text:
understanding the difference between "decorative" and "illustrative". A close-up shot of cherry-blossom is decorative; a portrait of a famous resident (rather grim-faced) is illustrative.  Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Notable persons of city x list"--images
An editor is maintaining that while it is ok for images to appear in "lists of notable persons of city x" that are independent pages, the images must be deleted if the "list of notable persons of city x" is an embedded list. Please comment here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A1FD:3B7A:A59C:BEF3 (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY and single images
To me, it seems obvious that the problems which led to the adoption of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY would be even more applicable to the selection of a single image to represent a large human population. But I've seen it argued multiple times now that because this guideline (and the RfCs that led to it) were specifically about galleries, they're entirely inapplicable to the replacement of those galleries with individuals. I'm yet to actually see an argument why this is the case, but has there been discussion about this here in the past? Does the guideline need to be updated? — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The closer of the PEOPLEGALLERY RfC,, may be able to answer this. This discussion follows the close of the RfC selecting the lead image at Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion I closed was specific to galleries of images of people, and did not relate to non-gallery images. If the community has ever reached a consensus about non-gallery images of people, then I'm not aware of it.  I am conflicted about the RfC on the lead image of woman, and I elected not to participate because I found a lot of it difficult.  If I were designing an RfC about the image that represents female humanity on en.wiki, there would be more options that show women doing things as opposed to just standing around, more headshots and full-body shots, and at least one of the options that depicts a 21st century white woman (because an all-non-white shortlist looks like the community's decision is being engineered).—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the race selection, one out of the five new photos I found was a white woman, but it did not garner support in pre-RfC discussions. I found it extremely difficult to find good photos, but I did try to look for a variety of women and those options were all I found. One of the only portrait photographers on Flickr who I found who took normal photos of people took a lot of photos of the woman in the current lead image, and I also thought it would be less controversial to not change the "race" from the previous lead image, so it's as if the race had already been decided somewhat by chance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 * To be clear, you are saying that all of the arguments and all of the conflicts and all of the questions which were addressed in the RfC you closed are inapplicable to single images? Or that we must go by the letter of the proposal rather than the spirit? A poor analogy: if there were consensus "that we shouldn't have articles about internet memes" and someone said "you didn't say we shouldn't have one article about an internet meme," I would presume they would be shut down rather quickly. In this case it's even worse, because the reasons behind the initial decision are exacerbated rather than lessened by doing exactly the same thing but with one rather than two+ images. I'd be curious to hear, from S Marshall or anyone else, why -- apart from arguing that the letter of the first proposal said "multiple images" so cannot apply to "one image" -- why the various arguments wouldn't apply to one image? — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Not at all. I'm merely of the view that RfCs should be interpreted narrowly -- a decision made five years ago about galleries shouldn't bind the community's hands on a decision now about a picture of an individual.  I do think that many of the arguments and questions are relevant and should inform our decision, just that they aren't binding.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Such galleries implicitly attempt to represent all women, etc., and unduly focus on race and diversity, whereas a single image fulfills MOS:LEADIMAGE by simply representing an example of the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, while I still think this relies on the letter of the guideline rather than the spirit, but I don't intend to continue pursuing this as long as I'm the only one who sees it that way. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to agree with on this. Specifically, the broadening and application of no ethnic galleries is strange, it's a case of letter versus spirit.
 * When I read through the arguments in these three discussions, they indeed apply even stronger to single images versus collages.
 * I believe it makes sense to apply no ethnic galleries to individual images in the lead, because of the blurring of exactly what is a "single representative example", versus a "gallery / photomontage". A single image can be more than one example. (I discussed this with Kolya and others here). Here are some examples of what I'm referring to:

