Knowledge talk:Picture of the day/The long queue to POTD on the Main Page

899:

everyone starts supporting. This sometimes results in a groupthink or in potential opposers shying away from the nom. I know that I often don't vote oppose on something that has a ton of support (unless I feel very strongly about it not meeting the criteria) since consensus is already clear. On such a nomination, then, the actual number/percentage of support may not be completely accurate. Similarly, some nominations may not interest users who would be inclined to oppose them or those users may simply be absent. Another concern is that many of the insects/birds that fill up the current queue, for example, passed with unanimous or near-unanimous support. These images, in my opinion, would be far more likely to pass the proposed POTD test. They just don't get the opposes that other noms get (a testament to our photographers!). With some standard in place, the queue would probably be filled with insects/birds and not much else. Part of the problem now is that we have so many of them; this would exacerbate that problem even if it does shorten the queue. (I have no problem with insects/birds, btw; just pointing that out.) These are not

1171:

which I feel is completely incorrect, and has made me rethink this whole situation. You don't "win" the recognition. You've released your content under the license Knowledge uses, and you're making it sound as if you own it. Boohoo that your picture won't be on the main page for a year, it's not that big a deal. If your e-penis really grows because a picture of yours has appeared on the main page, then well done. But that's not why you should contribute to Knowledge. It's not a 'reward' contributing a featured picture, you're doing it for the good of the encylopedia in my opinion. Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year. Get over yourself. --

692:"Promote only one picture on average every other day." That sounds suspiciously like a "system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted", so that would be an example of one I would be opposed to. Simple. Further, I am opposed to the idea that we have some kind of "over-promotion"- if they are all worthy of being featured pictures, then good, more is better, so far as I am concerned. You'll note that I personally nominate any image I feel is worthy- not just images with which I am involved, or images from subject areas I care for. I'm "in it" to get more FPs for Knowledge. With regards to the shortening of queues and whatnot, I've got no great opinion. 524:

you an FP, it has to have 2 x 5 = 10 supports to get into POTD. I will add that in as Option 9. That could easily be implemented by Howcheng once he has gone through the current batch he's already prepared POTDs for, as he'd just need to count the supports - if it doesn't have 10, then no POTD, applying his own discretion of course as he does now. Other than that, if it was easy enough to just display two POTDs, the queue would clear soon enough, but that would up the work for Howcheng and would have to be accepted elsewhere, such as the Mainpage itself. Personally I don't find it that big an issue, though it's true that it

1713:

alternatively, use one of the other proposals that affect the length of the queue.) My gut feeling is that FPC is going to turn into a less friendly place if commenters feel they have to keep down the pass rate to control the queue. My feeling is that we currently promote about 1/5 of the eligible pictures, and that we should aim to increase that rate. If we do, the queue will get longer under the current rigid system, and it will not be some convenient length, but whatever length is dictated by the pass rate. Deciding whether or not to promote a picture on the basis of the current length of the queue is what strikes

879:

stop appearing as POTD. Which leads me to another point - some of the older groups have great variety, more so than the current group. (I didn't count or anything; that's just my impression after a quick glance.) Finally, I'd just like to say that I don't think the long queue is really a problem for the project. We should be proud that we have so many FPs and that we promote more every day. I, for one, wouldn't mind waiting a year or more to see something I nominated/created make POTD. The waiting would just make its eventual appearance on the Main Page that much sweeter.

2755:

Talk:Main Page, but complaints about TFA (which uses the system proposed here) are far more common. Anyway, if you try to spread out all the bugs (or whatever) more than they are now, you're just creating a problem further down the line. All those bugs are FPs, so they'll be POTD eventually unless we decide that all FPs don't get to be POTD any more (which consensus above looks to be against). I'll grant that there is some merit to the proposal, but I don't think it comes close to addressing the problem that started this whole discussion.

1243:

that sort of thing for a few years, you got a problem—and an ever-developing one. One of the things I’d like to see is the FPC venue putting all pictures that achieve FP status into a weekly folder and only the top five (not seven) get advanced. That is our last step at noticing we have three bird photos, one of the chemical-element photos, four pictures of Chicago buildings, and couple bug photos, and two photos of some flowers from some retired guy’s garden. Then we can choose the best of the best and slowly reduce the queue.

2778:(I'll abstain from supporting/opposing based on a conflict of interest): I agree with Makeemlighter in that this doesn't really help out in terms of the backlog. All it means is that certain pictures may get to appear earlier than they might otherwise (which is already true, when there is a relevant date involved), and that others will have to wait longer than they might normally (which is also true now, when we look at overrepresented subjects). Moreover, this system only works if you have enough active participants. 2838:

this any more, but I think FP nomination should carry a greater incentive. One engineers it to make the process as dynamic as possible, and here is incentive down the drain, to me. TFA seems well-managed now, even though it's a little bureacratic. Bureacracy/rules are the essential counterbalance to the freedom of a wiki, if you want to maximise quality. Look at the featured-content criteria and instructions, especially for articles, lists, and pictures. You've gotta have it.

2859:

portray ourselves to the outside world. Merits a DYK along the lones of "Did you know... that 'community-based' website Knowledge is governed by a number of so-called 'directors', and that no term of office is specified and no elections held for these positions?" Well, I guess that "Free" is a kind of broad term, so well done, folks, for watering down our concept of freedom and community!

1976:

top and achieving it! My thinking is that it's not so much as a reward, but I think it will encourage more contributions from originators and that can only be a good thing. Also, this discussion seems to have ended somewhat with no real consensus. Perhaps there are too many options. Maybe its time to weed out the obvious "no takes" and put the rest to a simple vote. My 2 cents. –

1267:, and ownership tends to be discouraged. I would welcome reassessment of how POTD is run, but this should be on the basis of showcasing wikipedia's best content, rather than rewarding one wikipedian over another. I would also disagree with any criteria that sought to ration the number of POTDs to one per day or whatever, since that would be - by definition - unrelated to the 1893:

reflect anniversaries, or whether authors had already had a FA on the Main Page. Could I suggest that a similar system to Raul's for TFA be established for POTDs? And could I also suggest that six-hourly rotations are a bad idea. One per day, please, and getting the gold star doesn't for one minute mean Main Page exposure. No way, sorry. It should be a separate process.

1137:

seriously think that would be fair. And, I’ll add it as an option to the green-div, above, so others here get the “Ah, HAAA” of what this is, in part, due to. And, NO, I don’t think it has a prayer of passing because it’s the regulars who vote here and help define that the community here says “Tough titty says the kitty; you can wait a year or more.”

3020:

can I schedule before people get upset, and how far in advance?" etc. As far as I can tell, there's also no marker for where in the queue pictures are currently being taken from. I'm not sure that each position in the queue is linkable, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it should be. What else needs to be done?

591:

limiting uploads is that images should not be precluded from being FPs purely because of POTD reasons. As we all know, there are FPs which will never be POTD for various reasons, and POTD is essentially just a by-product of being FP. Yes, it's an incentive, but it is by no means the be-all and end-all.

3019:

Yes, and the reason I'm saying it is that I looked at that, and it still wasn't clear to me how to get started. There's a whole bunch of things not covered, basic questions like "can anybody do this?", "do I need any special tools?", "do I need to ask anyone to double-check my submission?", "how many

1057:

must change; note option #1, above. We can continue to do as we’ve always done and simply have FP winners that won’t appear as Picture Of The Day until 2016. The purpose of this thread is to see how many of us see interminable waits for POTD as being something we should and can do something about. To

708:

10 Supports is too much with the current level of activity - A rough count gives three promotions for July. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of higher bar for POTD would compound the over representation of some subject material either. I suggest that howcheng just skips overrepresented stuff with

80:

Another spin on Raeky’s would be to have four POTD images displayed on the Main Page for the full 24 hours. The disadvantage of both these ideas is it requires messing with the look of the Main Page and I’m sure there are plenty of other editors who would view these two ideas as pissing in their corn

2549:

Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the picture with the latest date. If the tied pictures

2529:

The picture must not have been previously featured as a POTD. History shows that pictures with five or more points are almost never replaced. Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such a picture, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and to allow

2036:

There may be no more than five total requests on this page at any time for a specific date, and one request for a nonspecific date. If there are already five articles requested and if the article you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may

1975:

I will at least support #9. As someone who actually creates the pictures (as opposed to one who finds them on Commons, created by someone else), this will be a very nice acknowledgment of their work. There's nothing like seeing your work get bashed, picked at, criticized, etc. at FP, and come out on

