I mean I could make a pretty much identical one of Australia. Then France, then Poland, then Africa. See what I mean? There is nothing stopping someone from submitting unlimited amounts of these maps. And after promoting and image of India you can't really oppose and image of China can you? I mean you let one through then you've opened the door. You won't be able to discriminate against a country, and then you'll have to choose which country gets to be it. 31: 2416:. I think the evidence is conclusive enough that I don't think anyone would bother with checkuser. I think the sockpuppets can just be blocked, as disruptive and evading policy on voting. Though, I'd like to first notify GarrettRock and have a word with the user. It may be that this is a newbie who is unaware that their behavior is against policy. Some of the pictures are nice, though maybe not FP quality. We should 3068:

logical to count "weak" votes as half-votes for or against, since the voter doesn't have strong enough feelings to fully support or oppose a nomination. But I don't think it makes sense to count "strong" votes any differently than normal "support" or "oppose" votes, as the result would likely be that most people would add "strong" to their votes in an attempt to avoid having others' votes count more than theirs do.

1609:

between them and the original. If the editor could justify and explain the changes made, it would help all concerned.. I'm not the type to want to burden the process with arbitrary rules and regulations, but we should probably create guidelines for presenting edits. Perhaps we could add to the FPC template a format for displaying edits. Eg a caption that starts with "Edit 1 - Changes made: ....". Any thoughts?

841: 4122: 4317: 3366:) edits and found about 20 requests for votes placed on other user pages, see . Is this kind of active campaigning for nominations acceptable on FPCs? Would condoning this behavior lead to other vote skewing in the future? Are we getting to the point where photos are not judged on their relative merits, but on who can put together the best schemes to sway the vote count? 1283: 4366: 3626:

these guidelines someone else should go in and change the caption ASAP. If pre-edit voters don't change their vote then perhaps we just need to go on whether a majority of supports following the edit support the edit or original; if post-edit voters don't specify, then I guess we assume they support the original. It's not perfect, but it's a start. --

2942:(1) Sockpuppets arrive out of nowhere to support the primary's POV. (2) Somebody points out that all input is coming from the same IP address. (3) Primary then claims to have a relative at his/her house who used his computer to chime in on the very same topic that the primary is involved with. I realize my cynicism on this matter conflicts with 1272: 1264: 1870:(who signed herself as "Christine" on the daffodil promotion) are all the same person. None have more than 3 edits except 67.33.193.152 (who has 9) and Polarqueen (who has <20), all edits are directly related to two particular FPC's, and the comments made sound very similar to each other (and are mostly unsigned). -- 1665:

good communication. I do agree that generally an edit without immediately apparent benefits is often a pointless edit, but it is also quite easy to miss subtle but important differences such as cleaning up noise. The benefits of disclosure to the collaboration far outweigh the burden on the editor IMHO.

4019:

I think moving all forms of media under one umbrella page would be a reasonable way to expand our featured categories into different formats. At the moment we don't have a high enough volume for a Featured Video, Featured Sound or any other media type (Are there any others?) page, yet we have lots of

3084:

AFAIK, there is no percentage cut off. When I closed nominations awhile back, I never promoted anything under 70%. However, I probably had a higher cut off than most. In close votes, I would start to really take into account the reasoning behind the vote. If someone votes oppose without explaining

1042:

I don't see anywhere that both of those IPs voted on a single pic, so how is it sock puppetry? People are allowed to edit from more than one IP (work/home/school). Also I don't belive there are any criteria that say that newbies votes are worth less vs old hands, so I don't understand the whole "this

267:

however say that two maps are a like. They would have the same color scheme etc to each other and be virtually the same (albeit different country). That isn't the case with a photograph. There are so many variations (even excluding subject). Background, focus, resolution, noise, color, lighting, DOF,

4291:

A link to the FP discussion would be useful for both featured pictures and pictures that were nominated but not promoted. I don't like the idea that those not promoted have a "failed featured picture" tag, though. An image can fail to gain support for many reasons, some of which can be addressed.

3685:

Agree you don't want to waffle. The wording is OK ATM, see how it goes (I changed 'named' to 'captioned' to try to make that clearer). Perhaps could also have something about the nominator adding a vote or comment clearly indicating when in the voting process the edit was added? Maybe also something

1664:

I don't think it is much of a hassle to explain changes made. I firmly believe that explaining and justifying the changes that have been made is very important, especially when the change is more than a slight colour/luminosity/curves edit. FPC is a collaborative process and good collaboration means

1654:

I am, but in utter disdain of the suggestion. What value does that information provide? It just makes unnecessary hassle for the editor. An edit either looks better or it doesn't. Pretty straight forward, and you don't need to be told what's happened to it to judge wether it's an improvement or not.

1354:

I would like to propose that a specially-written mainpage caption be included as part of every nomination for FPC. Too often the caption on the mainpage is just the regurgitation of the first few sentences of an article the image appears in, and has little relevance to the actual image. Instead, I

1222:

the verdict was added and specified your edit as their preferred option Fir, I'd say go ahead and move the FP designation to edit 2. It's never easy to close multi-edit promotions and I've resorted to leaving "unless you have more to add..." messages on people's talk pages when closing close ones in

1205:

A lot of votes do not specify the version they like, and some of the earlier ones (before the edits) mentioned they would prefer some cropping. I have notified some of this users asking if they could specify their preferences. However if they do not respond, I think edit two should be promoted as it

3898:

Whether change is bad or not, the current process of nominating and promoting pictures will remain unchanged and uninterrupted. This is just an expansion -- except for some sound or video nominations, at this point very little actually changes except the name. In my opinion, the "amount of change

3502:

I was going to create a new section to post these in, as a way to draw attention from the original participants that they may have to clarify their votes. However, I'm concerned that I might screw up formatting of the page and cause automated (bot) operations on the page to fail. So for now, I've

3302:

I haven't been following the FPC page either until quite recently, so I don't know how prevalent this kind of behavior is. Seeing as these users know (presumably) that what they are doing isn't legit, some arbitrary rules aren't going to stop them from posting, and would just make more work for the

3182:

The proposed algorithm would work, but in the end it's the same thing as saying a 2/3 majority of support is required -- however it's counted. Also, I agree with Fir0002 that strong votes shouldn't count for any more than 'regular' votes, since doing so would likely result in people always putting

2965:

I very much wish to assume good faith, but have also heard the "cousin" story many times before. Even if that is indeed the case, it is reasonable to ask GarrettRock and Polarqueen to stay away from FPC voting. The other accounts should be blocked. What they have been doing is very disruptive to

1490:

And do we have 13 other such equally dedicated Wikipedians? Noone is writing decent captions now, and it does not seem likely that such an allotment system could ever find the volunteers. Meanwhile, completely irrelevant captions on the Main Page are detracting from our FPs every day, and neither

224:

So I strongly propose that there should be a seperate Featured Diagram Section, so that a criteria can be made specifically for diagrams and they can be battled out on equal terms. Coz really a photo and an illustration are so different it's not really fair t judge them on the same discussion board

4377:

already has other pictures, but in terms of day-time pictures I think this is better than the existing one in that it is centered, but can also be differentiated because it looks back to the city. However, I'm still not sure its quite FP worthy. It doesn't look so good in thumnail view but looks

3498:

However, I was forced to bypass four older nominations because I am unable to determine consensus. In each case, the problem is that there is more than one edit and the majority of the votes either don't specify which edit they support/oppose OR most votes were cast prior to the posting of later,

3281:

I haven't been following the FPC page closely, except for the recent case (see above) that came to my attention. When you say "recent sockpuppetry", are you referring to anything more than the above case with GarrettRock, Polarqueen, et al? If it's just this case, then maybe we need keep looking

2941:

Having been an administrator and participant on other discussion forums in the past, I can say with some authority that claims that a sockpuppet account are actually a relative (brother, wife, cousin) using the primary's computer are almost always false. It's like the standard model or something.

2783:

I have to agree with you there. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that there is any connection between GarrettRock/70.179.197.52 and the others, other than their support of each others' pictures and Garrett's statement that Polarqueen is his cousin. It seems pretty clear that most of the list

333:

My thought about the subject of these is that they can be FP, if they are somehow unique. I mean just a map like that is bland and how can you argue against a similar map of any other country, then historical maps, or regions or states, provinces teritories etc...etc... But if you brought a map or

290:

involved in making a map. I agree. But there's nothing in the criteria which requires artistry, nor should there be. Unlike Commons, this is project is to write an encyclopedia, and, while artistic images are definitely a plus, encyclopedic value comes first. I think we can measure photos, maps,

4335:

I've got a problem to ask advice about. Sometimes, not all the time a page will say it's finished loading but be only paritially loaded, and then when I go to edit a page I accidentally "delete" all the stuff which didn't load. This happened to me yesterday when I was closing some candidates. Has

3573:

Don't worry about messing up any bots, there arent any, just a user run script. Dunno what to do about the IP vote on wave cut platform. I have added an oppose to the DNA one if that helps. I would close it as not promoted, let them work on it and come back when its fixed up. Since the pic is not

3067:

2. Sometimes "weak" supports and "weak" opposes are counted as a half vote for or against; sometimes they are counted as full votes. I would tend to count them as half votes, but then I haven't seen "strong" supports or "strong" votes counted as anything other than a single vote. To me it seems

1722:

of the image (Eg removing an unwanted object from the image), not just the qualities (brightness/saturation etc) of it. This is already a contentious thing in FPC and disclosure is generally considered a requirement here as many feel that any deviation from 'the image that was captured' is a good