 * Here we have some people supporting Egypt, at a soccer game.
 * Here we have two examples presented side-by-side of the article's subject.
 * Here we have a couple and child. If these were three separate images photoshopped together, this would be an ethnic gallery. Perhaps it stops being one if the photographer did the arrangement in real life, versus in an editor? WP:OI applies to both the photographer doing the arranging and the editor doing the arranging. ...not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments In both cases of someone doing an intentional arrangement of subjects, it illustrates an unpublished idea that all these people, put together, are a representation of the ethnic group in question.
 * Here we have what appears to be an informal photo of some members of an ethnic group. Another example:
 * Here we have what's clearly a staged and arranged photo from 1910 of some examples of this ethnic group. I feel strongly that this is, in spirit, an ethnic gallery. More examples:
 * For example, if I tried to put File:Habibi2006prצילום חביבי - יוסי צבקר.jpg at the top of an infobox on an ethnic group, people would rightly say that this is WP:GAMING the system because even though it's technically a single image, there are multiple subjects. Just as much as if I tried to use File:Pepole_montage.jpg, just as much as if I tried to use the photomontage template with many individual photos.
 * We could also imagine a gallery of many different photos of the same person. Would that be just one example?
 * I believe it's a misreading against the spirit of noethnicgalleries to say that it literally just means "no galleries". The arguments for diversity suggest we should have no example or examples of the subject promoted as the lead image, and they apply against a real-life staged group photo just as much as an edited montage. The arguments for OR similarly apply: selecting X images to best represent an ethnic group in the lede is exactly as problematic when X is 1 versus 10.
 * See the close from the first linked discussion: The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. If a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation, then one image should be considered even worse.
 * I believe my view here is roughly in line with what's common on such articles. I really had to pore through obscure entries on this page to find my cherry picked cases above. The common ones basically all use an abstract representation such as a flag and/or a population density map of where this ethnic group can be found. (some examples from the most populous countries: X X X X X X X X X X). Leijurv (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Here's a comment that says it better than me from the original RfC: You don't understand, Paine. Inevitably, we cannot post pictures of every woman in existence. Any selection made for this gallery will be coloured by the point-of-view of those doing the selecting, and cannot claim to represent "women" as a category. Wikipedia editors do not get to determine what the "average" woman looks like, or who should represent women as a group. Because the process of selection is so laden with individual opinion, it cannot be said to be in line with our policy on neutral point-of-view, and requires prohibited original research. It is misleading to the reader, does not educate the reader in any way, and only serves to compromise the neutrality of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this comment is fairly representative of the arguments made in the RfC relating to NPOV and OR. I find it strange that people are taking the outcome of that RfC and applying it on Talk:Woman to say that the lead image must be a specific example of a woman and not a collage (instead of alternatives such as an abstract depiction, or perhaps no image at all, as the rest of the article has a fine selection of images). Wikipedia editors do not get to determine what the "average" woman looks like, or who should represent women as a group. It seems like reading the letter of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES has produced an outcome that's the direct opposite of the spirit: they decided to pick a single image of a woman as the lead. Leijurv (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The examples brought up earlier on this page are also good. Consider this case. It isn't technically a gallery, but it is a collection of images of people who are native to that city. The difference is, I suppose, scale. A city versus a country. For lack of a better example, see this page, there's just a procession of images. It isn't really a single "lead" image. It also doesn't feel right to describe this as "the lead image is a gallery". Would something like that be acceptable for an ethnic group? Or is it only okay if the miscellaneous images and examples start strictly after the lead / infobox, such as here or the later sections of this page. This is cited as an example of a correct usage of a gallery, but its a gallery selecting images of specific people that best represent a much larger group. The gallery at the bottom of this section is also an interesting case. When I look back at the original RfCs, they cite constant controversy and argument over two things. First who is eligible to be in the lead (i.e. who is truly a member of the group), such as the referenced argument here about if Mariah Carey counted as African American. Second, separately, which of the eligible photos should be actually used. In that case of human lifecycle, truly anyone can be used, since everyone is human. The human page is probably the only page on the whole site that can't have any issue with the first of those two issues, yet still there are massive arguments about which people should be the lead. This suggests to me that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES has not been effective in this specific way, because people have been exploiting the loophole of "Okay, if I can't have many images, I can still have one image of several people" and no arguments are actually stopped.
 * I am against "partial application" / "loophole application" / "strict by-the-letter application" of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES in which pages that fall under its purview (pages about large subgroups of humanity such as ethnicities) are permitted to have a lead image displaying one or more curated examples of that ethnicity, but not permitted to have more than one image. Per WP:BURO. Either the spirit of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should apply, and we avoid selecting representative lead example(s) of the ethnic group, or the page should be judged to be outside its jurisdiction, and there are no such restrictions. Leijurv (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, see WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:WALLOFTEXT, and also consider that part of the spirit of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIS is that lead image galleries are ugly. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you share why you think that is part of the spirit of MOS:NOETHNIGALLERIES?
 * Comment above: whereas a single image fulfills MOS:LEADIMAGE by simply representing an example of the subject. See the many examples I gave in which one image gives far more than one example of the subject. E.g. a photo with more than one person in it. Leijurv (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe part of the spirit of NOETHNICGALLERIES is that galleries look cluttered, strange, are a distraction, etc. While I disagree with the point you're making about photos which include more than one person, I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment which was meant to be about an image of one person. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When I refer to the "spirit" I am looking at the long discussions (RfCs) behind the guideline, such as by citing specific arguments, and the closing summary. I just searched for words like "ugly" / "clutter" / "distract" and while 1 or 2 people mentioned it, they are in the far minority.
 * While I disagree with the point you're making about photos which include more than one person Could we talk about it? For example I argued that File:Nordic Sami people Lavvu 1900-1920.jpg was for all intents and purposes an ethnic gallery even though it's just one image. Where do you think I went wrong? Leijurv (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That photo is not at all like a gallery; it's one example of a band of Sami people. I'm not sure what your complaint is about having images for these articles. This is normal for an encyclopedia. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * normal for an encyclopedia I agree. My complaint is a relative one: if ethnic galleries are allowed, I have no problem with such an image, if ethnic galleries are disallowed, I consider that image to be a loophole that ought to be plugged. In my view, it's like File:Pepole_montage.jpg: doesn't use the gallery tag / photomontage template, still more than one example, and if someone tried to use it and say it wasn't an ethnic gallery, they would be exploiting a loophole (WP:GAMING).
 * I do agree with your view that an actual gallery/photomontage is uglier than a real-life group photo. Between the two, I would prefer the group photo for that reason. However, when I look at the arguments made in the original RfC, and the complaints of OR / NPOV, there is really no difference between 1 photo of 10 people vs 10 photos of 1 person each. It's still just as much OR to say that these ten examples are representative of this ethnic group, no matter if the selection/arrangement of people was made in real life versus in photoshop. Leijurv (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if the person doing the Photoshop is a Wikipedian. Your argument sounds a bit WP:POINTY. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ?? I am doing no such thing. Making a point by describing a hypothetical on a talk page is one thing, perfectly allowed. If I had actually edited these pages in mainspace, that would be another thing. Please look at the bottom section of the page you just linked: WP:NOTPOINTy.
 * Only if the person doing the Photoshop is a Wikipedian. No, I don't think that's right. Many of our photographers are wikipedians themselves, that doesn't devalue their contributions by making them OR/OI. For example Maasai people's photo was taken by a wikipedian, User:Helga76. This doesn't make the photo itself WP:OR. If the photo had been taken by a non-Wikipedian and uploaded to Flickr or something, then copied to Wikimedia, that obviously changes nothing. Would it be OR if we imagine that Helga actually went there in real life, gathered together these people, and took a group photo of them? Helga is deciding who is in the photo. Why would it become OR if Helga went there in real life, took their photos individually, and photoshopped together this image? Helga is still deciding who is in the photo. When a photo is obviously staged, such as the Sami people, we know the photographer is making such a decision, no? Leijurv (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do feel like it's a bit stupid if that having an image of a group of many different people together is allowed, while having a collage or gallery of people aren't. I do agree galleries do look ugly, but banning them and not one photo that serves an almost identical purpose doesn't seem to make sense. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 20:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some past discussion on this topic:  Specifically, it's a real shame that  didn't have any conclusion / close. In that discussion, I see a number of editors concurring that the actual RfC underlying NOETHNICGALLERIES has editors making arguments against individual images just as much as galleries. Here's one example: looking at the current wording of how those closes were rendered into MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, there is is a separate question of whether that wording seems to capture the use of single images in the same context for which galleries are disallowed--and whether I think the editors who supported the consensus position in those discussions were indicating support for the ban to include such single images. As to that question, I have to say yes. In other words, while I disagree that the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES language is advisable, so long as it is official style guidance, I believe single images used for the same purpose are covered under it, implicitly if not explicitly. I think all of the participants of the original discussion probably would have voted in more or less the same manner if the original discussion had expressly inquired about singular images in addition galleries and that this is to some extent captured in the arguments of some there. Leijurv (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in response in that discussion, if we could not use single images in that context then by that logic we shouldn't use single images for Breast, Nursing, and Professor, or countless other articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I think you might be misinterpreting it? Your "by that logic" isn't quite right. The problem with ethnic groups is that they have special sensitivities and controversies. This is why collages are specifically banned for ethnic groups. Those examples you listed aren't ethnic groups, so there's no way to "by that logic" apply ethnic group arguments to them. In fact, lead image no ethnic galleries specifically says: This does not apply to articles about things such as body parts or haircuts. So the example of Breast is in the clear; it could use either one. Nursing and Professor are both jobs. The article is about the job. The article is not about the group of people who are currently doing that job. I imagine that the exception e.g. for haircuts is because it's unproblematic to show examples of a haircut. Nearly anyone could get that haircut then get a photo taken of it. There's not really as much room for argument on what "counts" or what's the "best" example of that haircut. Leijurv (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're discussing using the logic of the RfC guidance beyond the letter of the policy, that's why I said "by that logic" it would end up ruling out single images at those articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mm, I'm not sure. I'm discussing the logic of the RfC guidance where it applies, to groups of humans. That was the scope of the RfC, so it's reasonable to interpret it as applied to that scope. Once you move to a different kind of article, I'm not so sure anymore.
 * Isn't it kind of evidence that I'm right about this that most ethnic groups don't have a single photo of member(s) of the group in the lead, yet many unrelated articles do have a single example photo in the lead? Leijurv (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead images for trans people
When a trans person publicly transitions, there is often debate about what to do with the "lead image" in the infobox. Typically there is no post-transition photo legally available to substitute, at least not right away, so the old pre-transition photo is kept in place. I feel this is not (as MOS:LEADIMAGE puts it) an "appropriate representation" of them: It's not who they are now. In individual cases, I've argued – and found consensus support – that pre-transition photos simply be removed from infoboxes, leaving them without a photo until a suitably licensed post-transition photo is available. (Wendy Carlos is camera shy and there simply are no post-transition photos we can use. Only one of the Wachowskis has been widely photographed since her transition. Elliot Page is a recent example that I think will soon be resolved with a new photo, but not yet.) This is implicitly supported here by MOS, saying that it's OK not to have an image. But I think it would be helpful to spell it out as a standard procedure, like changing pronouns throughout the article is spelled out by MOS:GENDERID. Note: I'm not suggesting that all pre-transition images be removed – they are history and generally should not be erased – just the special case of the "lead image", which is supposed to present living people in their current appearance. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for opening this discussion; it's certainly a topic we should be thinking carefully about. I think consensus may often find removing the lead option to be the best option in these sorts of scenarios, but as far as creating more generalized guidance, I see a few possible wrinkles. First, not all transitions involve a change from a more masculine to feminine appearance or vice versa; sometimes the person was already presenting in a way that signaled their upcoming transition, and sometimes their transition does not entail a significant change in their appearance. If they have not commented or appeared in public extensively immediately after their transition, figuring out if this is the case can be subjective and tricky. Second, it's not actually true that our lead image is supposed to represent people in their current appearance—I brought up that specific question to try to seek consensus at this discussion, and wasn't able to find any. This introduces possible recentism concerns that have to be weighed, although I think in many cases those concerns may be outweighed. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 18:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can point to the case of Maddy Thorson whom we had a picture of them pre-trans (they were notable prior to transition) but which the image didn't properly reflect that. However, as they were not a public individual, in contrast to Elliot Page, it makes sense that we can take out the older image without little harm to the reader. In the case of Elliot, I would agree using pre-transition images for the infobox would be wrong, but we should not avoid using pre-transition images elsewhere in the article, as long as it is fully clear when they were taken relative to the transition time. --M asem (t) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are trans people who don't substantially change their appearance. But for cases in which someone states "This is my name now, and this is what I look like now, because this is who I am," continuing to use an outdated infobox image should be actively discouraged, by stating that no image is better than an image that misgenders them. MOS:GENDERID pretty directly states that we respect people's current gender identity, and lead images are part of that. I think we need to make that clear. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead image for works of art
I have always interpreted "appropriate representations of the topic" from MOS:LEADIMAGE to mean the image should be the object (in case of a painting or other artwork), book cover, movie poster, title card, etc., but not an image of the author/director/composer, etc. I think this is evidenced in many thousands of articles. When I found a series of operas by Daron Hagen with an image of Hagen, I removed them. objected saying this is common in opera articles and reverted me (short discussion here). MB 02:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS guidelines for a collage as the lead image / infobox image
I propose some language be added to MOS:LEADIMAGE to clarify the status of collages as a lead image / infobox image. Currently, we just have a bullet point stating that this is prohibited when the subject of the article is a group of humanity (MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES). It reads as if this is an exception to an unstated rule relating to collages. I believe we should bring the de-facto status of collages in the infobox from that unstated rule to a simple guideline in the MOS for lead images.