1871:

The two issues are independent, so exactly how you feel they are related remains unclear. I've only stated the consensus as I see it and reiterated that I'm personally happy with all of the items on the list. Agreement cannot constitute whining, the two are practically mutually exclusive. This isn't

1759:

sucks nowadays around here.” It is legitimate to say “Bring on the really good stuff that stands head & shoulders above the rest and *really* makes our readers ‘stop, stare & click,’ because with year-long queue, we’re not handing out FP awards to pictures like candy at a parade anymore just

1242:

I absolutely agree. Just like the United States’ Social Security problem, you either raise the retirement age, decrease benefits, or greatly increase taxes. This would have been avoided if we had been keeping track of the fact that we nominate something like 11 pictures per week. If you keep up with

784:

A queue of up to three months is too short? You make good points about the exceptions that would foul up a bot’s first pass. But all a bot would do would sweep up pictures that purely passed the defined criteria. For instance, it could ignore nominations with more than one picture (where voting gets

761:

short, and besides, a bot wouldn't know how to tell that certain categories of images are overrepresented. I also would be concerned that not-very-supported images with good tie-in dates (anniversaries, birthdays, etc) would be omitted as well. If we are all agreed, then I can start skipping some of

738:

With a bot, we could have a slightly complex rule-set for what passes the filter. We could, for instance, say “what advances to POTD must be 100% supports if 5 to 6 votes total” and “no more than one oppose vote for 7–9 support votes. Something like that. If someone likes this general concept, weigh

544:

The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons I give below. A simple system that would hopefully put up most of the better images could be for only FPs with at least twice the minimum supports for FP to become POTD (i.e., currently

518:

Despite initially sounding commonsensical, #4 would actually be a lousy choice. Many of the noms that go through with 100% support actually do so by drawing little attention to themselves and scraping through with a bare minimum five (previously four) supports, rather than because they are that damn

365:

Not sure. I don't like the idea of promoting less pictures either. And putting pictures up for <24 hours means not everyone sees them. If we could get 2 POTDs up, I'd probably prefer that. I just don't think that would ever fly. But really, a super-long queue is fine with me. I'm curious how they

306:

I'd be happy to see #4 or #6 implemented. If we had four featured pictures; one large with 3 others underneath, displayed as "Todays featured pictures", with the 'best' one as the larger, and the 3 others as smaller underneath. Rather than 4 equal sized ones. The benefit of having 4 pictures is that

227:

I'm not a programmer, but to me, number 6 sounds like the best option. The way I would prefer to have it worked would be, instead of having an image displayed for 6 hours, or four images displayed at once, that a random one of the four loads when an IP opens the page. That way we preserve the format

151:

Change POTD to be like DYK, so that the picture is only there for 6 hours, that way you have 28 slots a week, at our current promotion rate we'll eventually catch up. Or, do nothing and accept as we increase content on the encyclopedia we increase the featured content creation rate, and we can never

73:

Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but eliminate nearly all of them (except for a week-long buffer or whatever Howcheng things appropriate) from the queue waiting for POTD. The advantages are that this isn’t arbitrary (the minimum buffer is not arbitrary;

69:

Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those that have 100% “support” votes would advance to POTD. The advantage is that all the truly outstanding pictures (as measured by the only objective measure of a totally subjective thing)

2837:

Which proposal are you referring to, PLW? And can you comment on my feeling that since recent FP nominators/creators are part of the community, their work should be highlighted before they grow old? Is the TFA process that the FA/TFA community evolved not "community-oriented"? I'm not going to push

2786:

order of promotion. I try to space out the overrepresented topics (such as bugs, which have at least a week between each bug photo), and I'll reserve days ahead of time for relevant dates. That's pretty much it. The only time we have any trouble is when I get busy with RL activities and I write the

2675:

Yes, of course the decision would be made by a director, as for TFA. You'd have to choose someone, just as featured lists chose its first directors when they shifted to a director system. I'm not suggesting a director system for FL itself—you seem to have it pretty well worked out as it is. But the

1998:

Someone would need to run it, like a "delegate". Seems very bureacratic the way they do it for TFA, but it's probably necessary for them because competition is fierce, and there have been dreadful fights. It appears to work well, but possibly the rules and procedures could be trimmed for POTD. Raul

1794:

Based on my reading of the above, it seems like the most agreeable option is a bit of a hybrid: We keep the queue intact (barring of course anniversaries and other special days), with the possibility of skipping photos from overrepresented topics if the nominator/creator has a good number of FPs to

1525:

But because of the chronic over-promotion of FP status to pictures by the regular denizens that inhabit this venue, and the fact that we have no screening process to further segregate those FP winners that can quickly go to the POTD queue, the resultant one-year-plus wait means these “non-regulars”

1424:

Jujutacular, do you have any specific proposals on a practical way to implement this? Off the top of my head, I should think that any of our regular shepherding admin closers would be able to easily recognize when there is a picture from a non-regular that should go to the shorter, segregated pile.

1358:

Thanks. What defines a *new* contributor? Are you thinking that the closer of the nomination would just keep in mind to note, when closing, whether the nomination is from a non-regular and/or is self-nominated? And would the closer then advance these to a special folder for Howcheng? Please advise,

878:

and others have done in securing releases of images from museums and archives. When they approached a museum (as I understand it), part of what they said was "Hey, this might end up being on the Main Page of Knowledge. Think of the exposure you'll get." It sure makes them look bad when their images

848:

your 14:41 post to where it properly belonged and placed it chronologically in the proper place and with the proper indenting. If you want to copy the entire green-div and paste a new, updated version below with a mix of proposals and debate-style narrative all stirred together, be my guest. If you

57:

Promote only one picture on average every other day. At that rate, it would take over two years to clear out the queue. The advantage is that this wouldn’t mess with the current queue. The disadvantage is that there will be a period in the future where a picture won’t enjoy its day on POTD for over

3055:

be a POTD? As a new image contributor, I have suggestions as to how the process might be run to eliminate the backlog, but don't want to waste breath on a dead body (oxygen being at a premium here in Los Angeles). Maybe no decision was ever reached (i.e., option #1 above: "Do nothing")? Someone

2921:

Tony has extensive knowledge of how the Featured Article process avoids year-long queue constipations. Howcheng (notwithstanding his desire to abstain because of conflict-of-interest) is our volunteer on Knowledge who does the heavy lifting to ensure the right things happen every single day on the

2875:

First, you haven't answered my question. I've made two proposals here: one for a points system, and more recently, as an alternative, a 3-day 4-day dual queue system. Second, I had nothing to do with the evolution of the TFA system; and nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty at FA. So

2754:

POTD already is merit-based - the images have to be FPs (and Howcheng schedules based on relevant dates already). I think POTD has had balance in topics and has avoided repetition. Maybe you can point me to complaints to the contrary. I recall seeing a few comments about all the insects on POTD on

1641:

That's interesting, because when I thought about what time would be ideal between promotion and POTD, I was thinking of four months. The only benefit about leaving them for, say, nine months is that you would get roughly seasonal POTDs, but then some people might crave sunny beaches in winter, and

1439:

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. Basically anyone that notices a new user getting a promoted picture could simply leave a note on Howcheng's talk page. I guess for example TonyTheTiger has not had a POTD and could use a fast-track. Idloveone is a newcomer with no promotions yet, but I

1227:

Speaking here in terms of photographers. You say that: "our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” is too low". The trouble is, increase the difficulty of getting a featured picture, and "new contributors who self-nominate" would find it too difficult to take a featured picture and

922:

that there isn't one. And if we do that, we'll be "burying our heads in the sand" while we wait for a "day of reckoning" - I guess I didn't realize POTD had such cosmic repercussions! Look, it's too bad that anything promoted today has to wait a year or more to reach the Main Page, but many of the

523:

used to have the criteria of 10 FPs (not relevant here), with at least one of those having "a minimum of 80% support with a minimum of 11 support votes or 100% support with a minimum of 9 votes". Something like that would probably make more sense. Maybe we could simplify and say if 5 supports gets

65:

Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those at the front of the queue that are scheduled to appear in the next 60 days would advance to POTD. The virtue is this is simple. The disadvantage is the cut-off point is arbitrary and

53:

years of a queue and no one even cares about hoping to see the picture as POTD on the Main Page. Even if we promote exactly one picture per day from hereon, the queue would forever stay one-year long. The advantage of option #1 is we don’t have to change course whatsoever. The disadvantage is—like

