Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/The Hunting of the Snark

Discussion moved for Ottava Rima's objection

 * That's what I thought, but I was not sure whether using a gallery template is allowed for FP nomination. For close evaluation, viewers have to click and see each image in the originally uploaded size anyway. --Caspian blue 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing a problem here, as the formatting doesn't seem to push them over the edge, and no one so far has actually bothered to look at the pictures and review them. Can we please have some supports or objections based on the criteria? I really don't care about the formatting of the nomination and I already changed it about 8 times. If someone else thinks they can do better, then please feel free to. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ on the formatting to save the space and to present a better alignment of the images. 3 rows are better than 5 rows in this case? :)--Caspian blue 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, so you know, there were only 2 rows before. Perhaps your computer has formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I don't think so. I bought my computer just one week ago and I'm using Firefox.--Caspian blue 22:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, check your settings. Images, unless you do what you did, only display as many in a section as the width of the browser. They do not go beyond unless you force them. For whatever reason, your settings removed that standard feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ney, I rather recommend you to check your system. I've checked the layout with "two computers". What inch is your computer monitor? (By the way, I thought you'd say at least "thank you" for your time, grumble...) Or you can ask others about this.--Caspian blue 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With the original set up, I've changed the settings of my monitor and also shrunk the width of the computer. It formats with two wide unless the width is shrunk and then it becomes one. I have also talked to a chatroom of people and they also experienced the same thing. The problem is only on your end, and I will restore the settings above so people do not have to deal with that annoying horizontal bar. You also destroyed the order of the set, which is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I want to know who you really talked to and I will ask about Durova's opinion on this. However, you're incredibly uncivil and does not assume good faith on my formatting with time. Your such attitude "destroys" the spirit of "cooperation".--Caspian blue 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note - the tables were formatted with two pictures each. It would be impossible to have it 5 wide, as the tables would need to be 100% complete in formatting. Thus, for anyone who cares, Caspian Blue's claim above about formatting of 5 images in a horizontal line is technically impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that 5 images in horizontal lines. 5 rows, not 5 columns, so read my comment again. The five rows make the space take too much which make viewers tend to avoid reviewing the nomination. --Caspian blue 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also as a side note, you did not state who uploaded and retouched the images, and I think that is also disturbing. I added a caption above now.--Caspian blue 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, if you are going to complain that it goes down five rows, then I am seriously going to have to ask you to stop right now. You are being disruptive and this is completely inappropriate conduct. Furthermore, this proves that I originally did state his name. Now, your accusation is highly inappropriate and I am close to asking at the process page for you to be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that everyone could possibly have a gift to read your "mind" and history. The name does not appear on the page, so I pointed out it. Not to mention, you're extremely uncivil and have made personal attacks to me. What I've offended by you is you have assumed bad faith on my trial to help you out. This page is not WP:OWN by you, and the review process is evaluated by "editors" like me who have participated in reviewing FPs. You need to think about what you're accusing of.--Caspian blue 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)