I see this as a bit of "catch-up" with what the community has been following for the last few years. In other words, this is already what people are doing.

(I am using "collage" as a catch-all term for a photomontage, gallery, collage, or any other way of putting many different examples into the lead image.)

I think this is worth discussing as a MOS issue because the consensus has changed on this issue over time. The MOS is written as if the choice is between showing one representative example of the article subject, or showing none (or something else entirely). In reality, while many articles about diverse subject matter (e.g. Plant, Animal, etc) used to have just one arbitrary example, they have moved to collages of many examples. I wrote more in depth about this shift over the last decade± here.

I want to plug this gap in the MOS so that it can be a more robust guideline for the many articles that have collages in the infobox currently, so my idea below for the specific sentence is far from set in stone and I'd love to to discuss or refine the wording.

Articles about human groups specifically would be unchanged by this proposal, and still governed by MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES of course. Therefore, I propose some language along the lines of the following be added to that bullet point in MOS:LEADIMAGE:

 * In articles where the subject matter has significant visually apparent diversity, it is sometimes reasonable to have the lead image show multiple examples of the subject, to illustrate its variety better than a single example can. For example, Plant or Animal. However, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, using photomontages or a gallery of images of group members should be avoided in articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations. This does not apply to articles about things such as body parts or haircuts.

Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lead image at Human, you argued that "a collage is simply better than a single person or pair of people...we have an opportunity to improve the representation of the diversity of humanity from a single pair of people to perhaps a dozen or more." This seems to contradict what you're arguing for now. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the contradiction is between that and what I wrote here? Here, I am suggesting that we "fill in the gap" by explaining the guideline that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is an exception to. While I do, in general, think collages can help an article, I respect the consensus and collective wisdom of the community that it's a problematic huge can of worms when it comes to groups of humans (per WP:FENCE). Therefore, I am not in any way attempting to overturn MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. What I didn't change my mind about since that diff you linked is collages in general, excluding groups of humans, which is what this proposal is about. Leijurv (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You argued in favor of a collage for the Human infobox because "there is great visually apparent variety among humans", and here you're using "visually apparent diversity" as a criteria for using collages. Anyway, it is already implied that collages are permitted for infoboxes excluding humans. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believed then, and I believe today, that galleries can make sense to illustrate articles that have "visually apparent variety". I used that phrase there, and here. "variety" is a near-synonym for "diversity" in this context. I'm unsure why you think saying that same thing twice is a contradiction? In that diff you linked, my argument included a position that the Human article did not fall under MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to begin with. This avoids the contradiction entirely. I'd love to discuss that more with you over on Talk:Human, but for this particular discussion can it be on the wording of MOS:LEADIMAGE? I listed this on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style so I don't want to waste people's time with potential inconsistencies between what I've said here vs there.
 * Anyway, it is already implied that collages are permitted for infoboxes excluding humans. I agree that this is the current consensus, broadly. But what's written on this page is clunky, and doesn't summarize that consensus well at all. It simply doesn't mention galleries except for one case where they aren't allowed. The bullet point about humans is essentially "But galleries are not okay for human groups". It's missing a first half; it's an exception in search of a rule. So I'm suggesting "Galleries can make sense to illustrate diverse subject matter, but not for human groups due to consensus against ethnic galleries". But as I said above, I'm of course open to any alternate wording if you'd like to suggest some. Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Galleries aren't just used to illustrate diverse subjects. For example, they're often used for cities because cities often aren't easily recognizable in a single image. I don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to describe all circumstances where collages/galleries may be allowed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, nearly every page on a city has a collage as the infobox image. I would say that the reason is that you can't encapsulate what the city is like from a single image, imagine trying to do that for New York City. I do think NYC is a diverse subject, by the way. But even if it weren't, this guideline isn't meant to be a "these are the ONLY cases in which you can use galleries", but rather a "galleries are commonly used in this way. (but you can't use them for ethnic groups)". I think that it's a gap in this page that it doesn't mention collages at all, except for one narrow case where they are prohibited. Maybe you have a suggestion on how to make this proposal more helpful? It might need to be broader... how would you describe what pages with infobox galleries generally have in common? I don't think the guideline needs to describe 100% of the circumstances where galleries can make sense in order to be helpful, maybe just 90%. Maybe: in order for it to make sense for cities, something like: In articles where the subject matter contains significant visually apparent diversity, it can be reasonable to have the lead image show multiple instances or views of the subject, to illustrate its variety better than a single example can. (I changed up a few words with the thought of making it apply to NYC.) Or, rewriting it from scratch: It is generally acceptable for the lead image to show many examples or angles of the subject, if those examples illustrate the variety across the subject matter better than a single example could. Leijurv (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, the issue with cities is recognizabililty, not diversity. Actually New York City is easily recognizable in a single image. Anyway, see WP:BLOAT. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ?? Yes, I agree that from that single image, you could recognize New York City quite easily. Yet the NYC article has a gallery anyway. So the reason for the gallery is probably not recognizability, but rather to show to the reader what the city is like, to do it justice. There are probably many cities that you could recognize from a single well-chosen image (e.g. Paris, London), yet nearly every single article on a city has a collage. Thank you for linking BLOAT, but also see WP:NOTCREEP. With respect to the 3 listed items under #Prevention on that page: 1&2. There is an issue with misinterpretations of when galleries are acceptable. For example, Talk:Woman linked several times to Talk:Human/FAQ, despite that FAQ using outdated and incorrect examples (from 2009). That FAQ would be better if it made an argument based on MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES rather than an argument against collages in general, since clearly, today, many articles use collages and it works just fine. We can clear up this misinterpretation: By picking just one example, we leave space for showing important details of that example which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos. This is why the overwhelming majority of articles covering diverse subject matters do not employ collages. What a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. 3. That's why I'm discussing it with you (and hopefully others) and making changes based on that. I want to judge consensus and abide by it on this issue. From my perspective it seems clear that collages have become so common that it's now reasonable to discuss them in this guideline page, and unreasonable to suggest that a collage is generally inferior to a single example for "articles covering diverse subject matters", but I want to hear other opinions too. Since this is broader than Talk:Human, I came here. Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the problem is that Talk:Human FAQ is out of date, the solution is to update the FAQ. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree in this case. Talk:Human/FAQ is not a guideline, and it shouldn't be treated as one. It is being treated as one and cited on an unrelated page, in my opinion, because there is no MOS guideline on the lead image potentially being a collage. If we write something neutral and simple in MOS:LEADIMAGE about collages, it will save editors time in the future as they will know where to look, rather than having to hunt down an obscure FAQ to get the current consensus argument. For example: It is generally acceptable for the lead image to show many examples or angles of the subject, if those examples illustrate the variety across the subject matter better than a single example could. But, per NOETHNICGALLERIES, etc etc .... Since we already have on this page Strive for variety., this would naturally build off that (MOS:IRELEV). Leijurv (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Human FAQ was cited as the reasoning for choosing an image at Woman, not as a guideline, and those articles are certainly related. I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse here. If this MOS is updated, the Human FAQ will need to be updated for consistency, but if you feel that the FAQ are currently out of date, that should be the place to start. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just brought that up as an example of why an actual guideline could be helpful. I don't mean that literally someone said "Talk:Human/FAQ is a Wikipedia guideline saying this", I meant in the sense of that FAQ was cited as an argument in another page (the informal meaning of "guideline" not the "Wikipedia meaning"). if you feel that the FAQ are currently out of date, that should be the place to start Um? That is where I started, you were there. :) And I will return there and continue that push if this discussion here comes to a more general community consensus that collages are "generally okay". While we both agree that collages are permitted for infoboxes excluding humans, the argument made on Talk:Human/FAQ is against collages in general. By picking just one example, we leave space for showing important details of that example which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos. This is why the overwhelming majority of articles covering diverse subject matters do not employ collages. What a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. I only want to change that if there is broader consensus. I think there is that consensus, due to the shifts since 2009 when that FAQ was written, but might as well be sure. And also, I don't even think that this proposal in the MOS would necessarily affect Human. While I've argued that NOETHNICGALLERIES probably shouldn't apply to Human, you and others disagree. Therefore, that FAQ might still make the same directional argument, just based on different points. In my ideal world, on that other RfC, they could have pointed to MOS:LEADIMAGE which clearly would have stated that collages are generally okay, but with an exception for human groups. Then there would be no ambiguity, confusion, or need to cite another article's FAQ for a general anti-collage argument. It would be clear that a collage is against consensus for that page. Leijurv (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello good day! i just read the Rfc here,WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES and the discussion here and now here. I want to weigh in on this matter, this can be lengthy.Definitions of Collages and Photomontages ●Photomontage: according to google(oxford languages) is A montage constructed from photographic images and The technique of constructing a photomontage. In the section  Collage a collage made from photographs, or parts of photographs, is called photomontage. According to main article Photomontage is the process and the result of making a composite photograph by cutting, gluing, rearranging and overlapping two or more photographs into a new image. In the section Photomontage different techniques  are discussed, a collage art form is one of them. ●Collage: according to google(oxford languages) is A piece of art made by sticking various different materials such as photographs and pieces of paper or fabric onto a backing.,  The art of making collages and   a collection or combination of various things. Examples: This collage File:Amharapeople.jpg consist of six images. File:King Sahla Sellase colour.jpg  was originally a 1845 illustration in a French magazine. A illustration is usually not a photograph.  File:Lebna Dengel.png was originally a contemporary 16th century painting by Italian painter Cristofano dell'Altissimo.  File:Téwodros II - 2.jpg appears in a 1998 French journal as a illustration, it's exact origin is not known. File:Ethiopia empress zauditu.jpg  is a old photograph, exact date is unknown. File:Selassie.jpg is a photograph from the 1930's. File:Menelik II - 4.jpg is a photograph from the late 19th or early 20th century. In real life situation, if i assembled 2 illustrations(drawings for example), a painting and 3 photographs on a backing board i would be looking at a collage.
 * Hoewever i noticed(at least here on wikipedia) that there's no clear distinction between a photomontage(which is a form of collage) and a regular collage. See Collage. In the last sentence it says The current trend is to create pictures that combine painting, with a source(reliable or not)? theatre, illustration and graphics in a seamless photographic whole.(unsourced) Just based on that last sentence, a couple of questions arises! Is the photomontages art form no longer different from regular collages? Is the last sentence of the photomontage section correct or incorrect? Is it properly sourced? Or are the claimed current trends really a seperate art form or belonging to another art form of collages? Emphasizing the distinction between photomontages and a general collage, and updating the guideline in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES with clear wording in what is and what's absolutely not allowed will help users in avoid unneccessary edit conflicts over collages and photomontages.
 * Suggestions/ideas: ●How about seeing whether there's community consensus in banning all images in lead images of large groups(regardless of whether it's a collage consisting of images originally from paintings, illustrations etc) Just ban all ethnic images in lead image. In that regard we need to beter define what and when a people group is considered large, and what about group photos for example Thai people?. ●Differentiate better in guidelines the difference between photomontagne and collage, and find community consensus in what is and what's not allowed. ● Or explore whether there's a change in the community regarding lead images, for example collages consisting of old images, with persons who already passed away or any other idea brought forward in a new discussion. Tried to keep it short xd Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was speaking generally about all possible ways of showing many people in the lead image, ranging all the way from a group photo to a group painting to a collage to anything. As I said: (I am using "collage" as a catch-all term for a photomontage, gallery, collage, or any other way of putting many different examples into the lead image.) So I'll reply to the second part.
 * How about seeing whether there's community consensus in banning all images in lead images of large groups I could support this, for consistency with MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That is what is under discussion in the section above in . I would rephrase it to specifically something like . For example, I think File:Human.png should be allowed as the lead of Human, because it isn't a real photo of people, but rather a stylized representation. However, I don't think this would succeed. There was just recently a big discussion at Talk:Woman about the lead image of Woman, and one of the options on the table was to have no image at all, and the community did not pick that option. But who knows, perhaps a broader discussion about the MOS would come to a different conclusion than the specific page Talk:Woman.
 * Differentiate better in guidelines the difference between photomontagne and collage, and find community consensus in what is and what's not allowed. Maybe. The differences seem slight to me, but I can't say definitively.
 * Or explore whether there's a change in the community regarding lead images This is certainly true. The consensus in the broader community about lead images and collages has certainly changed over time, to be more in favor of collages. I wrote up an example of that here (tldr excerpt: All of these things used to be true. It just seems that in the broader community, the consensus has moved away from arbitrary single images to represent a wide/diverse variety of subjects, and towards collages.) I think it could be worth bringing up a RfC and citing WP:CCC. That's more or less what I'm trying to do here in this section: write something in the MOS about how collages are Really Not That Bad Of An Idea for a lead image. :)
 * Tried to keep it short xd Yeah, I know how that goes :) Leijurv (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Photomontage in Amhara people and WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES
The RfC made it clear that by "galleries" participants intended to include photomontages or collages representing people claimed to be of X ethnicity or nationality. So this should not be allowed. (t · c)  buidhe  00:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Again in the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES it explicitly states photomontage and galleries. The status of collage in lead images is ambigious at best and still under discussion, i have read the Rfc and and a 2019 Rfc here and a ongoing discussion here section; MOS guidelines for a collage as the lead image / infobox image and there is no consensus reached yet, since there were also particpants against including collages. You claimed a clear community consensus and expanded the defintion of montage to collage in general, which i object to, and others pointed out in discussions. should be allowed until a consensus is reached, and not by your expanded definition of montage to include collage in general. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 * For context, I pointed Dawit here from the Teahouse, here. The gist of what I said was While I personally believe that your example File:Amharapeople.jpg is no different from the lead image of Sámi people in terms of "how much of an ethnic gallery" it is, others may disagree. Sorry I can't say anything more concrete, but the community doesn't have a strong consensus on this specific edge case currently. My opinion is I think it's a loophole that the Sami page is seen as more acceptable than Amharapeople. This is/was being discussed earlier on this page in and . I hope further clarity can be reached for this guideline, because I believe the current status quo is a little incoherent / unevenly applied. Leijurv (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a novel interpretation of NOETHNICGALLERIES. Similar images to this "collage" have been (correctly!) removed from other articles, for example Armenians based no NOETHNICGALLERIES. Why should Amhara people get an exception to the rule? (t · c)  buidhe  01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm suggesting that the current status quo is a little incoherent / unevenly applied. Myself and others are trying to get more clarification, both here and in previous sections, about single images that are nevertheless group photos, showing off many examples of people supposedly belonging to the ethnic group.
 * To be clear, we are in agreement: I defer to the wisdom of the greater community in the NOETHNICGALLERIES RfC, so between "both are okay" and "neither are okay" I'm proposing the latter. For example, I'm suggesting that the lead image of Sámi people for all intents and purposes is a violation of NOETHNICGALLERIES. Leijurv (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is actually a great example of the "unevenness" that I perceive: it's so clear to everyone that a collage should be banned when the policy just prohibits photomontage or gallery of images and says nothing about collages, yet the extension to a real-life group photo, where a photographer has arranged and selected members of the ethnic group to create an illustration of the group, is not similarly prohibited. Clearly, to say that collages are also prohibited, we are already delving beyond the actual letter of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and into the spirit behind it, which I interpret to be those RfCs and more recent discussions and clarifications. Leijurv (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The collage in question is literally a photomontage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret "photomontage" to mean the Wikipedia sense of Template:Photomontage. The collage in question certainly looks like that template, but it isn't literally. Perhaps it should be interpreted as the common usage outside of Wikipedia, Photomontage. I don't think the image in question looks like any of those on that article, because it isn't meant to be a composite. (again, to be clear, as I said earlier, between "both are okay" and "neither are okay" I'm proposing the latter I don't think that this image ought to be the lead of that article. Here I'm highlighting what I see as unevenness in letter versus spirit of the guideline.) Leijurv (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kolya Butternut according to you and which policy? Can you tell the difference between a collage and a montage in real life? Where is the guideline that distinguishes photomontage and collages? A combination of photographs, paint and illustrations would be considered a collage and not a photomontage. Or does every image you upload on wikipedia become applicable to photomontage? @Leijurv going beyond the actual letter and into the spirit behind it looks more like a excuse to invite freewheeling users to expand photomontage to collages in general. The actual letter should have precedent over the Wild West interpretations of some editors. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think we agree on this specific point :) I think I am one of those freewheeling Wild West editors who would like to actually expand MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to include more scenarios. I believe these scenarios fall under the original spirit of the guideline and the RfCs behind it, but they've been twisted over the years since then by following the letter of the rule and not the spirit. (however, I haven't made a single edit to mainspace in favor of this, I've just been talking it over on talk pages to see if there is consensus) Leijurv (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there's a difference between wanting to change/expand the guideline, which i also sugessted. Very different from claiming to have community consensus and expanding photomontage to collage in general, when it's clearly not in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I think the community need to be asked again on this, rather than have select users expand terms for other users when there's no actual policy(what i mean by freewheeling users). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LOCATION with hatnotes
I'd like to open a discussion regarding the placement of images at the top of a section in relation to hatnotes (e.g., ). The instructions say to place the hatnote first, then the image file, then the text, but I often find there is a better display when the image is placed first, and then the hatnote; the hatnote appears next to the image, sharing a top corner. However, this is the opposite of what the instructions say, and I usually don't realize I'm doing it until afterward (example: this edit to Adventure game § Visual novel).