2791:

Answer: I see what I've posted recently and try to space it out. That's it. Note that although in theory anyone can schedule any image for any day, in practice there are very few people who write POTD blurbs besides myself (I can count them one hand), and I exercise considerable editorial control

2717:

I don't see how this helps. It's just one more page to watch and one more process to deal with. The current system seems to work fine, although I'll defer to Howcheng if he says otherwise. This proposal won't help whittle down the queue at all. The newer images (the ones with that year-long wait)

1170:

Greg, I find your comment above pretty ridiculous. When I contribute to Knowledge, I do it because I believe in a 💕. If you're really contributing to Knowledge just so that you can have a picture featured on the front page, then you're here for the wrong reasons. You used the phrase "FP winners"

2858:

Your proposal. And yes, if I had to think up of a process that allowed me to be a dictator while keeping up appearances that I'm serving the community, I'd probably come up with something like you have over at FA/TFA. There should be no "directors" on Knowledge. It completely goes against how we

1892:

I haven't even looked at the way POTDs are determined, but I have a horrid suspicion that newly promoted FPs are just added to a huge queue. If that happened with FAs, the system would be similarly clogged—it would grind almost to a halt. And the topics of TFAs would not be balanced over time or

1832:

Most of it seems fine to me. I'm pretty sure the consensus isn't there yet to skip images from people with many FPs. I don't think I've seen anyone but Greg L hold that position, (though I've stated that I'm happy for you to skip some of my own). I'm moderately confident that Durova would oppose

1205:) It would be *extra* nice if you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote here before demonstrating your shortcomings at parsing written English. Since I find your posts to be utter and total nonsense (in addition to going out of your way to be insulting and combative with your bullshit 1136:

Maybe what we can do is have a bot go through the queue and weed out most of the pictures that were nominated by some regulars here who, statistically, are wildly and disproportionately represented in the queue; you know… reduce the ones from our über nominators down to just a dozen each. Yes. I

869:

Not sure where to put this in, so I'm just adding to the bottom. I am strongly opposed to removing pictures from the queue. Those pictures earned their spots. They've waited this long; why should newer pictures get to jump ahead of or even replace them in line? More recent promotions are no more

674:

to be fun for some of us who were around in 2007 to see our labors appear on the Main Page for a day within a month. Now, our chronic over-promotion created a situation where we are effectively depriving newcomers—like college students—of that privilege because they won’t see it on the Main page

1487:

Not really an argument for anything. Just an observation. If there is a problem (which I've disputed above), I don't think this does much to solve it. Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more, but then you'd still wait a year for anything else you had

893:

Just to add a bit more...I'm not crazy about having POTDs change every 12 hours either. I'd prefer that they get their full 24 hours on the Main Page. That's what FA does, and it ensures that everyone, everywhere gets a chance to see them. But I would accept the 12-hour change if that's the way

122:

I also suggest we have an automated script that displays, somewhere in the FPC header, the number of FP-promoted pictures waiting in the POTD queue. I think that number should always be in the back of our minds when we’re voting. There is simply no point promoting an average of more than one FP

1273:

Count yourself lucky; there are many other valuable contributions which will never be on the main page. Some folk fix ten thousand typos, resolve a dozen thorny disputes, or translate obscure foreign articles which will never make it to FA - these folk miss out on mainpage glory altogether. If

917:

Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change. Of the options we're given, we're not even allowed to decide this isn't a problem; we can only

898:

support the idea of having some sort of minimum number/percentage of supports in order to qualify for POTD. As far as I'm concerned, an FP is an FP: they're all equally worthy of POTD. Also, the number/percentage of supports can be deceptive. Some nominations take a runaway support train where

590:

I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted, but I am open to people doing whatever they feel necessary with the POTD queue, and potentially open to changes to the main page to allow multiple POTDs. The reason I am opposed to

1712:

I thought it was understood by now that the problem that Greg is highlighting is that if we continue to promote the way we're doing, "just over a year" will turn into 15 months, then 18 months, etc. If we can't vary the rate at which we feature, we can't control the length of the queue. (Or

2676:

POTD system is horrible: how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example? The selection of FPs that are going to get SUCH big exposure needs to be properly managed, not the chaos we currently have. Oh, and then there's that year-long queue.

442:

FWIW I think things are fine as they are - a rough queue, but trying to keep things balanced and meeting the occasional request for particular dates etc. For the record, I'm also happy for howcheng to skip any of my own images, though someone with a handful of FPs might feel differently.

2815:

Howcheng should know more than most users about this. In response, the queue should, I believe, be based not just on some model of socialist welfare, but on a points system. Some FPs would never make it, some would have to wait even longer than a year. But the current backlog is most

419:

and I had to start repeating POTD images. If we were to implement a TFA-like points system, it's highly likely that some images will be delayed for far longer than they are now -- insects, birds, and plants are what come to mind immediately, all three subjects being overrepresented.

785:

complex). All it would do is assemble a new, single folder with all the juicy, clean nominations that had the type of voting balance we define. Then we can all go back and snare any of the rejects that got passed over (or special favs or those that are linked to special occasions).

1200:

have made it clearer that my concern is over allowing newcomers to quickly share in one of the important rewards when their pictures achieve FP status: seeing it on the Main Page for a day and not waiting over a year for this to occur. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me

988:

I completely appreciate that, and I think that's the point I'm making. This means that the images we once thought were great but actually aren't don't get their chance on the main page- instead, we give the slot to something decent. The process isn't perfect- that's why we

350:

There are no easy decisions here, Makeemlighter. Defaulting upon option #1 isn’t sustainable, I don’t think, and waiting for years to see one’s pictures on POTD is no fun at all for a lot of us. So if #1 is your preference, what other option is your distant-second choice?

2918:

It would be nice if some of those with a long-term record of helpful, role-up-the-sleeves leadership would step up to the plate, take bits & pieces of good ideas here, and float a proposal. Then anyone left here who still gives a dump at this late stage can weigh

3050:

promoted to being a Featured Picture here on the English Knowledge, and was wondering if it would ever become a POTD... But after reading the above, I am still left wondering. Was a decision ever made as to how to handle the overwhelming backlog? Will my image

242:

After thoughts: I believe FA has a queue, too, how do they deal with it? Are scrolling boxes possible on the WP home page? And it would seem unfair to quadruple Howcheng's workload, we would need a couple of other people to step up and start writing captions.

874:. I voted on many of them. I look forward to seeing them on the Main Page. It would be unfair to those photographers/restorers to remove their images from the queue. In some cases, it would actually undermine work they've done. I'm referring to the work that 2933:

Perhaps those two will collaborate and provide us with a proposal that gives us a simple up-or-down decision: ‘Yes’ (adopt a new system for deciding what goes to the Main Page in an expeditious fashion), or ‘No’ (opt for Option #1 in the green-div, above).

1521:

well done, professional-looking pictures. And they make Knowledge the beneficiary of that effort. Much of the (small) reward they can derive from their hard work and their donation is in seeing those pictures featured as Picture Of The Day on the Main

1026:. Putting so much time and effort into changing POTD is actually detracting from the project, as it takes time away from what we should be here to do: to provide the best images Knowledge has to offer. So excuse me, while I go work on a restoration ;) 173:

maybe? I'm not really sure. I dont feel that changing the amount of pictures nominated would be a good move. If one month we have 50 pictures all outstanding and FP worthy, they shouldn't miss out simply because there is a number we have to stick to.

2537:. If there are already five requests, and the picture you propose to add has more points than one of the pictures already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following: 1132:

numbers of candidates for consideration and our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” has been too low. And now, new contributors who self-nominate with really, really good work have to wait over a year to have it appear on the Main

839:

reserve some editorial control over the green-div and I don’t think it could possibly be more obvious that the green-div is reserved for proposed remedies; not arguments, opinions, and debate, which all belongs down here. And a post that begins with

1552:

We can always develop procedures for our closers to decide when a contributing photographer graduates to *one of the regulars around here*-status because we have grown tired of the prolific quantity of high-quality pictures he or she generates.

549:

one, but for the most part you'd be getting the best and most eye-catching. We could add a minor complexity to help further weed out weaker ones, like minimum 10 supports and 80% of votes being support, but I wouldn't want it to be too complex.