1559:

the image into the general subject. GangstaEB, I would have little problem with you writing all the captions for every day, but this just hasn't happened yet (and I don't quite understand what you mean by "paying $ 300+"). I still think this has to be a distributed process, open to some kind of

592:

It wasn't me! I'm at work right now but I'll have a look at home later and throw in my 2c worth. When it comes to multi-edit FPCs I always draw a table and start making notes re versions. I'll say in advance though, that I don't always use my count of votes for an edit to make the decision. If an

4039:

This sounds like a great idea to me. Raul, why do you feel so strongly against it? It would save endless debates on whether maps & diagrams should be included (endless because fresh voters at FPC tend to raise the same objections) and give the scope for other media to be featured. Currently,

3625:

second edit). To start the ball rolling I suggest that all edits following the original be clearly captioned sequentially Edit1, Edit2, etc. The editor should indicate when in the voting sequence the edit was added with either a comment or vote. If the editor doesn't name their edit according to

1379:

Yes, but unless it is part of the FPC process there is just no incentive for volunteers to take up the significant effort to write a decent, appropriate caption for every day's FP. All FPs will eventually make it to the mainpage, so there will be no wasted efforts, and I think how an FP will be

1369:

As part of a nomination? Nah. It should be written as-and-when the picture actually becomes FPC and is going to appear on the main page. Otherwise it's just a lot of wasted effort, and really has nothing to do with whether the image gets promoted or not. However, the point about the caption just

3063:

1. Though it's obvious a simple majority is not adequate for promotion, it's not clear what would constitute an acceptable majority when attempting to translate votes into concensus. Is there some basic guideline? Something like +16/-2 would seem to be an obvious 'yes,' where as +10/-5 is not

240:

What's wrong with having a featured map of every country? Isn't that what we want? Wouldn't that be great? I could phrase this suggestion the exact opposite way...If we promote one macro-shot of an insect then we can't just reject equally good macro-shots of other insects and we'll be forced to

146:

In fact, even if you or someone creates the empty archive today, you could still test the script's ability to craete it by simply deleting the empty archive again just before running the bot to close Paris (which will be the first thing to go in it whatever you do). It's not a big problem if it

3418:

Thats exactly my thought as I watched the Sockpuppet Scandal unfold. Why would anyone create so many multiple identities, lie about them, partially confess, and continue to vandalize pages all for the award of a FP? I'd hate to see the scams such people would pull if any monetary payment was

1608:

I know this is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but I've recently been frustrated by edits to FPC images that don't explain the changes made. I feel it is important to aid in determining the benefits of the edits. Sometimes I look at them and find it quite hard to see any real difference

556:

Actually I agree that Edit 1 received more votes, but I can't help but look at that image and see the JPEG compression artifacts. I'd be happiest to see a re-edit using the techniques used in Edit 1, but with a better quality JPEG save. Personally, I don't think my edit removed any significant

3338:

20 edits seems alright to me. We have to take into account how likely users are to go through all the trouble of making a sockpuppet account, making 20 edits, and then finally voting, at which point someone will probably notice that this user's edits are a minimum of 20. Of course, since one

2535:

For new users, they frequently use Edit Summaries (Especially Polarqueen). The "Userbox case" is ok because newbies usually look at other people's user pages. New users don't use edit summaries unless they were one of those experienced IP users or people who used Knowledge (XXG) in the past.

1509:

The ideal situation would be for the creator of the image to write a couple of sentences about how they took the image, *after* the nomination succeeds. "This image of a cane toad was taken in the suburbs of Brisbane in 2003. It was taken using a Nikon D50 with slave flash..." etc. Then, the

3238:

Agree with all above. Weak votes can be considered to count less, but strong votes shouldn't count more. And reasons should be taken into account, especially for close votes (which doesn't make things any easier). In particular though, reasons for oppose votes need to be taken into account.

1429:

I've been thinking about it, and a decent caption of two to four sentences isn't even just needed on the mainpage. Clicking on the image page for today's FP, we get the singularly unstatisfying "An aerial view of housing developments near Markham, Ontario. Photo by IDuke, November 2005."

3051:

Yesterday I moved a bunch of the older nominations into the "decision time" section, since they had all been up for more than 7 days (some quite a bit longer). Today there are even more nominations that have aged past 7 days. I would be willing to close them but have some questions.

1119:

I think the deletion procedure should be the same as nomination, i.e have a subpage. That would make it easier to keep an archive, and hopefully prevent re-nominations. I would guess the naming convention would be: {{Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/ExampleName_Delist}}

4251:

template on the description page of every featured picture be changed to include a link to the nomination discussion, as is the case with featured articles. It is often useful to re-read these discussions when you find a featured picture, and the current way is not easy-to-use.

4040:

there isn't a way to get sounds featured because the page just wouldn't have enough traffic to establish consensus, and movies are acceptable only when converted to .gif format which makes for a huge non-optional download for someone viewing the article they are in (example:

1430:

Considering that Knowledge (XXG) has decided this is one of its finest images, putting a little bit of decent explanatory prose on ther image page (the same as on the mainpage) couldn't hurt either. A decent extended caption is really integral to the whole purpose of FPs.--

1052:

Now that I think of it, you might mean that the IP is a sockpuppet of a registered user, which is indeed a bad thing. Also we should try and keep an eye on new USERS that only have edits to FPC. I think having an admin do some auditing of recent FPCs would be a good thing.

4189:

I think Wave Cut Platform is probably a 'not promoted' anyway (see above discussion). I make it something like 14/9, which is only about 60% support. Can someone with more expertise clarify this? (Personally I voted support, so aren't gunning for it not to be promoted).

188:

I assume it had to be with the way the closing person determined consensus, and it isn't all about numbers since Knowledge (XXG) is not a consensus. I agree with you that it probably shouldn't be a featured picture though and suggest that you put it up for delisting.

2667:) looks legit. This user has been around for a while a week, and most of their edit have not been related to FPC. (The only ones that have are directly related to a single picture which they nominated. They didn't support other candidates of questionable validity). -- 2573:

looks suspicious as well. First and only edits are related to FP's, the user name is one only someone with Knowledge (XXG) experience would create, and wannabe is not a word usually known by most "South Americans". Just though I'd add the name to the considerations.

303:

Good point. We are looking for useful and informative content here, just not pretty pictures. Your suggestion for a featured diagram process would actually make more sense at commons since they just want nice looking pictures (try suggesting it there). By the way

3204:

Agree with Fir & Moondigger, weak votes should be considered having less value, since the voter states so himself, but a strong one would equal an ordinary vote - we don't need three kinds of votes. Also, a 2/3 majority just fits the lower limit criteria for

1380:

presented to the world should be a fair criterion to judge it on. I am not saying we need the strictest standards on this little prose, but an initial decent effort and a little exposure to review will help with the presentation of the final product immensely.--

4292:

Maybe a "discussions about this image" tag could be added to every featured picture candidate, that links to the FPC discussion/subpage for the image. Then all FPCs would have the same "discussion tag," but only those that are promoted would get the FP tag. --

3262:

I would like to open up discussion on if there should be voting criteria in place, and what requirement there would be. This recent sockpuppetry has been exteremly annoying to me as we should be focused on the pics not trying to track down some bored 13yr old.

3604:

Good point moondigger re the edit votes. I have noticed this problem with votes too. Personally I think there needs to some consistent way of naming edits, to encourage clear voting. It ends up with too many people voting for unclear edits (e.g., an unnamed

2955:

I don't agree with the above view that it's that uncommon, but I hold an alternative view which leads to the same results... Knowledge (XXG) is a big place and it's not unreasonable to ask two people sharing an IP on wikipedia to lead mostly seperate lives.

1774:. I did this for two reason, one its easier to link when explaining to people, also there is no restriction on space so the page can be much more detailed. I would appreciate any help you guys can give in cleaning up the page as much as possible. Thanks! - 672:

have it on my watchlist, but I must admit I haven't stopped off there as often as I ought to recently. I found that I was always telling people what was wrong with their picture, and I don't enjoy leaving negative messages all the time. Call me a wimp ~

486:

It was suspended because we were waiting for someone to make an animated/svg version. Both have been made but there isn't a clear consensus about which to promote. I'd say, promote the svg demote the png and suggest that people renominate the animation.

992:

I'm not going to nominate my photos. First, because doing so looks complicated; I don't want to screw up the other candidates somehow with poor formatting. Second, because if there's a de facto requirement for featured pictures to have resolutions

708:

it lists 1000 Pixels as a minimum, however it doesn't give an easy way for someone to tell if a picture is 1000 pixels big. What would be the easiest way? At what size does MediaWiki start making the picture a thumbnail and provide image dimensions?

3055:

The "how to close" instructions give the technical information necessary but don't explain how to count votes. I read about concensus and looked at some previously-closed noms in the archives, but it's not clear what the accepted procedure here on

452:

Aka's page says "32 of my images has been voted as featured pictures" and on the hall of fame only five is listed. I'm not sure if all 32 of his pictures are still FP's, some may have been delisted so I'm not going to change anything just yet.