Aside from the overall layout of articles (per MOS:ORDER), what is the reason for specifying that sections that begin with images should place hatnotes first, then the image, rather than the other way around? If there isn't a specific reason against occasionally reversing the order, then I would like to suggest including circumstantial exceptions for improved display. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed MOS update
To further clarify the kinds of images that are appropriate for lead images, I propose the addition of these two bullets after the first existing bullet in MOS:LEADIMAGE. I believe this does not deviate from common practice but will provide better guidance.

 * Lead images for biographies should be of the person, not something associated with the person. The image can be a photograph, painting, sketch, sculpture, or other depiction. Grave markers or other memorials showing only the person's name should be avoided. An associated image (e.g. building designed by an architect, book written by an author, etc.) should not be used as the lead image if no appropriately-licensed image of the person is available. Such an image can certainly be used elsewhere in the article, especially when the work is notable and discussed in the article.
 * Lead images for works of art creative works should be of the type most commonly used as illustrations for the type of work. For example, articles on books are most commonly illustrated with an images of first-edition book covers; plays, movies, TV shows are commonly illustrated with posters and title cards. The most natural image for a painting or sculpture is an image of the object itself. If a appropriately-licensed image is not available, do not use an image of the author/artist/creator/director/etc. as, except for exceedingly famous individuals, most readers will not associate the image with the work and will not have visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. MB 01:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.
 * "Grave markers or other memorials showing only the person's name should be avoided, [add] unless no image of the person, or eg a work by them, is available".
 * No I mean follow the sentence from MOS:IMAGEQUALITY - "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone". MB 03:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably you meant "An associated image (e.g. building designed by an architect, book written by an author, etc.) should not only be used as the lead image if no appropriately-licensed image of the person is available." The sentence following this is redundant.
 * No, same as above - only use photo of the person. MB 03:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "creative works" is the proper, wider term (not "works of art"). I'd drop the last sentence entirely.
 * I put in creative works. I think the last sentences is important because it ties this back into the lead paragraph of the section - it is the reason not to use anything but a photo of the person. MB 03:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, oppose all then. Much too prescriptive. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is say what? WP:TALKO-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the changes. An image of a person is great for a biography, but if we don't have one, the person's work is also fine. An image of a work is fine, let's say for an opera, but if we don't have one, an image of the creator is also fine. Until recently, it was even common for operas to come with a sidebar showing the same image of the composer for all his operas. Current opera articles say "Opera" above that image (example Ricciardo e Zoraide), so there should be no confusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed changes, per Gerda Arendt and Johnbod.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sketches, drawings or paintings as photograph substitutes
What is the policy on using self-made sketches / drawings / paintings of notable people or fictional characters in films / TV in their articles when there is no corresponding photo available?  Jay (Talk) 06:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hostile. Many of these have been deleted. Usually the quality is terrible, and/or they are derivative works from copyright images, so have issues there. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. But policy-wise, if the copyright is proper (not derived from a photo) there is no restriction right?  Jay (Talk)

Low-quality images of living people
An editor has been adding low-quality images of living people to various biographies and articles. There is currently a discussion at Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Washington. Your input is appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Only one image in the lead?
According to Manual_of_Style/Images "it is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image". Is this to be interpreted as "the lead should contain not more than one image"? Is there any problem with two images as e.g. in Swimming? Question is motivated by this image removal. --KnightMove (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I interpret that section to be stating criteria for selection of the lead image, i.e. the image in the infobox, or for articles without an infobox, the first image normally at the top of the article ("perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye). There is no reason why there can't be additional images in the "lead" section. MB 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - I have reverted that edit at Twin. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Appropriateness of an image
There is a content dispute regarding the appropriateness of an image at Talk:Minneapolis. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Belize Defence Force
There is a content dispute regarding on the usage of image2 parameter on infobox in Talk:Belize Defence Force. Your comments would be welcome. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Images which include an advertisement for the photographer watermarked on them
(apologies for duplicating this on several talk pages that don't see a lot of traffic, because I don't know which one is most likely to get a response)

has a watermark on it that advertises the photographer and his website. I didn't delete it because it IS a really great picture, but I'm asking if that watermark is an acceptable element when it's on the Venice article. Alternately, would it be permissible to crop that top 3% of the photo and use that one instead? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * It's always permissible to crop a photo for any reason. I would just do that. MB 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * There are several open source image manipulation programs to help remove a watermark. GIMP and IrfanView are good for photos, and Shortcut for video.  When uploading, be sure to mention the other file, and credit the source. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, you already did the work for me! thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What defines a "rainbow flag"?
The article rainbow flag displays various images. Which of those are rainbow, which are flags, and which images should the article display?

Comments requested on two issues: and
 * Which flag in lead?
 * Propose to delete items on list

I realize that this is an image-focused noticeboard. Feel free to comment without examining the sources and focusing on the images, but if you like, review whatever you like and comment how you like.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  17:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style/Images
The section offers two separate paragraphs on GIF images.

Quote:
 * GIF images with a frame size larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) cannot currently be displayed in thumbnail form in Wikipedia articles. A thumbnail of a GIF image can be considerably larger in kilobytes than the original image file.
 * Animated GIF images have a few additional restrictions. Images larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) currently will only show the first frame of the animation in a thumbnail. When not using a GIF animation at its original frame size, consider creating an Ogg Theora movie of the animation.

The first sentences of both paragraphs seem to contradict each other in that a thumbnail either cannot be displayed versus only the first frame can be displayed.

And why would a "thumbnail of a GIF image" "be considerably larger in kilobytes than the original image file"? And if this is correct why would it matter whether the size is given in kilobytes or in another format?

Also it would be interesting to know why a "GIF animation not at its original frame size" should preferably be transformed into an "Ogg Theora movie". Is it easier to reduce the file size when creating an Ogg movie than compressing the GIF animation? Also it might be helpful to name software which could be used to create Ogg movies.

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

PS: Is it generally possible to add images to the immediate left of an infobox? Some articles contain very long infoboxes which apparently makes it impossible to place images within the introduction or next to the table of contents.

Images on the right...again
I am seeking clarification to resolve a content dispute about right-aligning images at Minneapolis.

My concern is identical to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 10, which was discussed by.

MOS:IMAGELOC states: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." It also states: "Multiple images can be staggered right and left."

An easy fix would be: "When it is not possible to align all images on the right, then multiple images can be staggered right and left."

The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you'll ever find a full consensus, unless you want to attempt a several-option RfC. I am in the camp that I have seen many FA reviewers in - that staggering all images between the left and right sides, in general, leads to the best layout. Some people prefer most images on the right. I believe the MOS is written to accommodate both camps, though it's also sufficiently vague to lead both to be unhappy when disputes arise. ɱ  (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If accessibility is a top concern of editors at the article then as per the note "A consistent left margin creates a stable anchor for tracking through lines of text making it more readable / accessible." That seen most articles do go back and forth as styling usually overtakes accessibility as long as text is not being sandwiched. Many FA articles like Canada do there best to make accessibility a priority over styling. As an Mos recommendation these things are not set in stone and many times boil down to consensus at the article level. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the part of MOS:IMAGELOC that says images should not be left of section heading/bullet points, etc. that should all be left aligned. The second part also says that images should be in the "most relevant section" which causes some editors to place them on the left. I am OK with images on the left that don't interfere with the next section header. The big problem I see with all of this is there is no consideration the screen width. I recently moved all the images in an article to a gallery at the end. They were all on the right, after a long infobox in a short article, and had extended down into the ref section on my display which is relatively wide. I prefer that to minimize scrolling. But this was reverted by someone who said that on a mobile device/very narrow screen, the images were all in the relevant sections, and that most readers are on mobile today. So without picking a aspect ratio or viewing device that we consider optimal, I don't see any way forward. MB 20:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Galleries are the worst thing for accessibility. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur. Also, if the stack of photos is longer than the article text (allowing for screen differences, then there are too many photos, and some should be removed. BilCat (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No change to MOS, please. Minneapolis has had left/right image layout for fifteen years since it passed FA in 2007. Magnolia677's changes today were disruptive and were reverted. Moxy, SandyGeorgia and others have done a good job fixing MOS:SANDWICH over time. Several images have been removed to enhance accessibility which should be our primary consideration. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Yup last thing anyone wants is the accessibility nightmare seen at New York City. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Do trans people, or LGBTQ+ people more widely, count as "similarly large human populations" for the purposes of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY?
Title says it all here. This revert of my edit on trans woman has prompted the discussion. I would have thought the obvious answer would have been yes - many of the issues relating to the ethnic group discussion would also apply here - but willing to see the other side of the coin here if editors disagree. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Notifying the editor who reverted my edits for their views. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks QueenofBythnia, and as I noted, I don't really disagree with your analysis, but I think it's a contentious enough call that it bears discussion before making the change. I understand the generalized concerns about WP:OR in such galleries, but for my money, that's a bit overblown--there will always be some level of editorial discretion involved in article design and layout.  I guess I tend to agree that we should forego the gallery in favor of the individual pictures included, but I will also post this discussion at the article's talk page as well.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I was just about to post this on the talk page! And I agree that it's good to get community consensus for these changes. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alerting, , , , , , , , and  to this. As contributors to a talk page discussion from June-September 2021 (that I was previously unaware of) regarding lead images on the article - where it seems like this guideline was brought up - I would appreciate their thoughts. QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the consensus guideline is no galleries for large groups of people, then trans women definitely fall under that. But I would say that the same reasons why galleries don't work - because it's just going to create endless debate over who to put in the gallery - equally (if not more) applies to the situation the page is in now, with an image of just a single person, and so I'd vote in favour of removing the lead image altogether. NHCLS (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the Trans Woman talk page, I doubt any single image or gallery will make everyone happy. I don't have a strong opinion on the question here of whether galleries of LGBTQ+ people are appropriate in general. Funcrunch (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Remove gallery For all the reasons this does not work with other large groups of people, this photo montage does not work here. Anyone who feels otherwise should say why the normal rule does not apply here.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove gallery per Bluerasberry. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove gallery I don't particularly agree with the guidance, but it is the governing consensus, and unambiguously applies here.--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would second that I don't agree with the guideline, but it's what we got. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove gallery per MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY Meters (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove gallery - yes, the existing community consensus clearly applies to LGBTQ groups as well. Crossroads -talk- 01:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove gallery we had a decade of debates over this that has somewhat ended because of our rule. Figuring out who is representative of a group is nearly impossible. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