1516:

We have some *regulars* to FPC here who nominate hundreds of pictures a month; many nominations (or most) are pictures someone else created. But we also have some contributing photographer wikipedians who really bust their butts to create

937:

One problem is that if the queue continues to grow, long-standing FPs may already be delisted before they get their chance for front page glory, and whichever way I look at this, it makes us look rather silly, not to mention nonlinear.

723:

I agree. Where this seems to be heading is that there might be a way to set a voting hurdle of high total number of votes and low percentage of opposes to all those hundreds and hundreds of pictures currently in the queue waiting for

2541:

If a requested picture has at least five declarations and more than 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point

1124:

If some here want to treat this problem like social security, where we just keep adding to the problem for another year or two and pretend nothing will ever have to be done about it, that’s a legitimate view (although I think it

2083: 1116:. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, 84:

A combination of #6 & #7, above, whereby there could be two FPs displayed that are changed twice per day. This hybrid has the virtue that visitors don’t have to feel like they are going to miss out on something by actually

37:. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, 3045:

Yeesh— it has now been three years since the above discussion appears to have ground to a halt. I have read over much of the text, but must admit that my eyes started to glaze over eventually. I recently (this year) got my

2501:

Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a 12-year-old using Knowledge for a school project. That is, the picture is on an academic subject that could reasonably be expected to be part of a school curriculum for that

1373:

Define "new" has hasn't had POTD before and this seems like a reasonable idea - might cause some encouragement for new users. We shouldn't make life harder for howcheng though. I'm pretty much per mostly for the rest of it.

730:

Whatever that criteria might be, Howcheng clearly doesn’t want added duties (he’s a hard-working volunteer with daily duties, unlike some of us who just come here when we “wanna”). So I would propose that if we winnow the

2781:

Additionally, I'd like to hear what Tony1 thinks is so chaotic about the current system (being just me with occasional help from others like Fetchcomms and Ktr01): The POTD gets selected from the list of FPs in rough

2545:

If item 1 does not apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points pictures outside that date may

1541:

back in 2007. That was a blast and was quite a reward for the effort. Those days are long gone for newcomers (awe… shucks: *newcomers*) unless we *regulars* do something about it. I don’t think our attitude should

1120:

took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Knowledge-time. This long wait greatly detracts from the reward and fun derived when new contributors’ pictures are awarded FP

1760:

because *there are no major problems* with them.” And don’t make me go look for the actual post behind that last asterisked quote because I clearly recall a recent “support” vote with reasoning similar to that.

2787:

POTD blurb at the last minute, or even a bit too late. We haven't had the need to repeat any images in a few years now because the number of promotions has far exceeded an average of 7 per week. Tony1 did ask,

1795:

their name. We also will allow jumping the queue for people who have very few FP contributions (less than 5?) so that they have a shorter wait time for Main Page glory. Are there any additions/changes to this?

2052: 1620:

Oops. I stand corrected. I had a nagging feeling I should have looked into that before writing “one month.” It didn’t seem like four months; I must have been extra busy at that time. Waiting over a year: now

1021:

any change to POTD currently, per Makeemlighter's superb argument above. Worrying about this "problem" so much is a problem of itself: this project is about improving the encyclopedia with great images,

1330:

providing some specific ideas for how this could accomplished without unduly burdening Howcheng. If your noodling on the mechanism to accomplish this results in two flavors of your idea, then add both.

2574: 2620: 1881: 1866: 1848: 1728: 1497: 1482: 1046:

Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change.

949: 923:

proposed "solutions" benefit current contributors at the expense of past contributors. How does it benefit Knowledge to do that? Here's the solution I propose: current contributors - wait your turn.

828: 494: 336:

I doubt the community as a whole would go along with putting more pictures on the Main Page. I also don't think it's fair to any current FPs that haven't made POTD yet to remove them from the queue.

2930:

be something he supports. If anything is going to get done, it seems that the common ground Tony and Howcheng jointly see will be the only practical solution that has any likelihood of working out.

1755:

Well… not necessarily. Good people can disagree on the extent to which we *Love* a picture. If we are making monster-size queues waiting for POTD, we aren’t saying to photographers “Tell you what;

972:

The concern is about increasing standards. An FP that was wonderful two years ago might seem less stellar today. You, as one of the main delist nominators, should appreciate this better than most.

3073: 2727: 1671: 1002: 983: 967: 932: 912: 3031: 3014: 2989: 1750: 1653: 2012: 1462: 392: 299: 2649: 480: 220: 74:

it’s just the “minimum”) and it’s simple. The disadvantage is it is more draconian and everything—including lots of fine pictures that achieved 100% support votes wouldn’t be featured on POTD.

2889: 2870: 1922: 1707: 1405: 452: 3156: 70:

would eventually appear on POTD. The disadvantage is that sorting through 400-some candidates looking for “oppose” votes would be time-consuming unless we elicited the help of a bot author.

2943: 2666: 2599: 1842: 1562: 1383: 1326:(Must make killer espresso for wife right now…) Come to think of it, why don’t you, Jujutacular, add your idea as #9, above. Please try to keep it a little general as to the exact details 1252: 1237: 1163: 888: 751: 718: 375: 360: 345: 282: 3120: 2907: 2831: 2764: 2749: 2703: 1954: 1693: 1448: 1368: 1353: 1340: 1034: 406: 1987: 1968: 3101: 2922:

Main Page (unlike many of the rest of us who can just take a 5-day wiki-break whenever we please). Accordingly, Howcheng doesn’t have a “conflict”-of-interest here; he has a “deep and

1283: 701: 684: 600: 266: 252: 237: 2970: 1827: 1769: 1634: 794: 779: 437: 1906: 583: 257:

Good point. I’m going to a block party here in a few minutes. Unless someone beats me to it, I’ll alert Howcheng to this discussion and invite his input (which is pretty important).

1222: 1191: 1146: 513: 331: 185: 2689: 2055:

up to 60 days before the requested date; applicants should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if the picture has enough points to replace another.

862: 818: 537: 411:

I don't think there's a queue. Apart from the requests, I believe it's just Raul654's choice, and he tries to pick them so that there's a balance of topics, subjects, and locales.

165: 2851: 559: 1314: 416: 2818:

An alternative system would be to allot, say, three days out of seven to FPs promoted in the past three months. There would effectively be two queues. That would be fine by me.

2265: 1852: 3135: 1812: 1613: 307:

there's more of a chance of visitors clicking one of the images, and in turn, helping the encyclopedia. (by getting involved with the project) Also agree with moving this to

2287: 1434: 2898:

The incentive structure above decreases weight for recent nominations, so surely just fast tracking people with under five FPs would better highlight recent contributors?

2590:

do something about the long and ever-growing queue to POTD. As Tony pointed out, there are procedures used to select Article of the Day; we need to do some catch-up now.

2953:

If does seem that one problem with the current system is that if I get hit by a bus or something, there's no established procedure for someone to step in and take over.

469:

I don't see a problem with having each image up for only six hours. They would still all be viewable after clicking the "archive" link. No main page redesign necessary.

2484:

on . Multiple points are awarded only for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in an article in which the picture appears. Just because a picture

1589: 1196:

Good. You find my comment ridiculous. I find your response to be ridiculous. So we’re even now. You think this was about me, yet everything I wrote above (and below)

1659: 1108:

a problem. Why? Because we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the

1488:

promoted. So it mostly sidesteps the concerns about the long queue, but it does give a little extra incentive to newcomers. The merit there, however, is debatable.

415:

describes the point system, but it never talks about dates where nothing is requested. Y'know, it's funny... four years ago, we almost reached a crisis point where

194:

The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8.

2534: 833:

The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8

3179: 2292: 1263:

I agree with bydand. Why must a prompt appearance on the main page be a reward for contributors? This is a free encyclopaedia; people generally improve content

3047: 853:

green-div, please try to keep it a genuine proposal, or rule, or boolean algorithm that is narrowly intended as a specific alternative for others to consider.

709:

below say 7-8 supports, allowing a bit of leniency for contributors that haven't had POTD before. I think common sense will go further here than formal rules.

2533:

Please nominate only one picture at a time. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured pictures is

2077: 3129: 96:

If a new contributor gets one of their pictures featured, fast-track that picture to POTD (within a month or two of being promoted, at Howcheng's discretion)

824: 2250: 1993: 485:

I wouldn't mind 6 hours either, but I'd be surprised if they are being promoted that quickly in recent months - 12 hours might be better to allow variety.