207:

I know this subject has been discussed already, but I don't think it has been done to a stage at which a resolution has been made. I for one am strongly for splitting off diagrams from Featured Picture Candidates. Personally I can't understand

1309:

made the insightful point that while the original was smaller, the thumbnails generated from it were actually larger. Since users view many more thumbnails on a typical visit to Knowledge (XXG), Fir's use of compression would actually have a

3863:

would guarantee that a well-established and frequently-visited apparatus is in place once there are enough sound files to warrant featured sounds. If sounds and other media become prevalent enough at a later date, they can be divorced from

3686:

in the 'supporting and opposing' instructions about indicating which edit is supported? Notice that Stevage also added an extra bit about describing the modifications. Re the vote counting, that belongs somewhere else anyway (but where?). --

128:

his promotion script would be able to create the link automatically, so I figured I'd wait for him to do it so he could test out his script. It only takes a few seconds to make the monthly archive, so we can do it before then if necessary.

686:

Its probably better to have someone help you along on the Peer review than to have your picture torn apart by 20 people on FPC. Think of it as though Judo instructor vs street gang, which one would you rather be schooled by? :)

4141:

I really don't think it would make it - too mundane, doesn't have any "wow-factor". Thanks, though, for putting it here, and not on the FPC page. Keep shooting, and when you capture that real WOW stuff, be sure to let us know!

818:

This discussion is huge and not going anywhere. Someone may wish to launch another delisting attempt some time, but for the moment this one seems to have gotten stuck in some sort of bureaucratic wormhole. Linking to it here:

3339:

sockpuppet probably won't be enough to sway the pictures support (or lack of support) the user will have to then repeat the process, at which point it would be pretty obvious to everyone that something strange is going on. --

3561:

Ugh, further clarification. There is only one edit on the DNA nomination page, but recent posts raising objections to the accuracy of the diagram give me pause. Suggestions for how to deal with it would be appreciated. --

889: 334:

other diagram or chart that has something unique and special about it, while remaining encyclopaedic I dont see how I could oppose it. I would put this on par with featured picture of staight flat diagrams of national flags.

892:

nomination. I wonder if it has something to do with the number of sections on the page, which, including the delisting nominations and post-7 days nominations, is extremely high. Have their ever been this many before? --

4412:

It probably wouldn't make it. The highlights on the pillars are somewhat blown out, and the image is a bit blurry at full resolution. (tip: if you want a critical review of your photo, next time try submitting it to the

4041: 4255:

I further propose that failed featured pictures have a "failed featured picture" template as per failed feature articles to clearly identify those that have failed the FP nom process so they are not re-nominated.

719:

Interestingly it also says it should be 1000px wide *or* high. So technically a 1000x100 image could qualify? Could we have a minimum requirement as well? So, must be at least 750x1000 or 1000x750, for example.

2460:

I left a note on GarrettRock's talk page. I won't block yet, but will keep watch on the FPC page. Hopefully the user will just learn and not continue the problematic behavior. If they do, then I will block.

593:

edit appears to address concerns that were raised earlier in the FPC, and nothing about it is specifically opposed, I will often promote the edit even if not enough people have come back to change their vote ~

1011:

We seem to have a couple of anon. sockpuppets on FPC (211.30.199.85 and 220.239.253.3), both referring to a "Brad" in personal messages and in edit summaries. Can an admin do the appropriate things, thanks.

906:

The only way to add votes to the misbehaving noms is to click on the title, and edit the appearing page. The edit links mess it all up. Can someone fix this before it substantially skews the voting process?

4048:

be very different — the most important remain (1) candidates must be a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, and (2) they should represent Knowledge (XXG)'s best content. The procedure does

3547:

seems to be broken; it loads, but the image tab at the top is red, indicating the image doesn't actually exist. (???) I can't add the featured picture template, since I can't edit a non-existent page. --

143:

Hi guys. As bad luck would have it, there is no item to close today! You can either create the archive manually or you can leave it red for a day and use the script to close the Paris panorama tomorrow.

1333:

Well, I know the devs have been working on the image thumbnail generation recently... now it seems that the two edited thumbnails are roughly equivalent. Well, anyways... keep thumbnail size in mind. ~

3641:, it would be a very good idea to have the edits named in sequential order. Also something to consider is whether or not to count oppose votes which an edit has specifically addressed and fixed? -- 3428:

When closing a FP debate, I would not give the same weight to votes from anons and newbies that raise any suspicions. So, the sockpuppet votes are a wasted effort anyway, and won't be counted. --

1771: 523: 4095: 2881:)) are related/sockpuppets, so we could have two+ cases of sockpuppetry going on here. GarrettRock: are you aware that you are using the Sockpuppet 70.179.197.52, whether intentionally or not? -- 557:

detail. While we're on the topic of saving though, I get the impression you use the 'save for web' option in PS? Why use that when it strips EXIF data from the image? (at least, it appears to).

2075:

was adding a whole bunch of userboxes (claiming to be a "teenager") to their page, is a sort of edit I don't think a newbie makes. And a few edits later, the user is now a great-grandmother.

547:

I think the second one was failed purely through lack of votes. I don't even remember it being up. I think you should re-nominate it, and ask specifically that people vote for it this time. --

213: 3519: 3363: 3394:

I would think that any campaign, even by somebody who created, edited, or added an image should be discouraged. "Drumming up support" for an image seems counter to the nature of the way

621:

Sorry my slip-up I thought that edit-2 was the supported one. I was focusing on making sure Veledans tool worked correctly. If someone wants they can move Edit-1 over the top of edit-2. -

2907:) came to my house she wrote some nasty comments and changed a few things. Besides my familiarity with this user, the other sockpuppets are unrelated to me and are certainly NOT ME! -- 529: 97: 89: 84: 110:... was redlinked today (in the intro text). Something needs to be done - now, the link takes you to the non-existent May archive... We should go to a list of months, shouldn't we? -- 1355:

would propose that a couple of sentences be prepared on the actual subject which the image illustrates, as well as on the source and means of production, if significant. Please see

820: 472:

Can anyone remember? Whoever put it in the suspended section didn't put an explanation on top, and there has been no activity for over a week. Does anyone object to me closing it? ~

169: 72: 67: 59: 3888: 3880: 3876: 345: 242: 3587:

I have closed the DNA nomination with comments encouraging the original poster to address the issues and re-nominate. The remaining three have been moved to a new section on the

2387:

That probbaly won't help much since if this person is on dialup his/her IP will change everytime she goes online, or he/she could be behind a proxy or have multiple computers. --

2101:

I think its funny that some of those user boxes were obviously picked semi-random. Lets see here: This user is a vegan, yet likes to each chocolate and horse meat. hmmm... :) --

1402:, on images and topics with which you are unfamiliar? It is clear that the persons involved in the orignial nomination process are best placed to write the mainpage caption.-- 803:

I took a look, and I don't belive any would survive FPC. It looks like most have cut off subjects, or blown out highlights. I seem to always have the same problems as well... -

3514: 3376:

It should be discouraged, unless the person has some direction connection to the image (created it, edited it or added it). This advertising will end up skewing discussions.

3316:

Keep it low - 10. I don't see why a 20-edit voter's contributions shouldn't be considered, but their inexperience should probably be taken into account when closing the vote.

2996: 1823: 579:

Ravedave may have agreed with Diliff, that edit 2 clearly had less noise, in which case it doesn't make much sense to promote edit 1 even if the vote is slightly in favor. --

1130:

How about using the same subpage? Then all discussion on the image is centralized in the same location. For older images promoted without a subpage, one could be created. --

1879:

If this escalates, we may have to start requiring a minimum time and/or minimum number of edits from voters? That would be a chore for the nom's closer, though. Thoughts? --

3524: 1295: 1829: 1175: 3827:, although I didn't change much. Since Knowledge (XXG) aims to construct an encyclopedia, I think the first two criteria are the most important for featured content. 3921:

This is a horrible idea. If you want featured types of other media, set up a page for it, go out and find/generate some. Renaming the featured pictures is pointless.

3851:, an experimental initiative intended to feature sound files, died a quick death (not having nominated a single file) because there aren’t very many sound files (see 4125: 1555:

Stevage, I don't see why captions added after the nomination process would be superior to those addes before/during it. As to content, IMO the descripttion should

2413: 1417:

I have very little to do with FPC, so won't pretend to know what would be the most appopriate move here, but I definately welcome an attempt to fix this problem.

1244:

I've recounted the votes and yes, your edit Fir turned out to be the more supported version. Feel free to swap the FP status to your edit, I have no objections. --

4053:

depend on specialists for each media type: IMO the impact of any media on the general reader is at least as important as the impression it makes on specialists ~

4205: 3892: 125: 47: 17: 4430:

I have to be honest - it doesn't look great either full sized or as a thumbnail. The image quality is just a bit low and the scene isn't impressive enough.

3721: 3508: 608:

Jonquil flowers was a fair non-promotion. At least four support votes are required to establish consensus at WP:FPC (see the 2nd paragraph of the intro) ~

3884: 3852: 375: 305: 222:

And then there are diagrams of streets. You could feasibly promote an entire Melways! (for those who don't live in Victoria that's a street directory :-)

3153:

0, and has at least 3 supporters, then promote. Can someone check whether that sounds right? As with any algorithm, discretion should still be applied.

2587: 1491:

on the image pages is their any decent background info on the FPs. I would like to ask that others please give their input on this proposal. Thanks.--

397: 4417:, this talk page getting too long and isn't really meant for asking whether or not you should submit a photo to FPC, that's what peer review is for) -- 1305:

While Fir's edit was certainly an improvement for the full size image, he overlooked the compression's impact on the thumbnails ImageMagick generates.