image_size in an infobox
I've just came across MOS:IMGSIZE when it was mentioned in a TfD discussion and was wondering if an image_size parameter in an infobox (in this situation, Infobox television) should be deprecated and eventually removed in favor of image_upright? Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym, it's probably time to start thinking about a migration pathway but much more broadly. The thing is that there are a lot of templates that do not expose the upright parameters from the InfoboxImage module. (Infobox hospital, on which the current TVS/WPRS templates were based, does not support this.) This would be something good for WikiProject Infoboxes to handle project-wide. A script could also conceivably be run if done right. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * God yes, PLEASE. For years I've struggled to figure out which infoboxes accommodate  upright somehow, and via what surprising syntax. EEng 23:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If anything is done project-wide, I recall a discussion somewhere in the past year about how image_upright is a very poor name... MB 23:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, upright (in the basic image syntax) was a completely stupid choice too, but I fear we're stuck with it. It's just one of those dumb things people have to get used to. EEng 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Description of upright parameter in MOS:IMGSIZE is confusing
I find MOS:IMGSIZE to be confusing. The reason is that this section treats 220px as a reference point, while also stating that we should not specify pixels directly. Using the conversion given, I gleaned the following rough guidelines for my own notes. I’m guessing some other users would find this quick-summary helpful too. If my notes are roughly correct, can something like this be included in MOS:IMGSIZE? Perhaps as a table? GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 18:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most images: upright=1
 * Lead: upright=1.35 max
 * Fine detail: upright = 1.8 max
 * Simple image such as flag: upright = 0.7
 * Panorama: upright = 2.5

MOS:SEEIMAGE
This section says to avoid referring as an image as being to the left or right and to Instead, use captions to identify images.

Is that recommending to use captions such as "Figure 1" and reference them in the article text? Or is it saying to write captions in such a way that the text never needs to remind the reader to look at the adjacent image? Lord Belbury (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think first of all it is saying "use captions", which nowadays most editors don't need to be told. Don't just refer to an uncaptioned image. Things like "Figure 1" should be used very sparingly, mostly for scientific-type articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking towards the text
Manual currently sez:
 * It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text....

It continues with very sensible advice not to mirror-reflect images to get this effect. But do we really want to reinforce this, IMHO, rather silly preoccupation in the MOS? I propose replacing "[i]t is often preferable" with "[s]ome prefer", acknowledging and not disparaging the preference but not stating it as a general aesthetic goal. Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Implemented — subject of course to review by others. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, & will restore the old text, pending actual consensus on this. You only waited 51 minutes I see! Imo, "is often preferable" is if anything too mild. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Preference for recent photos as lead image?
I'd always assumed there was some kind of policy inclining towards recent photographs, e.g. of living people, for the lead image. Have I just made that up? I've been looking at Sarah, Duchess of York where a pretty good 2017 image was recently replaced with a 1990 official portrait - this seems wrong to me, but is that just my personal preference? TSP (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See this previous discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Minneapolis
Your input is welcome at Talk:Minneapolis. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox photo
There is a content dispute regarding a photo at Talk:Fargo, North Dakota. Your input is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose that we add this bit to MOS:LEADIMAGE or something similar (excuse my poor wording):

Again, excuse the wording, it's late. What do y'all think? Cessaune (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good rule of thumb. For example, if someone is primarily notable as a child actor and is now in their 60s, I think having a photo of them of a child as the lead image is a reasonable call. Similarly for a deceased person for that matter - rather than any image, we want one that is representative. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate image
There is a content dispute at Talk:Minneapolis regarding the addition of the exact same image to both the infobox, and to the body of the article. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"No 3D images" demotion RfC
Please see: Wikipedia talk:No 3D illustrations. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Should non-free images be allowed in search results?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content § Non-free images in search results (redux). {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 16:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Images
The section offers two separate paragraphs on GIF images.

Quote:
 * GIF images with a frame size larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) cannot currently be displayed in thumbnail form in Wikipedia articles. A thumbnail of a GIF image can be considerably larger in kilobytes than the original image file.
 * Animated GIF images have a few additional restrictions. Images larger than 100 million pixels (measured as pixel height × pixel width × number of frames in the animation) currently will only show the first frame of the animation in a thumbnail. When not using a GIF animation at its original frame size, consider creating an Ogg Theora movie of the animation.

The first sentences of both paragraphs seem to contradict each other in that a thumbnail either cannot be displayed versus only the first frame can be displayed.

And why would a "thumbnail of a GIF image" "be considerably larger in kilobytes than the original image file"? And if this is correct why would it matter whether the size is given in kilobytes or in another format?

Also it would be interesting to know why a "GIF animation not at its original frame size" should preferably be transformed into an "Ogg Theora movie". Is it easier to reduce the file size when creating an Ogg movie than compressing the GIF animation? Also it might be helpful to name software which could be used to create Ogg movies.

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: Is it generally possible to add images to the immediate left of an infobox? Some articles contain very long infoboxes which apparently makes it impossible to place images within the introduction or next to the table of contents.
 * Hi, KaiKemmann. I can only answer your P.S. No, images to the left of the infobox would run afoul of MOS:SANDWICH and we never want to do that. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, Susan. In my view it is often desirable to place one or two images directly within the introductory section at the top of the article which seems to be prevented by a (long) infobox which is also usually placed at the top of the article. Being able to place the images to the immediate left of the infobox (not to the left of the article text) would seem to allow for both. KaiKemmann (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Quality."
"Use the best quality images available." This could easily be -- and indeed, is in the wild! -- construed to mean "more pixels are better, ad infinitum". Can we maybe put this into some sort of context as to what an 'ideal' resolution is considered to be? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 * That section says nothing about pixels or resolution, and describes "quality" in inverse terms as not being "dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous". Belbury (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was obviously written a very long time ago, when many wp images had these faults. We are a good deal more fussy now, & it might well be updated to reflect this. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Image guidelines includes helpful information. TaylorKobeRift (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Total Freedom

Total Freedom is the fifth studio album by Canadian singer-songwriter Kathleen Edwards. It was released by Dualtone Records on August 14, 2020.

Background and recording
In 2014, two years after the success of her album Voyageur, Edwards decided to quit music and open a coffee shop in Stittsville called Quitters. Edwards returned to music in 2017 after Maren Morris invited her to write a song for her album, Girl. As a result, Edwards began writing and recording songs for her own album. The album was recorded at studios in Stittsville, Nashville, and Kingston. The album was produced by Edwards alongside co-producers Jim Bryson and Ian Fitchuk.

Critical reception
Total Freedom received positive reviews from music critics, who lauded the album as a fitting return for Edwards. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications, the album received an average score of 80, based on eight reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews" from reviews.

Steve Horowitz of PopMatters praised the album, writing "the songs are lyrically delightful and melodically charming ... Edwards' delightfully delivers her insights, even the unpleasant ones." Writing for AllMusic, Mark Deming opined, "However long she decides to keep writing and singing her songs, we can only be grateful for the tough, heartfelt beauty she's chosen to share."