3079:

No additional steps were taken. For people who have just gotten the first FP (congratulations!) I myself would "fast-track" it to appear. I would say let

2718:

will have at least as hard a time getting to the main page sooner because of the points system. I'm having a hard time seeing the merit of this proposal.

2048:. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the picture will appear on the requested date. 3166:

Here's a new idea. How about we require real consensus for promoting images instead of a 2/3 vote? It seems to work well for Featured articles and it is

742:

And remember, everything that won FP-status keeps it. We’re only talking about shortening the wait for new FP award winners to appear on the Main Page.

1101:. Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around. 2230: 2191: 2030: 1545: 546: 412: 108: 667:

Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around.

203: 138: 2059: 739:

in below and I’ll add it to the green-div, above. It would be awfully nice to take that queue and reduce it to less than one group of 100 pictures.

1017:

I've sort of been mulling this over since the discussion has gone up, but hadn't come to a conclusion before now. I would just like to say that I

2260: 2240: 1514:

for Knowledge if we address this. Knowledge requires free content (and fair-use in rare circumstances), so we really need high-quality pictures.

1453:

It's a decent enough idea, I suppose. But newcomers make up a very small percentage of FP contributors, so this would apply in very few cases.

1274:"fairness" in rewarding contributors is your main concern, shouldn't we first find some way to give headlines & glory to non-POTD editors? 502: 26: 29:

we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the

1851:. I'll also state that this whole debate about being skipped looks absolutely ridiculous when FP contributors are the only ones to ever get 2255: 2245: 1930: 381: 2215: 2235: 2489: 2481: 2414: 2045: 209:

I was also thinking about this recently, and came to the same idea as raeky. I think it's the most obvious way to deal with this.

2994: 1067:. Only the regulars here remember voting on Group 19. When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the 380:

They use a point system at TFA based on age of promotion, relevance to the requested date, importance of the subject, etc. See

1855:. Everybody else is a second-class citizen by default, so exactly how you feel you have any license to whine remains unclear. 1271:. If there's a need for a structured system of rewards for individual contributors, hand out barnstars or something like that. 844:… clearly belongs down here. As you can see, I didn’t delete it or “edit” it in the sense that term is commonly understood; I 3142: 2975:

I guess that would be a motivation for inviting more participation, wouldn't it? The more eyes, the easier to spot problems.

2196: 2179: 1097: 1091: 1085: 1079: 1073: 1063: 871: 735:

queue to something like 45–90 days via a filter, that we could accomplish that with a little bit of help from a bot operator.

659: 653: 647: 641: 635: 621: 397:

Point system! Interesting. Wouldn’t that be fairly easy to implement for us by using something along the lines of option #4?

228:

and offer all users the chance to see the image, regardless of where they live. Now someone will tell me this is impossible.

2580: 2792:

over the scheduling. I admit I don't have the title of "POTD Director" but I've scheduled 99% of the images since May 2006.

1154:

Yes Greg, you need to wait a year, like everybody else, and no, your work is not superior to that of other contributors.

545:

that would be 2 x 5 = 10 supports for POTD). Sure you'd still get some pretty ordinary images, like the recently promoted

2694:

Howcheng has done a good job of keeping variety among the POTDs. And this wouldn't help with the year-long queue at all.

2222: 2186: 54:

burying our heads in the sand over the Social Security fund—there will be a day of reckoning where something will break.

2210: 958:

we show the world how great it is. Obviously, the best opinion would be that it was never promoted in the first place.

2480:

One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the picture and the date, for example

2203: 2165: 2132: 629:

participants remember? Anyone(?) Anyone? When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the

17: 615:

shortening the queue of FP-award winners waiting to be shown for a day on the Main Page as Picture Of The Day (POTD)

2637: 1942: 1929:

Per Tony1. The issue, I feel, also includes the system of picking POTDs, which should be changed to something like

118:

I personally think #4 is the best option and think I know of a bot operator who could automate the sorting process.

2795:

All that being said, if the consensus is that we want to move to a points system, I will be glad to implement it.

842:

The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons

41:

took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Knowledge-time. What to do?

1789: 1289: 1510:;-) That is entirely what this is about. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, there is quite an amount of 607:

I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted

1833:

skipping strongly (promises to Museums and such) and am not sure how other voluminous contributors would feel.

2579:

That pretty much translates to opting for Option #1 in the green-div while wrapping the slogan in the flag of

1117: 38: 2565:

Lets concentrate on building the encyclopaedia, not building some sort of meta-FPC to waste everyone's time.

1581: 625:. How many ol’ timers around here remember when the pictures shown in Group 19 were being promoted? How many 2041: 725: 49:

Do nothing, pretend there is no problem, keep on promoting more than one FP picture per day until we have

3027: 2985: 2866: 2616: 2282: 2270: 2159: 2149: 1999:

is trialling a sixth TFA system at the moment, which he can slot in anywhere (no specific date request).

1918: 1872:

about getting to the root of the problem (if there is one), it is about acting on the current consensus.

1862: 1724: 1649: 1478: 979: 945: 476: 216: 1209:), I won’t respond to you at all on this subject again because you aren’t here to help but to just be a 3152: 2142: 2051:

It is helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the

1388:

Considering I don't follow FPC regularly, there'd have to be some page that tracks "new" contributors.

1210: 1642:

not everybody is on the same seasonal schedule, so it may be a non-argument. Four months sounds fine.

2172: 1526:

don’t get to see their work featured as POTD for over a year. And this queue is growing and will be

609:? Or did I truly misunderstand what jjron was suggesting? Because we aren’t talking about temporary 2154: 1593: 2903: 2760: 2723: 2699: 2570: 1877: 1838: 1703: 1493: 1458: 1379: 1233: 1159: 928: 908: 884: 714: 490: 448: 371: 341: 278: 2789:

how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example?

2298: 3021: 2979: 2860: 2610: 1912: 1856: 1718: 1643: 1472: 1104:

Is this a “problem”. Yes it is. Clearly it is not one that some here give a hoot about. But it

973: 939: 470: 210: 1095:. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into 657:. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into 3148: 3116: 2628:

This isn't wasting time, it's making the system more efficient. I think it'll work like TFA.

2125: 2642: 1983: 1947: 8: 2100: 1667: 1279: 998: 963: 697: 596: 308: 288: 248: 233: 2107: 77:

Per Raeky, increase the rate at which Pictures Of The Day are displayed to four per day.

3161: 3095: 3008: 2964: 2899: 2806: 2756: 2719: 2695: 2566: 2092: 1933:. The guidelines there, I feel, would match up with some of the things mentioned here. 1873: 1834: 1806: 1744: 1699: 1687: 1607: 1489: 1454: 1399: 1375: 1229: 1155: 924: 904: 880: 773: 710: 577: 520: 486: 444: 431: 367: 337: 274: 146: 104: 1128:

The problem has been caused—in part—because there are some regulars here who nominate

3175: 3070: 1911:

Then how about one whose outcome is based solely on direct input from the community?

1306:

I would not support that, but I would support fast-tracking FPs of new contributors.

1504:

Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more

613:

permanent changes to what FP candidates that get promoted. We’re only talking about

3112: 3080: 2939: 2662: 2595: 2118: 1964: 1823: 1765: 1733:

Agreed. The POTD queue length should have no bearing on an image's FPC nomination.

1630: 1558: 1442: 1430: 1364: 1347: 1336: 1308: 1248: 1218: 1184: 1142: 1028: 858: 790: 747: 680: 509: 402: 386: 356: 324: 293: 262: 199: 180: 134: 2736:

Errrrr ... merit-based? And balanced in topic over time? And avoiding repetition?

2348:

Decennial or quinvigintennial anniversary (10-year or 25-year multiples): 2 points

1228:

give up. It is pretty rare to attract an already experienced photographer to FPC.

127:

the quality of Knowledge by being choosier so we ensure that supply meets demand.

93:

less added space must be devoted to the Main page to accommodate the acceleration.

2884: 2846: 2826: 2744: 2684: 2632: 2340:

Timing (relevance to main-page date request, select one of the following options)

2007: 1937: 1901: 814: 809:

Who the fuck is editing my comments?? That's highly in violation of WP policy. --

555: 533: 159: 2515:: two dissimilar pictures may be grouped under the same category. For example, . 3167: 3083:(who is doing the scheduling now) know and he'll probably do the same for you. 2432: 2383: 1663: 1275: 994: 959: 762:

the less-supported images on an ad-hoc basis, just applying some common sense.