3667:

Agree, agree. And if all agree about the naming of edits, perhaps someone (an Admin) could add that info to the FP page under 'editing candidates'? --

3574:

accurate it doesn't matter how many votes it has. As far as the other two... I have already screwed up promoting the wrong edit on another FPC :). -

3165:

Sounds pretty good, but I don't like the idea of "strong" votes counting for more than normal votes. Weak votes I can understand, but not "strong". --

705: 1572:

Payign $ 300 means going to some kind of class on writing captions for newpapers. I was told to improve my caption writing... or else. :-( :-( :-(

763:

There is no minimum width. That's judge a rule of thumb. The picture odd to be big enough. People can determine for themselves if its big enough.

3530:

I hope somebody with more Wiki experience can figure out how to resolve them, or how to draw the attention of the voters to clarify their votes.

3837:

Renaming a number of pages and updating a number of others to reflect the change requires a fair amount of work. Is it really worth the trouble?

3834:

Portals, lists, and articles are featured through different processes. Why should different media types be featured through the same process?

2916:

That sounds pretty sus to me. Initially you said that the sockpuppets had "no relation" to you. Changing your story isn't very convincing. --

2808: 2223: 2188: 1953: 1154: 3895:

times, and has established a weak (but existent) bias against non-pictures. I think eliminating the doubt is worth the trouble of renaming.

3544: 1472: 1302:

made another edit, which he recompressed to a much smaller filesize, with the intent of making the image more accessible for dialup users.

3409:

Is there that much kudos associated with an FP that it's even worth it? Why bother gaming a system that doesn't pay you anything? *shrug*

3398:

works, as it encourages (even if unintentionally) people to vote for or against the person campaigning, rather than the image itself. --

2177:) says she's "Danielle" and is studying to be a botanist (which explains her obsession with flowers) in her user page, so she's probably 2078:

I don't think we need to establish a minimum time and/or minimum number of edits for voting, but just need to sort out this situation. --

2850: 2719: 2599: 2317: 2209: 2174: 2049: 2001: 2136: 2065: 3959:). I agree the people might be different, but they can choose which nominations to discuss based on their interest (as they must at 2733: 2275: 2264:) who also takes a lot of pictures of flowers. This proves nothing but is mighty suspicious. The more I look at the other accounts ( 2261: 3495:

I closed a bunch of nominations today, as the backlog was getting kind of long. It was a good learning experience for me as well.

3108:

Agree with that. I would say that maybe we should make a slightly more clear cut guidelins on what constitutes a consensus such as

1206:

has the highest number of votes and addresses the cropping issues raised by some of the people who haven't specified their vote. --

4175:

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I think I took that picture at around 3:30 PM, so I'll try again on a sunny day at a better time.

3471: 3438: 3292: 3009: 2976: 2878: 2864: 2753: 2471: 2430: 2247: 2149: 2088: 2033: 2017: 1932: 927:

to see what I did. I have no idea why this stuffed everything up, or why three of the noms were like this, but it is fixed :). --

526:

was done correctly. The tally as I make it is 5 for Edit 1 and 3 for Edit 2. Therefore I think Edit 1 should have been promoted.

4160: 3362:

With all the controversy concerning Sockpuppets in voting on images, I checked the photographer's contribution of a recent FPC (

3282:

into it (checkuser?) and deal accordingly. If the problem goes beyond this case, then I would consider some voting criteria. --

1370:

being a second FA is right - it just means we need people to write image-specific captions before they appear on the main page.

655: 4346:

There is a bug with firefox & the google toolbar. See here, I expereinced the same problem and we finally tracked it down.

3071:

3. I don't know if it's bad form to close a nomination for my own image. (Mine is one of those in the "decision time" group.)

1583: 1531: 1520:

Or what if I wrote 7 captions in advance every Saturday? I need caption writing help anyway, and I'm not paying $ 300+ for it.

3307:

to be put in place, I think a 50 or 100 user contribution minimum should keep away all but the most serious sockpuppeteers. --

172:, which didn't look FP quality, yet surpirisingly it was promoted with a +10/-6 vote. Surely that is not a high enough score. 2739: 941:

Is it bad form to nominate one's own images? I uploaded a few today to support articles that either didn't have any images (

291:

diagrams, and animations by that same fundamental standard. (I also think renaming to "Featured media" is a good idea, too.)

3804: 931: 882: 3943:

Criteria for pictures and soundfiles are likely to be very different, and so will be the people interested in the process.

3984:(media peer review)? I think not. People self select so having a review page for all media would be a logical analogue to 2931: 2822: 2682: 2644: 2542: 2289: 1969: 1839: 1340: 1324: 1183:

I'm a little unsure that this nomination should have been closed at this stage. I've counted the votes as the following:

4439: 2509:. Furthermore, I have left evidence on my Talk Page that shows my lack of involvement in the allegation put against me. 1732: 1674: 1618: 1317:

I post this here because I had overlooked this point as well. Just another thing to consider when editing images here! ~

874:

Clicking on the edit links of the most recent noms, I get to completely different noms, even the delisting section... --

566: 4392: 4273: 2741: 2346: 787: 2737: 3812: 3676:

OK I've done that. Is the wording OK? I feel it's a little two brief, but then again you don't want to waffle on. --

2250:) has done nothing but support the latter two accounts. User 67.33.193.152 says she lives in Louisiana, but so does 4443: 4421: 4404: 4398: 4354: 4340: 4311: 4296: 4285: 4279: 4231: 4212: 4194: 4179: 4167: 4150: 4135: 4110: 4084: 4061: 4033: 4005: 3971: 3950: 3938: 3925: 3915: 3797: 3763: 3754: 3737: 3715: 3690: 3680: 3671: 3662: 3645: 3630: 3595: 3578: 3566: 3552: 3537: 3476: 3456: 3443: 3423: 3413: 3402: 3389: 3370: 3343: 3333: 3329:, it's relatively easy to clock up 20 edits. I guess also the quality of the edits should be taken into account. -- 3320: 3311: 3297: 3275: 3243: 3217: 3187: 3169: 3157: 3116: 3103: 3094: 3078: 3014: 2990: 2981: 2960: 2950: 2936: 2920: 2911: 2885: 2836: 2758: 2687: 2671: 2664: 2649: 2635: 2612: 2578: 2547: 2530: 2513: 2476: 2435: 2391: 2370: 2353: 2324: 2303: 2230: 2154: 2114: 2105: 2093: 1985: 1937: 1905: 1896: 1887: 1874: 1844: 1801: 1792: 1778: 1753: 1736: 1713: 1701: 1678: 1659: 1649: 1636: 1622: 1598: 1564: 1546: 1514: 1495: 1485: 1446: 1434: 1424: 1406: 1393: 1384: 1374: 1363: 1343: 1327: 1248: 1231: 1210: 1169: 1138: 1124: 1096: 1079: 1070: 1057: 1047: 1037: 1020: 1001: 984: 967: 957: 915: 901: 863: 850: 827: 807: 797: 776: 755: 733: 724: 713: 691: 681: 662: 639: 625: 616: 601: 587: 570: 551: 541: 509: 500: 480: 457: 439: 420: 410: 386: 359: 338: 321: 298: 281: 258: 234: 196: 182: 155: 138: 118: 38: 4208:. Since people have replied and it's of interest to everyone, I guess I'll leave it there. Please take a look. -- 1298:. I had made an edit of the image and saved it without any JPEG compression, resulting in a larger original file. 1691: 1646: 1084:

I've understood so, from previous discussions - but if it isn't mentioned anywhere, I really think it should be.

794: 216:

can be getting so much support. I mean it's a nice effort, and it probably took an hour or two, but it's just so

416:

Are these images found, nominated or created? It should be made clearer. I have 5 successful candidates myself.

4386: 4267: 4245: 3109: 2926: 2802: 2677: 2639: 2537: 2217: 2182: 1947: 1834: 429:

Created, although I assumed that was obvious. Finding a good pic isn't half as noteworthy as making one, IMHO.

4131:

I was just wondering if this photo had any chance of becoming a FP and I didn't want to clog up the FPC page.

1922:

Here's a list; I added a couple, in addition to the ones NoahElhardt listed above. Please add to the list. --

1593: 1541: 1462: 1161:(which would be renamed Featured media). If you have an opinion on the matter, please take a look. Thanks. -- 4222:

how do you nominate for delisting? i know it has the heading there, but it doesnt say exactly how to do it --

3733:

I would definetly support it, my only problem is the white background near the end of the sequence of shots.

2713: 2595: 2311: 2043: 2844: 2203: 2168: 1995: 1477: 942: 2269: 4227: 3844:

In response to the potential objections above, I think renaming is a good idea for the following reasons.

3742:

I wouldn't, because of the constantly changing framing and thus jerky movement - very annoying. This is a

3591:

page. If I misformatted the section in some way I would appreciate somebody fixing it for me. Thanks --

2130: 2059: 1588: 1536: 1467: 3989: 2608:

Hmmm... One suspected sockpuppet defends another suspected sockpuppet. Not a very good defense either. --

4336:

anyone else been affected by it, and does anyone have anything to suggest to fix the problem? Thanks, --

4044:

was promoted after being converted from a movie to a shorter, less informative gif). The criteria would

4027: 3999: 3968: 3956: 3935: 3912: 3824: 3791: 3720: 3383: 2727: 2638:) also looks suspicious. I checked this users' edits. For a new user he uses edit summaries frequently. 2505:

Feel free to block the users who you are accusing of sockpuppets because they are in no relation to me,

2255: 1811: 1166: 1135: 1088:

would be all too easy otherwise, especially for someone with an IP that changes for every web access. --

981: 898: 770: 584: 494: 315: 295: 252: 4099: 2816: 2283: 2126: 2055: 1963: 2584:

Notice, however, that "fpwannabe" votes for other pictures that are not being accused of sockpuppetry!