In a more critical review of the album, Hal Horowitz of American Songwriter wrote that "her singing remains strong and she is emoting about issues close to her, these tracks would benefit from more musical muscle." However, Horowitz later noted "even if Total Freedom isn’t her finest work, it’s encouraging that Edwards has returned to releasing new material and doing what she does best."

Personnel

 * Kathleen Edwards – vocals, acoustic and electric guitars
 * Peter Von Althen – drums, percussion
 * Darcy Yates – bass guitar
 * Gord Tough – electric and slide guitar
 * Jim Bryson – acoustic, electric, and slide guitars, organ, piano, banjo, percussion, string machine, effects, synthesizer, backing vocals

Additional musicians

 * Blair Hogan – electric guitar (track 1)
 * Jill Andrews – backing vocals (tracks 1 and 6)
 * Aaron Goldstein – pedal steel (tracks 2, 4 and 6)
 * Todd Lombardo – nylon string guitar (track 3), acoustic guitar (tracks 5, 8 and 10), banjo (track 8)
 * Ian Fitchuk – bass guitar (tracks 3 and 5), book kick/percussion (track 3), Wurlitzer (track 4), and piano (tracks 8 and 10)
 * Daniel Tashian – backing vocal and guitar (track 5)
 * Kinley Dowling – violin, viola and string arrangement (track 6)
 * Phillipe Charbonneau – bass guitar (track 7)
 * Jon Hynes – bass guitar (tracks 8 and 10)
 * Courtney Marie Andrews – backing vocals (track 8)

Technical personnel

 * Jim Bryson and Kathleen Edwards – producers (tracks 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9)
 * Ian Fitchuk and Kathleen Edwards – producers (tracks 2, 5, 8 and 10)
 * Jim Bryson, Ian Fitchuk and Kathleen Edwards – producers (track 3)
 * Craig Alvin, Zack Pancoast, Zane Whitfield, Jim Bryson, Dylan Lodge and Konrad Snyder – engineers
 * Konrad Snyder – mixing
 * Greg Calbi – mastering

title: Total Freedom


text:
tradicional

Adjective

 * 1) traditional

Adjective

 * 1) traditional

Adjective

 * 1) traditional

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) traditional
 * 2) traditional

Adjective

 * 1) traditional

title: tradicional


text:
Overview of Cell Biology/Muscle Contraction

Skeletal Muscle
A motor nerve action potential spreads down transverse tubules and then passes to the sarcoplasmic reticulum which release stored Ca2+.

Troponin/Tropomyosin Regulate Contraction
Myosin and Actin invitro binds and hydrolyzes ATP, even in the absence of Ca2+. Myosin will not bind thin filaments in muscle unless Ca2+ is present.

Thin filaments contain Troponin and Tropomyosin which prevent myosin binding in the absence of Ca2+.

Tropomyosin is a rod shaped protein with multiple molecules that bind the head of the actin filament to the tail. It is a continuous chain along the thin filament and prevents myosin-binding to the thin filament. In the presence of Ca2+, troponin moves tropomyosin out of the way.

Troponin is a complex of three proteins (Troponin-T, Troponin-C and Troponin-I). Troponin-T mediates tropomyosin binding. Troponin-C mediates Ca2+ binding. Troponin-I is the inhibitor protein.

In the absence of Ca2+, Troponin-T and Troponin-I are positioned so that myosin cannot move down actin filament. If Ca2+ is present, it binds to Troponin-C and induces a comformational change which allows myosin to move down the actin filament.

Cardiac Muscle resembles skeletal muscle in its structure and in regulation of actin-myosin interactions and muscle contraction.

Smooth Muscle
Actin and myosin are much less organized in smooth muscle when compared to skeletal muscle. Smooth muscle is regulated by cytosolic Ca2+ concentration like in skeletal muscle. Unlike in skeletal muscle, it is initiated by the phosphorylation of one of the two myosin light chains. Phosphorylarion allows myosin to interact with actin.

At high enough concentrations, Ca2+ binds calmodulin. The Ca2+-calmodulin then binds and activates myosin light chain kinase (MLCK). MLCK the phosphorylates the regulatory light chains which activates myosin and allows it to bind actin.


text:
Hajj Kazemi

Hajj Kazemi (, also Romanized as Ḩājj Kāẓemī) is a village in Fazl Rural District, in the Central District of Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 26, in 8 families.

title: Hajj Kazemi


text:
TuKV Turku

Turun Kisa-Veikot (TuKV for short) is a sports club from Turku, Finland. The club was founded in the then-independent municipality, Maaria, area where they still operate and own a club house. It was established in 1930 as Maarian Kisa-Veikot. Football was played since the formation of the club, other sections include futsal, ice hockey, roller hockey, badminton and capoeira, they also run amateur theatre. The club is a member of the Finnish Workers' Sports Federation, abbreviated as TUL.

Football
Football was part of clubs sports since foundation. They played in Finnish workers sports federation first level in 1938, 1939 and 1940 seasons. In 1943-44 Season they were qualified to Mestaruussarja but withdrew together with other TUL club Tampereen Pallo-Veikot before last round, this was the first season when Finnish FA and TUL clubs played in the same premiership. After WWII they played in the second level of TUL Leagues and were qualified for 1948 mestaruussarja. Between 1950 and 1953 they played in TUL competitions and when lower levels were also unified with Finnish FA in 1954 they started from third tier Maakuntasarja. In 2019 season their first team plays in sixth tier, Vitonen.

Season to Season

 * 1 season in Mestaruussarja
 * 4 seasons in Suomensarja
 * 11 seasons in Maakuntasarja
 * 6 seasons in Kolmonen
 * 15 seasons in Nelonen
 * 17 seasons in Vitonen
 * 1 season in Kutonen

title: TuKV Turku


text:
User:Tuankiet65/moowrap

Moo! Wrapper is a BOINC Wrapper project. Using BOINC Wrapper technology, Moo! Wrapper bring RC5 project from Distributed.net to BOINC user. Moo! Wrapper don't have ORG project because people can join ORG project at yoyo@home

title: User:Tuankiet65/moowrap


text:
Man in Red Bandana

Man in Red Bandana is a 2017 American documentary feature about Welles Remy Crowther, an equities trader known for saving as many as eighteen lives from the upper floors of the South Tower during the September 11 attacks in New York City, during which he lost his own life.

Synopsis
Gwyneth Paltrow narrates the story of Welles Crowther, an equities trader known for saving at least ten lives during the September 11 attacks in New York City, during which he lost his own life. It includes interviews with Welles' parents and sisters, and many of the survivors whom Welles saved including Ling Young, Ed Nicholls, Donovan Cowan, Ron DiFrancesco, Richard Fern, Donna Spera and Kelly Reyher. It also includes interviews with former Fire Department of New York Commissioner Salvatore Cassano and architect Robert Siegel. Archival footage includes President Barack Obama at the World Trade Center Memorial's opening ceremony, honoring Crowther and introducing his mother to speak. Lyle Lovett arranged and recorded the film's original song "One Red Bandana", written by Stive Linek.

Production
Production began on April 11, 2011 and was finished May 2017. It was written and directed by Matthew J. Weiss, produced by Weiss, Chad A. Verdi, and Joshua Sason, edited by Doug Forbes and Sam Eilertsen, and distributed by Verdi Productions. Its original score was composed by Mark Degli Antoni and David Bateman. On April 30, 2015, Gwyneth Paltrow recorded narration for the film in Santa Monica, California. She learned afterward that her parents, writer-producer Bruce Paltrow and actress Blythe Danner, were friends with the Crowther family.

Release
The film had its world premiere on September 6, 2017, at the Lafayette Theater in Suffern, New York. It opened theatrically on September 8, 2017.

Reception
On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 63% based on reviews from 8 critics, with an average of 6.12/10.

Gary Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times called the film "a powerful and inspiring experience". Nick Schager of Variety said that, "Despite its frustratingly crude formal construction, [the film] proves an equally sorrowful and stirring portrait of selflessness in the face of tragedy". Frank Lovece of Film Journal International felt the "emotionally devastating documentary ... falls apart toward the end when it loses all objectivity and descends into hagiography."

Accolades
The film won the Grand Prize in the Humanitarian Category at the 2017 Rhode Island International Film Festival and the People's Choice Award at the 2018 Niagara Falls International Film Festival.

title: Man in Red Bandana


text:
Games in Development/Liberal Diplomacy

Introduction
These are a set of rules in development for a variant of Diplomacy that is slightly less in the Realist camp of International Relations and more firmly entrenched in the Liberal school of thought. By way of introduction - and as a chance for a pithy commentary about the ongoing state of disagreement between these two philosophies - I'd just like to say that Diplomacy, at its very core, is zero-sum and cutthroat. The game is about winning, and winning means being the girl (or guy) with the most resource centres at the end of the game. This means that, while you might slow your expansion, cooperate with others, or engage in fruitful intelligence sharing, you have no intention of long-term partnership; on the contrary, partnership in Diplomacy (the game) is strictly for the purposes of short-term gain. Self-interest still overrides the impulse to cooperate long-term. It is thus an excellent example of the Realist school of International Relations. Painfully, however, the game does not take economics into account. To be more precise, the kind of economics the game takes into account are protectionist economics, meaning the international economy can effectively be factored out of game-play altogether without much loss of realism (no capital R!). It is precisely this factor that is the cause for a loss of the interest in medium to long-term cooperation, and precisely this factor that I wish to remedy with the creation of a more Liberal-friendly Diplomacy.