693: 592: 244: 229: 3087: 3000: 2956: 2798: 1978: 1798: 1736: 1679: 1599: 1391: 765: 569: 423: 100: 3171: 3058: 2512: 2446:

Deduct points if a similar picture was recently featured on the main page:

2397: 2022: 1847:

I don't think this gets at the root of the problem at all, as stated in my

1053:

a problem with a long queue. As to whether or not “something must change”,

66:

would result in many, truly outstanding FP pictures not appearing on POTD.

2935: 2658: 2591: 1960: 1819: 1761: 1626: 1554: 1426: 1360: 1332: 1244: 1214: 1172: 1138: 903:

issues, I suppose, but they make a POTD test seem like a bad idea to me.

875: 854: 786: 743: 676: 505: 398: 352: 312: 258: 195: 175: 130: 2877: 2839: 2819: 2737: 2677: 2000: 1894: 810: 551: 529: 154: 2316:

Points are the sum of choices for each of the following six criteria:

1203:

Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year.

566:

Yeah, I'm not particularly keen on increasing my workload, thanks. :)

152:

feature all the featured content on the front page for a whole day. —

2026: 1109: 89:

for eight hours, and we still get through the queue just as quickly,

30: 2582:

Making Knowledge and the World A Better and More Encyclopedic Place.

2382:

The creator of a picture has not previously had an image appear as

954:

Well, if an image isn't worthy of being an FP, better we delist it

870:

deserving of POTD than older ones. I do remember the pictures from

831:

The green-div is part of my original post. Now, granted, I wrote

3111:- No need for this. Just ping me and I'll usually work it in. — 1580:

Can I clear up one thing? The image that Greg is talking about,

2029:. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have 1425:

If there is a better way, let’s hear it from the experts here.

617:. Pictures will still be promoted the same as they always have. 605:

Did you choose your words carefully, J Milburn, when you wrote

3147:

Anyways, I like doing four a day (or two, three, six, etc). -

2550:

are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.

1530:

years if we keep doing as we’ve been doing the last few years.

2657:

Who decides on the points to be assigned? The POTD director?

1658:

That's an interesting thought- it'd mean, for instance, that

2783: 519:

good. Hardly "all the truly outstanding pictures". The old

2876:

why are you referring to "like you have over at FA/TFA"?

1049:

Maybe you don’t think my argument is “cogent”, but there

675:

until they married and working on their masters’ degree.

2511:

Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at

2351:

Semicentennial anniversary (50-year multiples): 4 points

2025:. Pictures do not have to be suggested to appear on the 1537:

used to be that way. An animation of mine got POTD in

2354:

Centennial anniversary (100-year multiples): 6 points

1548:

donate your damned picture, and wait a year or two.”