2265: 963:

Nope, not bad form. I would reccomend uploading higher resoultions before submitting for FPC though. -

4223: 3503:

simply left them in the "decision time" section. The nominations I'm having trouble with are these:

3467: 3462: 3434: 3429: 3288: 3283: 3090: 3005: 3000: 2972: 2967: 2872: 2858: 2798: 2749: 2744: 2467: 2462: 2426: 2421: 2241: 2213: 2178: 2145: 2140: 2084: 2079: 2027: 2011: 1943: 1928: 1923: 1851: 1642: 1443: 1421: 791: 742:

directions, unless it was a picture of... a column or film strip? I'm sure there will be exceptions.

134: 2830: 2297: 1979: 1892:

I'd prefer if we didn't have to but I agree, if this gets worse then we gotta do what we gotta do.--

4379: 4260: 4076: 1578: 1526: 1457: 658:

and wanted to remind everyone to stop by there occasionally, or put to add it to thier watchlist. -

4418: 2840: 2709: 2591: 2307: 2199: 2164: 2039: 1991: 1863: 1655:

If the difference is so small that it is not immediately apparent, then the edit is pointless. --

1294:

Hi all. There was a brief discussion about what the appropriate compression for JPEGs is over at

743: 3820: 973: 4259:

I'm not exactly sure where this belongs so am posting it here and on the main FP talk page. --

3183:"strong" on their votes so as to prevent others' votes from counting more than theirs does. -- 4308: 4204:

I mistakenly posted a message related to images on wikipedia which I intended to here over at

4058: 3712: 3410: 3317: 3154: 2903:

Apparently "70.179.197.52" is my computer when I am logged off. When my cousin (also known as

1710: 1709:

digital images are retouched in one form or another, a bit of a pointless template, isn't it?

1511: 1371: 1337: 1321: 1228: 847: 824: 730: 721: 678: 613: 598: 506: 477: 383: 354: 152: 3448:

In fact, hasn't there been some kind of an unwritten rule not to count anon. votes at all? --

1723:

reason to oppose the edit. If this is not disclosed, are we not right to feel a bit annoyed?

4436: 4021: 3993: 3964: 3931: 3908: 3859:, there might be enough for a few featured sounds via an existing process. And changing to 3785: 3420: 3377: 3367: 3308: 2908: 2882: 2723: 2668: 2609: 2575: 2519: 2510: 2506: 2251: 2111: 2102: 1871: 1729: 1671: 1615: 1162: 1131: 977: 972:

Agreed. I would probably support a couple of those as they are, but they only just meet the

928: 894: 764: 580: 563: 548: 488: 435: 406: 309: 292: 246: 191: 178: 4414: 3981: 3977: 3860: 3856: 3848: 3588: 3395: 3057: 2943: 2417: 1158: 371: 4293: 4176: 4147: 4132: 3947: 3751: 3734: 3659: 3592: 3563: 3549: 3534: 3453: 3399: 3214: 3184: 3086: 3075: 2947: 2904: 2868: 2854: 2526:

made a bunch of edits in the same time frame this morning in the 10:30-10:50 time range. -

2523: 2340: 2237: 2023: 2007: 1884: 1867: 1789: 1633: 1440: 1418: 1093: 1085: 1067: 1017: 998: 954: 950: 946: 912: 879: 130: 115: 3985: 3960: 3904: 3865: 3816: 3808: 729:

Oh, in answer to your question, that's a user setting - by default it's 800x600 I think.

3907:

would be flexible and could easily be expanded for any future media types. Thoughts? --

532:

should have been promoted (3 votes in favour (including nominator) and only 1 oppose) --

4072: 3725: 2658: 2629: 2570: 1573: 1521: 1452: 1390: 1356: 4159:. Nice quality pic, but doubt it's FP standard. PS, you can put pics like this on the 4351: 4209: 4163:

page, though it tends not to be that busy, but you will usually get some feedback. --

4107: 3575: 3272: 3206: 3100: 2987: 2986:

Polarqueen has vandalised FPC 2x, can someone please block her and her sockpuppets? -

2957: 2527: 2367: 1775: 1306: 1121: 1076: 1054: 1044: 964: 804: 710: 688: 659: 622: 840: 528:

On a completely different candidate (and I realize how out of date this is) I think

4374: 4337: 4054: 3922: 3677: 3642: 3340: 3330: 3326: 3166: 3113: 2917: 2812: 2388: 2350: 2321: 2279: 1959: 1902: 1893: 1855: 1798: 1750: 1698: 1656: 1334: 1318: 1299: 1287: 1276: 1245: 1224: 1207: 1187: 1029: 860: 674: 631: 609: 594: 533: 473: 454: 417: 379: 350: 335: 273: 226: 148: 4121: 997:

than the stated 1000 pixels, the nomination will be voted down anyway. Thanks --

4431: 3609:

when it's unclear whether they count the original pic as an edit or not, or say

2227: 1724: 1666: 1610: 1561: 1492: 1431: 1403: 1381: 1360: 1075:

Where does it say that anon votes are not counted? I can't find that anywhere. -

558: 431: 402: 174: 46:

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

2736:), but not 100% convinced that either of these two match the others. Evidence 308:

dealt with the same issues last year. I basically agree with Raul on this one.

4316: 4191: 4164: 4156: 4143: 3988:(where people are free to request peer review for lists, even though it isn't 3944: 3760: 3747: 3711:

It's such a lot of work to nominate :) If anyone finds this worthy, go ahead.

3687: 3668: 3655: 3650:

I think it is self-evident such opposes should not be counted, providing they

3638: 3627: 3449: 3240: 3210: 2336: 1880: 1785: 1629: 1628:

Good idea - I'll try always to remember to tell what I've done to an image. --

1089: 1063: 1013: 908: 875: 147:

doesn't get a live test this month. I am pretty confident it'll work anyway ~

111: 2946:, but long experience tells me that my cynicism is almost always correct. -- 1817:

I think that sockpuppets are being used for some of the current nominations.

3871:

That maps, diagrams, animations, and other images are eligible for featured

3779:

This is an archived copy of a debate that was held on VP Proposals. See the

3268: 2826: 2654: 2625: 2293: 1975: 1859: 1282: 1271: 3823:, such as sound files, video files, or maybe even PDF. I've developed a 1510:

description is about the *image* rather than the *subject* of the image.

376:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured pictures visible#Gallery or split the page?

4365: 4042:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

3875:

status is a recurrent cause of confusion, has been questioned at least (

3112:. Two thirds, or around 67% majority seems like a good cut off point. -- 1157:

to discuss the inclusion of maps, diagrams, and possibly other media in

4347: 3955:

I don't think the criteria would differ substantially (see what I have

4071:

that is featured. "featured files" maybe. Text is also a medium, btw.

1784:

I made some clarifications - hope they're OK and not too verbose... --

1263: 1032: 837:

I can't be bothered nominating this properly, but this image is nice:

634: 536: 276: 229: 2320:) for some reason also edited GarrettRock's user page at one point.-- 4206:

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Calling_all_sharp_people.

348:

just a month ago, so I'll just state that I'd support this here. --

4364: 4321: 4315: 4120: 3719: 3267:

we were to go to a voting requirement, what would you require for

1901:

I think we're almost at that point. It's getting pretty bad :-( --

1281: 1270: 1262: 839: 575:

There's more to closing nominations than just counting the votes.

398:

Knowledge (XXG):List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures

263:

I don't think you can say that any two macro shots are alike. You

2676:

I think that Tewy is ok. I just checked his contributions again.

1357:

Talk:Main Page#Featured picture is just a second featured article

1314:

impact. Compare the filesizes of the generated thumbnails above.

1202:

0 for edit 4 - assuming wolfmankurd didn't vote for his own edit

3930:

Fair enough. But why are multiple processes better than one? --

524:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Prothonotary Warbler

3461:

I think so. Just use your judgment when tallying FPC votes. --

214:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Blank map of India

25: 4106:

I moved this from the front page, no time to nom right now. -

4096:

Image:Russian_soldiers_stand_over_trench_of_dead_Japanese.jpg

3617:, when he's made the second and third edits, so do they mean 3520:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Wave-cut platform

2110:

Which would explain the user box: "This user is confused."

945:) or to support new sections I added to an existing article ( 1062:

This is exactly why anonymous votes are not counted, BTW. --

530:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Jonquil flowers

2366:

How do we get someone to see if those users share an IP? -

2139:) and don't think this is a sockpuppet with the others. -- 823:(removed from main page, haven't copied it to an archive) 821:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Animated horse

170:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Animated horse

2306:)) the more I'm sure it's this Danielle user. Also, user 3780: 3515:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Bruno_Senna

2076: 2073: 1150: 924: 3853:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured sound candidates#Not yet

3525:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod

1741:

Stevage, I suggest you read the template description

1296:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod

468:

Why is circlestrafing still in the suspended section?