The Phases of Development
This game development is being used as an example of the Spiral Method of game development. It's also an exploration of the Spiral Method, as I've never tried the idea before in a reasonably rigourous context. Below are listed the phases of development for those who are following this game for the purposes of studying the Spiral Method.
 * Phase 1: The Initial Idea - where did this hare-brained scheme come from in the first place?
 * Phase 2: The Essentials - the first phase of the Spiral Method is the development and testing of the first fundamental principles of your project.
 * Phase 3: The Board - Once the basics are ironed out, start adding bits incrementally!
 * Phase 4: ...

The Game
If all you really wanted to know about was the rules for the variant, look no further! They will appear here when they are done!

title: Games in Development/Liberal Diplomacy


text:
Willesden East (UK Parliament constituency)

Willesden East was a constituency in Middlesex adjoining the County of London and forming part of the London conurbation, in London itself from 1965. It returned one member to the House of Commons of the UK Parliament 1918 – 1974.

The outcome of the seat was a bellwether of the national outcome from 1931 until its abolition. Before 1945 the seats electorate had not elected any Labour candidate, however had sided overall with the Liberal candidate once, in 1923, in a by-election.

Boundaries
1918–1950: The Urban District of Willesden wards of Brondesbury Park, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise, Mid Kilburn, North Kilburn, and South Kilburn.

1950–1974: The Municipal Borough of Willesden wards of Brondesbury Park, Carlton, Cricklewood, Kilburn, Mapesbury, and Neasden.

Elections in the 1940s
General Election 1939–40:

Another General Election was required to take place before the end of 1940. The political parties had been making preparations for an election to take place from 1939 and by the end of this year, the following candidates had been selected;
 * Conservative: Samuel Hammersley
 * Labour: Maurice Orbach
 * Liberal: Arthur Shenfield


text:
Room 8 (film)

Room 8 is a short, six-minutes-long film that was one of several short films that won the Bombay Sapphire's Imagination Series. The film is based on a script by Oscar-winning screenwriter Geoffrey S. Fletcher. After Fletcher completed the dialogue, the script (without stage direction) was released and contestants would create their film using this dialogue. Room 8 was directed by James W. Griffiths, editing student of National Film and Television School. Griffiths won £40,000 from Bombay Sapphire to make the film. Although Room 8 takes place in London, it was filmed in Poland due to cost restraints. It premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and later won the BAFTA Award for Best Short Film at the 67th British Academy Film Awards. It was the first and only branded film to win the award.

title: Room 8 (film)


text:
Leucostoma perrarum

Leucostoma perrarum is a European species of fly in the family Tachinidae.

Distribution
United States.

title: Leucostoma perrarum


text:
User:Kodakanchi Temple/sandbox

Sri Adinarayana Swamy Temple, Kodakanchi

People believe that a visit to Kanchipuram removes the doshas incurred by a lizard falling on you, not realising that they have a similar temple close at hand.

Here are a pair of gold and silver lizards on the ceiling and if you touch these, all the accumulated doshams are wiped out. Kodakanchi, about 50 km from Hyderabad, has the Sridevi Bhudevi Sametha Sri Adinarayana Swamy temple.

Long, long ago, there was a karnam (village accountant) Allani Ramaji Rao Deshpande (Senior). He had a dream in which God told him that an idol of his was stuck in a mountain and that he should rescue this and build a temple. “I have come all the way from Kanchi” Rao was told in the dream.

Rao told his mother about the dream and she said that if the dream was repeated then maybe they could take this matter seriously. He did get the same dream the next day. This time he was prepared and asked to be shown a path to take towards the mountain. “I will send a Garuda Pakshi. Follow the bird and wherever it stops, you will find me there,” Rao was told. The dream turned into reality when Rao followed the Garuda Pakshi. He created a path by splitting a mountain and found the idol in a forest.

A temple was then built on 200 acres of land and the village was soon recognised as Kada Kanchi, because this idol looked the same as that of the  Varada-rajaswamy temple at Kanchi-puram. “In fact the form of the balli (lizard) came along with the idol and this too was added to the temple during its construction,” says Mr Allani Ramaji Rao Deshpande (Junior), Who is the grandson of Allani Ramaji Rao Deshpande (Senior).

While that might be similar, it all ends there. The 200 acres belonging to the temple has gone, distributed as pattas, and only 14 acres remain. This has been given on lease, and earns income for the temple. There is the Gandikunta lake facing the temple and this too is given on lease for a few months to local fishermen.

“While people from the villages, near and far, do come to visit the temple for the lizards, they also take vows and then they do 11 pradakshinas. Once the vow is fulfilled they do 108 pradakshinas,” says Mr Allani Ramaji Rao Deshpande (Junior)

The temple has been renovated, but the old main dwaram has been left intact, giving one a wonderful feeling of being back in circa whenever. The newer part of the temple is colourful, with a large mandapam leading to the sanctum sanctorum. This temple rests on a rock and is surrounded by yesteryear structures. They definitely lend to the story of the temple being more than 700 years old. The old dwaram looks into a koneru (la-ke) whose water, used for the pujas, is green in colour, probably thick with moss. There is an old wall, which probably led to the main sanctum.

The old peepul tree still lifts the heat off you with its gentle breeze.

title: User:Kodakanchi Temple/sandbox


text:
Unashamed (band)

Unashamed was a Christian hardcore punk band that became one of the founding bands in the Spirit-Filled HardCore movement. Their bold faith-based lyrics center around ideas directly lifted from the Bible and conservative morality. They released two albums on Tooth & Nail Records. After signing with Tooth & Nail, the band toured until their "final" show at Cornerstone Festival in 1998. In 2009, the band announced that they were reforming with many of their original line-up, and would begin touring hard into 2010.

Members
Last known lineup
 * Jeff Jacquay – vocals (1993–1996, 2009–2011)
 * Bobby Canaday – guitar (1993–1998, 2009–2011)
 * Dom Macaluso – bass guitar (2009–2011)
 * Matt Mentley – guitar (2009–2011)
 * Randy Baranosky – drums (2009–2011)

Former members
 * Dave Bhanson – vocals (1993)
 * Dave Lauridsen – vocals (1993)
 * Dan "Danno" McManigal – guitar (1993–1998)
 * Chris Bertoni – drums (1993–1995)
 * Shane Sowers – bass guitar (1993–1995)
 * Jason Carson – drums (1995–1998)
 * Matt Hernandez – bass guitar (1995–1998)

Timeline

Discography
'Studio albums
 * Silence (1994)
 * Reflection (1996)

Compilation appearances
 * Helpless Amongst Friends Vol. 1 (1995)

title: Unashamed (band)


text:
коло

Etymology
Cognate to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) bronze

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) wheel
 * 2) round
 * 3) a type of circle dance

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) wheel, circle
 * 2)  wagon, car

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) wheel
 * 2) a folk dance primarily danced by South Slavs
 * 3) level, phase, volume, round, stage

Noun

 * 1) bronze, tin

Noun

 * 1) ford, crossing

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) circle
 * 2) circle-shaped object
 * 3)  circuit
 * 4) wheel
 * 5) round dance
 * 1) round dance
 * 1) round dance

Preposition

 * 1) around surrounding
 * 2) around near
 * 3) around, about, approximately

title: коло


text:
Talk:Compton Martin Ochre Mine

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Compton Martin Ochre Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724174654/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004205.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004205.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813070641/http://www.english-nature.org.uk:80/ to http://www.english-nature.org.uk

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Compton Martin Ochre Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310224120/http://www.jncc.gov.uk/earthheritage/gcrdb/GCR.asp?GCR=1271 to http://www.jncc.gov.uk/earthheritage/gcrdb/GCR.asp?GCR=1271
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041113091816/http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dave/personal/cave/comptonmartin.htm to http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dave/personal/cave/comptonmartin.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.english-nature.org.uk/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compton Martin Ochre Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417090428/http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/localplans/banes2003v2/ListofRevisionsHTM/ChapterC2NaturalDevelopment.htm to http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/localplans/banes2003v2/ListofRevisionsHTM/ChapterC2NaturalDevelopment.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Compton Martin Ochre Mine