2044:; the final decision rests with the POTD director, 1662:image was featured as winter closed in on the UK. 1359:since you know the mechanics and procedures well. 2037:replace it according to the instructions below. 384:. Otherwise they just go by the queue I believe. 2367:needs an equivalent to "vital article": 2 points 2332:Promoted between one and two years ago: 1 point 2040:Requests are not the only factor in scheduling 1676:Heh, I might use that one for winter solstice. 1297:Note: Editors can click this sub-section’s tag 2438:Within three months of requested date: 1 point 2492:on , does not mean a point should be awarded. 2452:Within one month of requested date: −2 points 2449:Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points 2441:Within six months of requested date: 2 points 2370:Needs an equivalent to "core topic": 3 points 2126: 2926:involved” interest here. A practical system 1994:TFA instructions: draft translation to POTD? 1324:I’ll add it to the green-div a little later. 1931:Knowledge:Today's featured article/requests 382:Knowledge:Today's featured article/requests 273:This is a POTD problem, not an FP problem. 2133: 2119: 287:Indeed. Suggest moving this discussion to 44:Here are the options I see at the moment: 2586:We can do both. We can improve Knowledge 2325:Age (since promotion to featured picture) 2335:Promoted two or more years ago: 2 points 2288:Nominators of featured articles promoted 2021:Pictures suggested here must already be 2488:be appropriate for a date, for example 2345:Date relevant to picture topic: 1 point 2060: 14: 2655:Would like’ta support but am confused. 2266:Featured articles yet to appear as TFA 1853:any credit that normal users would see 62:will reap the benefits of this option. 2609:Proposal is not community-oriented. 2319: 2063:Purge the cache to refresh this page 1265:because they want to improve content 757:I don't think the queue needs to be 3056:please advise if you can. Thanks! 2401: 2293:Recent changes to featured articles 1061:Currently Howcheng is drawing from 1044:Hmmm… Quoting Makeemlighter, here: 619:Currently Howcheng is drawing from 23: 2271:Script to track TFA recent changes 1440:have a feeling will get one soon. 501:FYI, I solicited Howcheng’s input 417:the queue shrank to almost nothing 58:two years. In Knowledge time, our 24: 3190: 2216:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 2180:Featured article candidates (FAC) 99:Feature two pictures per day. -- 18:Knowledge talk:Picture of the day 3136:Talk:Featured picture candidates 2558:______________________________ 2431:A similar picture has not been 528:becoming an awful long wait. -- 3121:00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 3102:00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 3074:17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 2505: 2495: 2474: 2236:About Today's featured article 2223:Today's featured article (TFA) 1818:That sounds reasonable to me. 1698:That'd be summer solstice :P. 13: 1: 3180:01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 3143:You guys need better sections 2977:(Documentation also helps...) 2530:other pictures their chance. 2364:Basic subject matter: 1 point 2204:Featured article review (FAR) 1582:File:Translational motion.gif 1083:(another batch of 100 pics), 849:want to add something to the 645:(another batch of 100 pics), 123:picture per day; we actually 2396:Subject underrepresented at 1988:10:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1588:months (not one) to go from 1213:. So, Goodbye to you, sir. 726:Knowledge:Picture of the day 109:21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 7: 3157:03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 3032:18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 3015:17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2990:16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2971:16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2944:14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2908:10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2890:12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2871:11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2852:10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2832:04:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2812:04:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC 2765:02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2750:01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2728:01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2704:01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2690:01:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2667:00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2621:09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 2409:tag is missing the closing 2197:Featured article statistics 1284:15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 521:Photographic Masters' Guild 10: 3195: 3133:| Click here to return to 2650:19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 2600:16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 2575:06:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 2241:Recent TFAs and statistics 2090: 2053:talk page pending template 2013:04:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1969:03:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1955:02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1923:15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1907:14:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1882:10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1867:10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1843:10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1828:03:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1813:21:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1770:23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1751:18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1729:08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1708:06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1694:18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1672:18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1654:17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1635:18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1614:16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1563:15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1498:12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1483:12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1467:That would be an argument 1463:12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1449:04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1435:04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1406:22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1384:21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1369:21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1354:18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1341:17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1315:17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1253:03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1238:00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1223:19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1192:15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1164:12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1147:16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1035:15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 1003:16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 984:11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 968:14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 950:10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 933:05:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 913:05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 894:things go. In contrast, I 889:05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 863:03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 819:03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 795:03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 780:00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 752:23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 719:23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 702:00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 685:16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 601:14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 584:19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 560:14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 538:14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 514:04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 495:10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 481:10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 453:07:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 438:05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 407:04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 393:04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 376:04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 361:04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 346:03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 332:02:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 300:02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 283:02:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 267:01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 253:01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 238:01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 221:22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 204:22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 186:21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 166:21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 139:21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 2307: 2187:Featured article criteria 2019: 1024:we are not a POTD factory 3127:Click here to return to 2426:Main page representation 2211:Former featured articles 2071: 1058:recap, the simple facts: 3130:Talk:Picture of the day 2299:Random featured article 2277:Featured article tools: 1790:Summary of where we are 1290:Arbitrary section break 366:deal with it at TFA... 2251:Potential TFA requests 2031:not yet been scheduled 1322:, there’s a new idea! 1269:quality of the content 1118:this animation of mine 993:the delist procedure. 827:, who did the fuck so 39:this animation of mine 27:According to Howcheng, 1959:I agree 100 percent. 1625:would seem too long. 413:This Signpost article 2246:Current TFA requests 2192:Featured article log 2166:On Wikimedia Commons 171:Picture's of the day 2377:Contributor history 2311:Calculating points: 1471:making exceptions? 2384:Picture of the day 2231:This month's queue 2042:Picture of the day 1546:Stop your whining, 1114:over one year long 35:over one year long 3099: 3023:Papa Lima Whiskey 3012: 2981:Papa Lima Whiskey 2978: 2968: 2862:Papa Lima Whiskey 2810: 2612:Papa Lima Whiskey 2556: 2555: 2462: 2461: 2283:Mentoring for FAC 2160:Featured pictures 2150:Featured articles 2143:Featured content: 2086: 2080: 2074: 2072:Table of Contents 2065: 2023:featured pictures 1914:Papa Lima Whiskey 1858:Papa Lima Whiskey 1810: 1748: 1720:Papa Lima Whiskey 1691: 1645:Papa Lima Whiskey 1611: 1474:Papa Lima Whiskey 1403: 1207:Get over yourself 1198:couldn’t possibly 1190: 1181: 975:Papa Lima Whiskey 941:Papa Lima Whiskey 777: 581: 472:Papa Lima Whiskey 435: 330: 321: 212:Papa Lima Whiskey 150: 3186: 3149:Peregrine Fisher 3100: 3093: 3090: 3072: 3068: 3063: 3024: 3013: 3006: 3003: 2982: 2976: 2969: 2962: 2959: 2887: 2882: 2863: 2849: 2844: 2829: 2824: 2811: 2804: 2801: 2747: 2742: 2687: 2682: 2647: 2645: 2640: 2635: 2613: 2526: 2524:Adding requests: 2516: 2509: 2503: 2499: 2493: 2478: 2469: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2412: 2408: 2320: 2313: 2301: 2261:Most viewed TFAs 2135: 2128: 2121: 2110: 2103: 2082: 2076: 2070: 2068: 2066: 2061: 2017: 2016: 2010: 2005: 1952: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1915: 1904: 1899: 1859: 1849:previous comment 1811: 1804: 1801: 1749: 1742: 1739: 1721: 1692: 1685: 1682: 1646: 1612: 1605: 1602: 1584:, actually took 1505: 1475: 1445: 1404: 1397: 1394: 1350: 1311: 1208: 1204: 1189: 1182: 1179: 1047: 1031: 976: 942: 843: 834: 778: 771: 768: 608: 582: 575: 572: 473: 436: 429: 426: 389: 329: 322: 319: 296: 213: 183: 178: 164: 162: 157: 144: 3194: 3193: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3164: 3145: 3139: 3088: 3084: 3064: 3059: 3057: 3022: 3001: 2998: 2980: 2957: 2954: 2885: 2878: 2861: 2847: 2840: 2827: 2820: 2816:unsatisfactory. 2799: 2796: 2745: 2738: 2685: 2678: 2643: 2638: 2633: 2630: 2611: 2522: 2520: 2519: 2510: 2506: 2500: 2496: 2479: 2475: 2465: 2463: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2402: 2309: 2297: 2173:Featured topics 2139: 2114: 2113: 2106: 2099: 2095: 2058: 2008: 2001: 1996: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1935: 1913: 1902: 1895: 1857: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1737: 1734: 1719: 1717:as ridiculous. 