4378:

better when the image page is opened. Opinions? --

4067:"featured media" is nonsense, because it is not the 2163:

I'm pretty sure those are all the same person. User

1176:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA

286:

I think what you're saying is that there isn't much

210:

and I don't mean any offence this is just an example

3855:).While there aren’t enough sounds for a separate 2414:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/GarrettRock 1812:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected_sock_puppets/GarrettRock 1718:Well, retouched usually means manipulation of the 4237:FP and Failed FP description boxes on image pages 1359:for the discussion that prompted this proposal.-- 738:I would think that the minimum width would be in 3613:, when this might not even be named as such, or 3491:Old nominations (problems determining consensus) 1398:Yes, but are you going to write decent captions 1350:Mainpage caption as part of candidate nomination 1149:Since discussion always dies quickly here, I've 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured picture candidates 3819:etc.) and allowing for the nomination of other 3654:referred to a specific problem, later fixed. -- 3509:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/DNA 654:I have noticed there are not many reviewers on 4307:Just too lazy to nominate properly, sorry. :) 630:OK if no-one objects I'll do that tommorrow -- 370:I've just requested comments on the future of 1641:I agree completely. Fir, you listening? ;) -- 8: 3773:Renaming Featured pictures to Featured media 3543:One other problem I forgot to mention. The 2999:as sockpuppets, and blocked indefinitely. -- 1145:Renaming Featured pictures to Featured media 949:). The images I uploaded can be seen on my 3976:I agree, would people disagree with moving 706:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured picture? 3499:seemingly better or more 'correct' edits. 1451:Ok, I'll write them every other Saturday. 3830:A few potential objections to this idea: 3746:shot for the article, but not as a FP. -- 1218:Given that several people have come back 1186:12 for the original including (excluding 4098:(I dont know how to nominate) (Added by 1155:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals) 3152:Add them all up, if the result is : --> 2212:)'s user page was actually created by 1604:Explanations of changes in image edits 790:and see if any are worthy? Cheers, -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2072:The fact that ButterLips second edit 976:. Bigger is almost always better. -- 7: 1850:I think you're right. It looks like 1259:JPEG compression - When less is more 124:I noticed the red link too. Veledan 2420:, and try to education the user. -- 1043:users edits are all to FPC" thing.- 656:Knowledge (XXG):Picture_peer_review 650:Knowledge (XXG):Picture_peer_review 786:Could someone have a look through 24: 3303:closers. If, however, such rules 2569:Not to make any assumptions, but 2196:Comment inserted inside Mad Max's 888:Same. It seems to start with the 3759:I would oppose, as per Janke. -- 3325:I would disagree with you there 3258:Discussion on voting eligibility 890:West Coast Coastline New Zealand 29: 3899:to benefit" ratio is very good. 2068:) - 1st edit was an FPC support 923:I've fixed it, check out this 225:with the same expectations. -- 1: 4361:Is this pic worth nominating? 1918:List of suspected sockpuppets 1770:I made a new subpage for the 1439:Seems like a good proposal. 1389:I can write decent captions.- 522:I don't think the closing of 396:For anyone who's interested: 4373:My first attempt at a FP... 3545:Cricket Positions image page 3811:etc.) and related pages to 3047:Closing procedure questions 2925:Two cases of sockpuppetry? 859:Not bad, not bad at all. -- 4460: 3769: 3130:Strong support: 1.5 points 2995:The above users have been 1697:for the editors to use. -- 855: 4444:14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 4422:11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 4405:08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 4355:00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 4341:23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 4312:08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 4297:12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 4286:00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 4232:12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 4213:12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4195:11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4180:18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4168:10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4151:07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4136:06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4111:21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4085:17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 4062:17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 3840:Change is inherently bad. 3798:16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 3764:11:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3755:06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3738:01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3716:11:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 3691:11:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3681:06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3672:11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 3663:06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 3646:00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 3631:11:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 3596:16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3579:05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3567:03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3553:03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3538:03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3477:21:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3457:20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3444:20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3424:01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3414:23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3403:23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3390:17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3371:17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3344:03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3334:00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3321:23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3312:05:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3298:04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3276:04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3244:10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 3218:19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3188:01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3170:00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3158:23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3117:07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3104:03:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3095:01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3079:20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 3015:21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 2991:20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2982:13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2961:13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2951:13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2937:10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2921:07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2912:23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2886:22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2759:22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2688:22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2672:21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2650:21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2613:21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2579:20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2548:16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2531:16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2514:03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2477:01:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2436:00:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2392:23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2371:23:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2354:22:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2325:21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2231:10:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2155:20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2115:00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2106:00:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2094:20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1938:20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1906:07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1897:21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1888:17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1875:15:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1845:15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1802:06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1793:05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1779:04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1754:16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1737:11:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1714:23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1702:17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1679:11:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1660:04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 1650:17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1637:17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1623:10:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1599:17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1565:21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1547:00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 1515:23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1496:05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1486:00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1447:21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1435:19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1425:15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1407:19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1394:12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1385:07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1375:07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1364:05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1344:04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1328:14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1249:01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1232:07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 864:01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 458:01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 4303:Another half-hearted nom 4200:Calling all sharp people 4034:01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 4006:01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 3972:22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3951:22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3939:22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3926:22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3916:22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3825:set of expanded criteria 3148:Strong oppose: -3 points 3136:Weak support: 0.5 points 2349:) to the list as well.