1680: 1677: 1644: 1600: 1597: 1503: 1473: 1443: 1392: 1389: 1348: 1309: 1292: 1206: 1202: 1183: 1045: 1029: 974: 940: 841: 832: 766: 763: 606: 570: 567: 471: 424: 421: 387: 323: 294: 211: 181: 176: 160: 155: 153: 115: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3192: 3163: 3160: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3105: 3104: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 2948: 2947: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2835: 2793: 2779: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2731: 2730: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2670: 2669: 2652: 2623: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2518: 2517: 2504: 2494: 2472: 2471: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2379: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2326: 2318: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2295: 2290: 2285: 2274: 2273: 2268: 2263: 2258: 2253: 2248: 2243: 2238: 2233: 2219: 2218: 2213: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2189: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2157: 2155:Featured lists 2152: 2138: 2137: 2130: 2123: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2096: 2091: 2088: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1301: 1300: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1272: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1167: 1166: 1151: 1150: 1040: 1038: 1037: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 915: 867: 866: 865: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 706: 705: 704: 588: 587: 586: 564: 563: 562: 516: 499: 498: 497: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 334: 304: 303: 302: 271: 270: 269: 240: 224: 223: 189: 188: 168: 114: 113: 111: 97: 94: 82: 78: 75: 71: 67: 63: 55: 46: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3191: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3138: 3137: 3132: 3131: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3097: 3092: 3091: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3069: 3067: 3062: 3054: 3049: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3010: 3005: 3004: 2996: 2995:Documentation 2993: 2992: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2917: 2916: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2900:Noodle snacks 2897: 2891: 2888: 2883: 2881: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2850: 2845: 2843: 2836: 2834: 2833: 2830: 2825: 2823: 2814: 2813: 2808: 2803: 2802: 2794: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757:Makeemlighter 2753: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2743: 2741: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2720:Makeemlighter 2716: 2713: 2712: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696:Makeemlighter 2693: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2683: 2681: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2651: 2648: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2608: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567:Noodle snacks 2564: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2536: 2531: 2527: 2525: 2514: 2508: 2498: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2468: 2458: 2451: 2448: 2447: 2445: 2440: 2437: 2436: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2416: 2411:</ref: --> 2399: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2334: 2331: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2314: 2312: 2306: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2264: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2254: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2239: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2225: 2224: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2161: 2158: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2136: 2131: 2129: 2124: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2089: 2087: 2085: 2079: 2073: 2067: 2064: 2056: 2054: 2049: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2018: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2006: 2004: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1900: 1898: 1891: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874:Noodle snacks 1870: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835:Noodle snacks 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1700:Noodle snacks 1697: 1696: 1695: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1609: 1604: 1603: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1550: 1549: 1547: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1529: 1523: 1520: 1513: 1509: 1502:Quoting you: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490:Makeemlighter 1486: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455:Makeemlighter 1452: 1451: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1407: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376:Noodle snacks 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230:Noodle snacks 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1178: 1176: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156:Noodle snacks 1153: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1134: 1131: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1025: 1020: 1016: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 981: 977: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 925:Makeemlighter 921: 916: 914: 910: 906: 905:Makeemlighter 902: 897: 892: 891: 890: 886: 882: 881:Makeemlighter 877: 873: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 847: 838: 830: 826: 822: 821: 820: 816: 812: 808: 796: 792: 788: 783: 782: 781: 775: 770: 769: 760: 756: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 740: 736: 734: 727: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 711:Noodle snacks 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 682: 678: 673: 668: 666: 662: 661: 656: 655: 650: 649: 644: 643: 638: 637: 632: 628: 624: 623: 616: 612: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 589: 585: 579: 574: 573: 565: 561: 557: 553: 548: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 527: 522: 517: 515: 511: 507: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487:Noodle snacks 484: 483: 482: 478: 474: 468: 454: 450: 446: 445:Noodle snacks 441: 440: 439: 433: 428: 427: 418: 414: 410: 409: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 391: 390: 383: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 368:Makeemlighter 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 349: 348: 347: 343: 339: 338:Makeemlighter 335: 333: 328: 327: 318: 316: 310: 305: 301: 298: 297: 290: 286: 285: 284: 280: 276: 275:Makeemlighter 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 241: 239: 235: 231: 226: 225: 222: 218: 214: 208: 207: 206: 205: 201: 197: 193: 187: 184: 179: 172: 169: 167: 163: 158: 148: 147:edit conflict 143: 142: 141: 140: 136: 132: 128: 126: 120: 119: 112: 110: 106: 102: 98: 95: 92: 88: 83: 79: 76: 72: 68: 64: 61: 60:grandchildren 56: 52: 48: 47: 45: 42: 40: 36: 32: 28: 19: 3168:the wiki way 3165: 3146: 3134: 3128: 3108: 3086: 3065: 3060: 3052: 3044: 2999: 2955: 2932: 2927: 2923: 2920: 2879: 2841: 2821: 2817: 2797: 2788: 2775: 2739: 2714: 2679: 2654: 2629: 2625: 2606: 2587: 2581: 2562: 2557: 2532: 2528: 2523: 2521: 2507: 2497: 2485: 2476: 2466: 2464: 2457: 2407:<ref: --> 2403:Cite error: 2339: 2338: 2315: 2310: 2308: 2276: 2275: 2256:TFA oddities 2221: 2220: 2202: 2201: 2178: 2177: 2141: 2140: 2062: 2057: 2050: 2039: 2035: 2020: 2002: 1997: 1977: 1934: 1896: 1797: 1793: 1756: 1735: 1714: 1678: 1622: 1598: 1585: 1551: 1543: 1538: 1534: 1532: 1527: 1524: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1468: 1441: 1390: 1346: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1307: 1296: 1295: 1268: 1264: 1197: 1185: 1174: 1135: 1129: 1127: 1123: 1113: 1105: 1103: 1096: 1090: 1084: 1078: 1072: 1069:next hundred 1068: 1062: 1060: 1054: 1050: 1048: 1039: 1027: 1023: 1018: 990: 955: 919: 900: 895: 850: 845: 836: 825:Mr. Fuckhead 764: 758: 741: 737: 732: 729: 671: 669: 664: 658: 652: 646: 640: 634: 631:next hundred 630: 626: 620: 618: 614: 610: 568: 525: 422: 385: 325: 314: 292: 191: 190: 170: 129: 124: 121: 117: 116: 90: 86: 59: 50: 43: 34: 25: 3113:Crisco 1492 3081:Crisco 1492 3048:first image 1519:exceedingly 1444:Jujutacular 1349:Jujutacular 1328:while still 1310:Jujutacular 1077:, and then 1030:Jujutacular 639:, and then 388:Jujutacular 295:Jujutacular 3162:A new idea 2502:age-group: 2359:Importance 2078:Dead links 1757:everything 1533:It didn’t 1112:, that is 33:, that is 2415:help page 2413:(see the 2391:Diversity 2386:: 1 point 2093:Shortcuts 2027:main page 1664:J Milburn 1590:promotion 1539:one month 1508:Not that! 1506:. Oh no! 1276:bobrayner 1110:Main page 995:J Milburn 960:J Milburn 896:would not 829:(∆ here). 694:J Milburn 593:J Milburn 503:(∆ here). 245:Cowtowner 230:Cowtowner 31:Main page 3089:howcheng 3002:howcheng 2958:howcheng 2800:howcheng 2101:WP:TFA/R 2084:Alt text 1979:SMasters 1800:howcheng 1738:howcheng 1681:howcheng 1601:howcheng 1544:“Tough. 1528:multiple 1393:howcheng 1130:enormous 1125:unwise). 1098:Group 25 1092:Group 24 1086:Group 23 1080:Group 22 1074:Group 20 1064:Group 19 872:Group 19 835:. But I 823:‘Tis I, 767:howcheng 665:(*sigh*) 660:Group 25 654:Group 24 648:Group 23 642:Group 22 636:Group 20 622:Group 19 571:howcheng 425:howcheng 101:Ssilvers 87:sleeping 3172:Kaldari 2776:Comment 2626:Support 2421:1 point 2108:WP:TFAR 1211:WP:DICK 1121:status. 1055:nothing 920:pretend 733:current 309:WT:POTD 289:WT:POTD 125:improve 81:flakes. 3109:Oppose 2936:Greg L 2924:highly 2886:(talk) 2848:(talk) 2828:(talk) 2746:(talk) 2715:Oppose 2686:(talk) 2659:Greg L 2607:Oppose 2592:Greg L 2563:Oppose 2542:value. 2490:File:X 2482:File:X 2009:(talk) 1961:Greg L 1903:(talk) 1820:Greg L 1762:Greg L 1627:Greg L 1555:Greg L 1535:always 1427:Greg L 1361:Greg L 1345:Done. 1333:Greg L 1245:Greg L 1215:Greg L 1139:Greg L 1089:, and 1019:oppose 956:before 876:Durova 855:Greg L 787:Greg L 744:Greg L 677:Greg L 651:, and 506:Greg L 399:Greg L 353:Greg L 259:Greg L 196:Greg L 182:(talk) 177:JFitch 131:Greg L 2644:comms 2634:fetch 2546:have. 2513:WP:FP 2486:might 2467:Notes 2398:WP:FP 1949:comms 1939:fetch 1522:Page. 1133:Page. 851:above 846:moved 811:jjron 552:jjron 530:jjron 311:. -- 156:raeky 16:< 3176:talk 3153:talk 3117:talk 3096:chat 3066:4444 3053:ever 3028:talk 3009:chat 2986:talk 2965:chat 2940:talk 2928:must 2904:talk 2880:Tony 2867:talk 2842:Tony 2822:Tony 2807:chat 2784:FIFO 2761:talk 2740:Tony 2724:talk 2700:talk 2680:Tony 2663:talk 2617:talk 2596:talk 2571:talk 2535:here 2433:POTD 2003:Tony 1984:talk 1965:talk 1919:talk 1897:Tony 1878:talk 1863:talk 1839:talk 1824:talk 1807:chat 1766:talk 1745:chat 1725:talk 1704:talk 1688:chat 1668:talk 1660:this 1650:talk 1631:talk 1623:that 1608:chat 1594:POTD 1586:four 1559:talk 1512:good 1494:talk 1479:talk 1459:talk 1431:talk 1400:chat 1380:talk 1365:talk 1337:talk 1280:talk 1249:talk 1234:talk 1219:talk 1186:talk 1160:talk 1143:talk 999:talk 991:have 980:talk 964:talk 946:talk 929:talk 909:talk 901:huge 885:talk 859:talk 815:talk 791:talk 774:chat 759:that 748:talk 715:talk 698:talk 681:talk 672:used 597:talk 578:chat 556:talk 534:talk 510:talk 491:talk 477:talk 449:talk 432:chat 403:talk 372:talk 357:talk 342:talk 326:talk 279:talk 263:talk 249:talk 234:talk 217:talk 200:talk 192:P.S. 135:talk 105:talk 51:many 3061:KDS 2919:in. 2588:and 2584:®™© 1592:to 1469:pro 1320:Hey 1177:and 670:It 627:new 547:cat 317:and 91:and 3178:) 3170:. 3155:) 3119:) 3030:) 2997:. 2988:) 2942:) 2906:) 2869:) 2763:) 2726:) 2702:) 2665:) 2619:) 2598:) 2573:) 2435:: 2417:). 2405:A 2226:: 2162:← 2081:– 2075:– 2069:– 2033:. 1986:) 1967:) 1921:) 1880:) 1865:) 1841:) 1826:) 1768:) 1727:) 1715:me 1706:) 1670:) 1652:) 1633:) 1596:. 1561:) 1542:be 1496:) 1481:) 1461:) 1433:) 1382:) 1367:) 1339:) 1282:) 1251:) 1236:) 1221:) 1175:yd 1162:) 1145:) 1106:is 1071:: 1051:is 1001:) 982:) 966:) 948:) 931:) 911:) 887:) 861:) 837:do 817:) 793:) 750:) 717:) 700:) 683:) 663:. 633:: 611:or 599:) 558:) 550:-- 536:) 526:is 512:) 493:) 479:) 451:) 405:) 374:) 359:) 344:) 315:yd 291:. 281:) 265:) 251:) 236:) 219:) 202:) 137:) 107:) 3174:( 3151:( 3115:( 3098:} 3094:{ 3085:— 3026:( 3011:} 3007:{ 2984:( 2967:} 2963:{ 2938:( 2902:( 2865:( 2809:} 2805:{ 2759:( 2722:( 2698:( 2661:( 2639:· 2631:— 2615:( 2594:( 2569:( 2400:: 2134:e 2127:t 2120:v 2046:X 1982:( 1963:( 1944:· 1936:— 1917:( 1876:( 1861:( 1837:( 1822:( 1809:} 1805:{ 1764:( 1747:} 1743:{ 1723:( 1702:( 1690:} 1686:{ 1666:( 1648:( 1629:( 1610:} 1606:{ 1557:( 1492:( 1477:( 1457:( 1429:( 1402:} 1398:{ 1378:( 1363:( 1335:( 1278:( 1247:( 1232:( 1217:( 1201:( 1180:• 1173:b 1158:( 1141:( 997:( 978:( 962:( 944:( 927:( 907:( 883:( 857:( 813:( 789:( 776:} 772:{ 746:( 728:. 713:( 696:( 679:( 595:( 580:} 576:{ 554:( 532:( 508:( 489:( 475:( 447:( 434:} 430:{ 401:( 370:( 355:( 340:( 320:• 313:b 277:( 261:( 247:( 232:( 215:( 198:( 161:T 149:) 145:( 133:( 103:(

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

Knowledge

talk:Picture of the day/The long queue to POTD on the Main Page - Knowledge

Index