-- 1211:12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 1170:22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1139:17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1125:16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1115:Change removal procedure 1097:17:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1080:17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1071:17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1058:16:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1048:16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1038:10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1021:07:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 1002:20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 985:19:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 968:19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 958:18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 932:07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 916:07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 902:14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 883:13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 851:15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 828:11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 808:06:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 798:03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 777:18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 756:16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 734:13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 725:13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 714:05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 692:16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 682:13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 663:05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 640:09:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 626:05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 617:14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 602:14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 588:12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 571:09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 552:08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 542:08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 510:13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 501:01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 481:19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 440:22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 421:16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 411:16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) 387:09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 360:02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 339:03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 322:03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 299:02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 282:10:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 259:13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 235:12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 4329:Partial loading of page 3724:Time-lapse shot of the 2412:I'm working on this at 943:Horseshoe Bend, Arizona 518:Closing of nominations. 197:09:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 183:13:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 156:09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 139:07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 119:07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 4370: 4325: 4128: 3729: 3142:Weak oppose: -1 points 1797:Good work Ravedave. -- 1290: 1279: 1268: 974:minimum size criterion 869: 844: 346:something very similar 4368: 4319: 4124: 3723: 2590:comment was added by 1285: 1274: 1266: 843: 306:this short discussion 168:I just stumbled upon 42:of past discussions. 2905:Polarqueen/Christine 1852:User:Daniellebercier 1810:"Sock Puppet Votes" 1772:nomination procedure 1766:Nomiantion procedure 4415:picture peer review 4241:I propose that the 4126:Imperial/Wilmington 3963:, for example). -- 3803:I propose renaming 3364:Diamond Head Crater 2966:the FPC process. -- 2708:I'm convinced that 2518:Interestingly both 1687:yeah, and there is 1223:the past as well ~ 1190:- users only edit) 4371: 4326: 4129: 3730: 2335:Might as well add 1864:User:67.33.193.152 1291: 1280: 1269: 845: 4442: 4403: 4284: 4230: 4185:Wave Cut Platform 4100:User:CamperStrike 4083: 3805:Featured pictures 3474: 3441: 3295: 3145:Oppose: -2 points 3139:Neutral: 0 points 3133:Support: 1 points 3012: 2979: 2756: 2722:) is the same as 2603: 2474: 2433: 2152: 2125:I looked more at 2091: 1935: 1735: 1677: 1621: 1035: 937:Self-nominations? 637: 569: 539: 366:FP Visible reform 279: 232: 211: 203:Featured Diagrams 194: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4451: 4434: 4401: 4395: 4389: 4385: 4382: 4282: 4276: 4270: 4266: 4263: 4250: 4244: 4226: 4075: 3466: 3433: 3287: 3126:Does this work: 3004: 2971: 2934: 2929: 2748: 2685: 2680: 2647: 2642: 2585: 2545: 2540: 2520:User:GarrettRock 2466: 2425: 2144: 2083: 1927: 1842: 1837: 1727: 1696: 1692:RetouchedPicture 1690: 1669: 1613: 1596: 1591: 1586: 1581: 1576: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1524: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1460: 1455: 1033: 753: 751: 747: 635: 561: 537: 438: 409: 357: 353: 277: 243:suggested before 230: 209: 190: 181: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4459: 4458: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4399: 4393: 4387: 4380: 4363: 4331: 4305: 4280: 4274: 4268: 4261: 4248: 4246:FeaturedPicture 4242: 4239: 4220: 4202: 4187: 4119: 4092: 3775: 3709: 3621:second edit or 3511: 3493: 3360: 3260: 3099:Well said PS2 - 3049: 2932: 2927: 2799:Daniellebercier 2683: 2678: 2645: 2640: 2586:—The preceding 2543: 2538: 2524:User:Polarqueen 2214:Daniellebercier 2179:Daniellebercier 1944:Daniellebercier 1920: 1868:User:Polarqueen 1840: 1835: 1815: 1768: 1694: 1688: 1643:Dante Alighieri 1606: 1594: 1589: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1527: 1522: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1468: 1463: 1458: 1453: 1352: 1261: 1179: 1151:started a topic 1147: 1117: 1086:Ballot-stuffing 1009: 947:Antelope Canyon 939: 872: 835: 816: 784: 749: 745: 744: 702: 652: 520: 470: 430: 401: 394: 368: 355: 349: 205: 173: 166: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4457: 4455: 4447: 4446: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4381:PageantUpdater 4362: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4348:bugzilla 5643 4334: 4330: 4327: 4320:Water taxi in 4304: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4262:PageantUpdater 4238: 4235: 4219: 4216: 4201: 4198: 4186: 4183: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4118: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4091: 4088: 4065: 4064: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3903:And, finally, 3901: 3900: 3896: 3869: 3842: 3841: 3838: 3835: 3813:Featured media 3801: 3800: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3757: 3740: 3726:venus fly trap 3708: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3634: 3633: 3615:Brian's edit 2 3599: 3598: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3570: 3569: 3556: 3555: 3528: 3527: 3522: 3517: 3512: 3507: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3359: 3358:Vote campaigns 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3259: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3150: 3149: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3110:on the Commons 3048: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2571:User:Fpwannabe 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2158: 2157: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2070: 2069: 2053: 2037: 2021: 2005: 1989: 1973: 1957: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1827:See this page: 1821:See this page: 1814: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1739: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1605: 1602: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1550: 1549: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1293: 1267:Original image 1260: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1196:13 for edit 2 1182: 1178: 1173: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1028:Second that -- 1008: 1005: 990: 989: 988: 987: 938: 935: 921: 920: 919: 918: 871: 868: 867: 866: 834: 831: 815: 814:Animated horse 812: 811: 810: 783: 780: 761: 760: 759: 758: 727: 701: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 651: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 606: 605: 604: 573: 554: 527: 519: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 469: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 445: 444: 443: 442: 424: 423: 393: 390: 367: 364: 363: 362: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 223: 221: 204: 201: 200: 199: 165: 164:Animated horse 162: 161: 160: 159: 158: 144: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4456: 4445: 4441: 4438: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4423: 4420: 4419:Pharaoh Hound 4416: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4402: 4396: 4390: 4383: 4376: 4367: 4360: 4356: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4339: 4328: 4323: 4318: 4314: 4313: 4310: 4302: 4298: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4283: 4277: 4271: 4264: 4257: 4253: 4247: 4236: 4234: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4217: 4215: 4214: 4211: 4207: 4199: 4197: 4196: 4193: 4184: 4182: 4181: 4178: 4169: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4149: 4145: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4134: 4127: 4123: 4116: 4112: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4101: 4097: 4090:Requested nom 4089: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4080: 4074: 4070: 4063: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4047: 4043: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4026: 4024: 4007: 4004: 4002: 3998: 3996: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3949: 3946: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3924: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3897: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3839: 3836: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3828: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3799: 3796: 3794: 3790: 3788: 3784: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3770: 3765: 3762: 3758: 3756: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3722: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3706: 3692: 3689: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3635: 3632: 3629: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3597: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3580: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3568: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3554: 3551: 3546: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3536: 3531: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3518: 3516: 3513: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3490: 3478: 3473: 3469: 3464: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3431: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3382: 3380: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3357: 3345: 3342: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3294: 3290: 3285: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3257: 3245: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3207:supermajority 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3189: 3186: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3156: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3138: 3135: 3132: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3077: 3072: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3059: 3053: 3046: 3016: 3011: 3007: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2959: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2935: 2930: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2849: 2846: 2842: 2841:67.33.193.152 2838: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2740: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2710:70.179.197.52 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2689: 2686: 2681: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2643: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592:70.179.197.52 2589: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2572: 2549: 2546: 2541: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2478: 2473: 2469: 2464: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2437: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2326: 2323: 2319: 2316: 2313: 2309: 2308:70.179.197.52 2305: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2201: 2200:67.33.193.152 2197: 2193: 2192: 2190: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2166: 2165:67.33.193.152 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2077: 2074: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2040:70.179.197.52 2038: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1993: 1992:67.33.193.152 1990: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1917: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1843: 1838: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1809: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1765: 1755: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1700: 1693: 1686: 1680: 1676: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1617: 1612: 1603: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1566: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1530: 1525: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1497: 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1476: 1471: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1315: 1313: 1308: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1289: 1284: 1278: 1273: 1265: 1258: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1203: 1200: 1199:0 for edit 3 1197: 1194: 1193:2 for edit 1 1191: 1189: 1184: 1177: 1174: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1114: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1007:Sockpuppeting 1006: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 986: 983: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 966: 962: 961: 960: 959: 956: 952: 948: 944: 936: 934: 933: 930: 926: 917: 914: 910: 905: 904: 903: 900: 896: 891: 887: 886: 885: 884: 881: 877: 870:What's wrong? 865: 862: 858: 857: 856: 853: 852: 849: 842: 838: 832: 830: 829: 826: 822: 813: 809: 806: 802: 801: 800: 799: 796: 793: 789: 781: 779: 778: 775: 773: 769: 767: 757: 754: 741: 737: 736: 735: 732: 728: 726: 723: 718: 717: 716: 715: 712: 707: 699: 693: 690: 685: 684: 683: 680: 676: 671: 667: 666: 665: 664: 661: 657: 649: 641: 638: 633: 629: 628: 627: 624: 620: 619: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 600: 596: 591: 590: 589: 586: 582: 578: 574: 572: 568: 565: 560: 555: 553: 550: 546: 545: 544: 543: 540: 535: 531: 525: 517: 511: 508: 504: 503: 502: 499: 497: 493: 491: 485: 484: 483: 482: 479: 475: 467: 459: 456: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 441: 437: 433: 428: 427: 426: 425: 422: 419: 415: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 399: 391: 389: 388: 385: 381: 377: 373: 365: 361: 358: 352: 347: 343: 342: 341: 340: 337: 323: 320: 318: 314: 312: 307: 302: 301: 300: 297: 294: 289: 285: 284: 283: 280: 275: 271: 266: 262: 261: 260: 257: 255: 251: 249: 244: 239: 238: 237: 236: 233: 228: 219: 215: 202: 198: 193: 187: 186: 185: 184: 180: 176: 171: 163: 157: 154: 150: 145: 142: 141: 140: 136: 132: 127: 123: 122: 121: 120: 117: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4375:Bolte Bridge 4372: 4369:Bolte Bridge 4332: 4306: 4258: 4254: 4240: 4221: 4203: 4188: 4174: 4130: 4093: 4078: 4068: 4066: 4050: 4045: 4028: 4022: 4018: 4000: 3994: 3902: 3872: 3843: 3829: 3802: 3792: 3786: 3781:archive diff 3778: 3768: 3743: 3710: 3707:Worth a nom? 3651: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3611:Brian's edit 3610: 3606: 3532: 3529: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3384: 3378: 3361: 3304: 3264: 3261: 3151: 3125: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3054: 3050: 2875: 2861: 2847: 2833: 2819: 2805: 2797: 2730: 2716: 2661: 2632: 2568: 2511:Garrett Rock 2507:Garrett Rock 2343: 2314: 2300: 2286: 2272: 2258: 2244: 2220: 2206: 2195: 2185: 2171: 2133: 2127:Philby power 2071: 2062: 2056:Philby_power 2046: 2030: 2014: 1998: 1982: 1966: 1950: 1921: 1856:User:Tiger35 1833: 1826: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1769: 1746: 1745:you deem it 1742: 1719: 1706: 1607: 1571: 1556: 1508: 1399: 1353: 1316: 1311: 1304: 1292: 1219: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1188:User:Nimakha 1185: 1180: 1148: 1118: 1010: 994: 991: 940: 922: 873: 854: 846: 836: 817: 785: 771: 765: 762: 739: 703: 669: 653: 576: 521: 495: 489: 471: 395: 392:Hall of fame 369: 332: 316: 310: 287: 269: 264: 253: 247: 217: 206: 167: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4161:Peer Review 4155:Agree with 4117:Any chance? 3965:bcasterline 3932:bcasterline 3909:bcasterline 3821:media types 3637:Agree with 3421:SteveHopson 3419:attached. 3368:SteveHopson 3309:NoahElhardt 3064:obvious. 2909:GarrettRock 2883:NoahElhardt 2724:GarrettRock 2669:NoahElhardt 2610:NoahElhardt 2576:NoahElhardt 2266:Butterqueen 2252:GarrettRock 2191:) as well. 2112:SteveHopson 2103:NoahElhardt 1872:NoahElhardt 1441:violet/riga 1419:violet/riga 1163:bcasterline 1132:bcasterline 978:bcasterline 929:liquidGhoul 895:bcasterline 581:bcasterline 549:liquidGhoul 344:I proposed 293:bcasterline 192:Pegasus1138 36:This is an 4440:(Contribs) 4294:moondigger 4177:Hbdragon88 4133:Hbdragon88 3735:Froggydarb 3593:moondigger 3564:moondigger 3550:moondigger 3535:moondigger 3400:moondigger 3185:moondigger 3087:PS2pcGAMER 3076:moondigger 2948:moondigger 2933:_Anonymous 2928:Anonymous_ 2869:ButterLips 2855:Polarqueen 2684:_Anonymous 2679:Anonymous_ 2646:_Anonymous 2641:Anonymous_ 2544:_Anonymous 2539:Anonymous_ 2238:Polarqueen 2024:ButterLips 2008:Polarqueen 1841:_Anonymous 1836:Anonymous_ 1733:(Contribs) 1675:(Contribs) 1619:(Contribs) 999:moondigger 955:moondigger 567:(Contribs) 505:I concur. 131:PS2pcGAMER 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 4400:esperanza 4281:esperanza 4094:Nominate 3269:sufferage 3060:entails. 2997:confirmed 1860:User:Cd78 1747:pointless 1560:review.-- 1557:integrate 1400:every day 1391:GangstaEB 951:user page 788:my images 752:ROMENADER 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 4394:contribs 4352:Ravedave 4275:contribs 4224:Astrokey 4210:Gmaxwell 4108:Ravedave 3576:Ravedave 3472:contribs 3439:contribs 3293:contribs 3273:Ravedave 3101:Ravedave 3010:contribs 2988:Ravedave 2977:contribs 2958:Gmaxwell 2879:contribs 2865:contribs 2851:contribs 2837:contribs 2823:contribs 2809:contribs 2754:contribs 2734:contribs 2720:contribs 2665:contribs 2636:contribs 2600:contribs 2588:unsigned 2528:Ravedave 2472:contribs 2431:contribs 2368:Ravedave 2347:contribs 2318:contribs 2304:contribs 2290:contribs 2276:contribs 2262:contribs 2248:contribs 2224:contribs 2210:contribs 2189:contribs 2175:contribs 2150:contribs 2137:contribs 2089:contribs 2066:contribs 2050:contribs 2034:contribs 2018:contribs 2002:contribs 1986:contribs 1970:contribs 1954:contribs 1933:contribs 1776:Ravedave 1312:negative 1307:Gmaxwell 1286:Edit by 1275:Edit by 1122:Ravedave 1077:Ravedave 1055:Ravedave 1045:Ravedave 965:Ravedave 805:Ravedave 792:Midnight 711:Ravedave 689:Ravedave 660:Ravedave 623:Ravedave 218:ordinary 4338:Fir0002 4309:Stevage 4218:delist? 4055:Veledan 3923:Raul654 3873:picture 3713:Stevage 3678:Fir0002 3643:Fir0002 3411:Stevage 3341:Mad Max 3331:Fir0002 3327:Stevage 3318:Stevage 3167:Fir0002 3155:Stevage 3114:Fir0002 2918:Fir0002 2813:Tiger35 2784:above ( 2389:Mad Max 2351:Mad Max 2322:Mad Max 2280:Tiger35 1960:Tiger35 1903:Fir0002 1894:Mad Max 1799:Mad Max 1751:Dschwen 1720:content 1711:Stevage 1699:Dschwen 1657:Fir0002 1512:Stevage 1482:friends 1372:Stevage 1300:Fir0002 1288:Fir0002 1277:Mdd4696 1246:Mad Max 1225:Veledan 1208:Fir0002 1030:Fir0002 861:Mad Max 848:Stevage 825:Stevage 795:tonight 731:Stevage 722:Stevage 675:Veledan 632:Fir0002 610:Veledan 595:Veledan 577:Veledan 534:Fir0002 507:Stevage 474:Veledan 455:Mad Max 418:Circeus 380:Veledan 351:grm_wnr 336:say1988 274:Fir0002 270:Picture 227:Fir0002 149:Veledan 106:Archive 39:archive 4437:(Talk) 4432:Diliff 4069:medium 3990:WP:LPR 3982:WP:MPR 3978:WP:PPR 3861:WP:FMC 3857:WP:FSC 3849:WP:FSC 3589:WP:FPC 3396:WP:FPC 3058:wp:fpc 2944:WP:AGF 2418:WP:AGF 2228:ais523 1743:before 1730:(Talk) 1725:Diliff 1672:(Talk) 1667:Diliff 1616:(Talk) 1611:Diliff 1562:Pharos 1493:Pharos 1432:Pharos 1404:Pharos 1382:Pharos 1361:Pharos 1159:WP:FPC 995:higher 782:images 700:Pixels 564:(Talk) 559:Diliff 432:ed g2s 403:ed g2s 372:WP:FPV 212:) how 175:ed g2s 4322:Dubai 4192:jjron 4165:jjron 4157:Janke 4144:Janke 4025:roken 3997:roken 3986:WP:PR 3961:WP:PR 3945:Kusma 3905:WP:FM 3885:three 3868:then. 3866:WP:FM 3817:WP:FM 3809:WP:FP 3789:roken 3761:jjron 3748:Janke 3744:great 3688:jjron 3669:jjron 3656:Janke 3639:jjron 3628:jjron 3607:edit2 3450:Janke 3381:roken 3241:jjron 3211:Janke 2337:N3RUS 2226:). -- 1881:Janke 1786:Janke 1630:Janke 1479:& 1474:staEB 1220:since 1090:Janke 1064:Janke 1014:Janke 953:. -- 909:Janke 876:Janke 768:roken 492:roken 313:roken 250:roken 195:---- 112:Janke 16:< 4388:talk 4269:talk 4148:Talk 4059:Talk 4031:egue 4003:egue 3969:talk 3957:here 3948:(討論) 3936:talk 3913:talk 3893:five 3889:four 3795:egue 3752:Talk 3660:Talk 3652:only 3468:talk 3463:Aude 3454:Talk 3435:talk 3430:Aude 3387:egue 3305:were 3289:talk 3284:Aude 3271:? - 3215:Talk 3091:talk 3006:talk 3001:Aude 2973:talk 2968:Aude 2873:talk 2859:talk 2845:talk 2831:talk 2827:Cd78 2817:talk 2803:talk 2750:talk 2745:Aude 2743:. -- 2728:talk 2714:talk 2659:talk 2655:Tewy 2630:talk 2626:Tewy 2596:talk 2522:and 2468:talk 2463:Aude 2427:talk 2422:Aude 2341:talk 2312:talk 2298:talk 2294:Cd78 2284:talk 2270:talk 2256:talk 2242:talk 2218:talk 2204:talk 2183:talk 2169:talk 2146:talk 2141:Aude 2131:talk 2085:talk 2080:Aude 2060:talk 2044:talk 2028:talk 2012:talk 1996:talk 1980:talk 1976:Cd78 1964:talk 1948:talk 1929:talk 1924:Aude 1885:Talk 1866:and 1790:Talk 1749:. -- 1647:Talk 1634:Talk 1575:Gang 1523:Gang 1229:Talk 1167:talk 1136:talk 1094:Talk 1068:Talk 1018:Talk 982:talk 925:diff 913:Talk 899:talk 880:Talk 774:egue 740:both 679:Talk 614:Talk 599:Talk 585:talk 498:egue 478:Talk 436:talk 407:talk 384:Talk 319:egue 272:. -- 256:egue 179:talk 153:Talk 135:talk 126:said 116:Talk 4333:Hi, 4073:dab 4051:not 4046:not 3992:). 3980:to 3881:two 3877:one 3623:his 3619:the 3533:-- 3074:-- 2867:), 2853:), 2839:), 2825:), 2811:), 2602:) . 1707:All 1580:sta 1528:sta 1444:(t) 1422:(t) 1335:MDD 1319:MDD 1181:Hi, 1153:at 1034:www 833:nom 704:On 636:www 538:www 374:at 356:Esc 288:art 278:www 265:can 245:). 231:www 4435:| 4397:| 4391:| 4384:• 4278:| 4272:| 4265:• 4249:}} 4243:{{ 4228:44 4190:-- 4146:| 4142:-- 4102:) 4057:• 3967:• 3934:• 3911:• 3891:) 3887:, 3883:, 3879:, 3750:| 3658:| 3475:) 3470:| 3452:| 3442:) 3437:| 3296:) 3291:| 3265:IF 3239:-- 3213:| 3093:) 3013:) 3008:| 2980:) 2975:| 2956:-- 2757:) 2752:| 2598:• 2574:-- 2475:) 2470:| 2461:-- 2434:) 2429:| 2292:) 2278:) 2198:) 2153:) 2148:| 2092:) 2087:| 1936:) 1931:| 1883:| 1862:, 1858:, 1854:, 1788:| 1728:| 1695:}} 1689:{{ 1670:| 1645:| 1632:| 1614:| 1595:EA 1543:EA 1341:96 1338:46 1325:96 1322:46 1227:• 1165:• 1134:• 1092:| 1066:| 1016:| 1012:-- 980:• 911:| 907:-- 897:• 878:| 748:HE 677:• 670:do 668:I 612:• 597:• 583:• 562:| 476:• 453:-- 434:• 405:• 400:. 382:• 177:• 151:• 137:) 129:-- 114:| 94:→ 64:← 4350:- 4324:. 4081:) 4079:ᛏ 4077:( 4029:S 4023:B 4001:S 3995:B 3815:( 3807:( 3793:S 3787:B 3783:. 3728:. 3465:( 3432:( 3385:S 3379:B 3286:( 3089:( 3003:( 2970:( 2876:· 2871:( 2862:· 2857:( 2848:· 2843:( 2834:· 2829:( 2820:· 2815:( 2806:· 2801:( 2747:( 2731:· 2726:( 2717:· 2712:( 2662:· 2657:( 2633:· 2628:( 2594:( 2465:( 2424:( 2344:· 2339:( 2315:· 2310:( 2301:· 2296:( 2287:· 2282:( 2273:· 2268:( 2259:· 2254:( 2245:· 2240:( 2221:· 2216:( 2207:· 2202:( 2194:( 2186:· 2181:( 2172:· 2167:( 2143:( 2134:· 2129:( 2082:( 2063:· 2058:( 2052:) 2047:· 2042:( 2036:) 2031:· 2026:( 2020:) 2015:· 2010:( 2004:) 1999:· 1994:( 1988:) 1983:· 1978:( 1972:) 1967:· 1962:( 1956:) 1951:· 1946:( 1926:( 1830:2 1824:1 1590:B 1585:E 1538:B 1533:E 1469:g 1464:n 1459:a 1454:G 1120:- 1053:- 772:S 766:B 750:P 746:T 709:- 687:- 496:S 490:B 317:S 311:B 296:t 254:S 248:B 208:( 133:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index