This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of the Han dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
History of the Han dynasty has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
History of the Han dynasty is part of the Han Dynasty series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
PericlesofAthens writes "In fact, we should be discussing ways of reducing the prose size of the article, not increasing it."
This is good, but there are many ways of reducing the article. In doing so, I wouldn't want my reducing become a sort of censorship here like you often did, instead information that can be find in other of your Han's articles should be remove or reduce here, many of them are just over trivial trivia. There are also quite a number of scholarship assumption and affirm here that need to be wipe out, since this is about written "History of Han dynasty" and not about academia view. But since this article had failed its FA review due to its inaccuracies perhaps, I think the whole reducing the prose size of the article maybe be quite unnecessary. I also noted that you recently comments about "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) article in Allempires [1], you couldn't get enough of the good things don't you, I was hoping while I was editing "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) articles like Han Dynasty and Song Dynasty you could spend your time looking through Wikipedia:OWN.
Sorry who are you, I know you're the guy with PericlesofAthens in CHF, but I will still wait for PericlesofAthens's reply. But if you don't understand my post don't bother to response. "could you be more specific about what” I could be more specific if I could edit the article, unfortunately this article is locked. "And what do you mean about "written "History of the Han dynasty"?" Its means written history here, meaning any scholarship assumption and affirm (with exception of some clear evidence ground on archeology ) should be put aside or create a new article on such topic for its own, becuase such debate may only drag the lenght of this article, if we're talking about prose size. "or the kind of "trivial trivia" that could be removed?" Many stuffs, well I see, including details (note that I used detail here) that cover from buddhism-related to "tribute"-related items, and etc.
"And what do you have against "academia view"?" I have nothing held against academia view, keep that in mind, because they belong to another article, we should've deal primarly history on the subject here. I have hundred of Chinese and English-languages journals and books which present global view on each subjects, Han Dynasty-related included as well.
Thanks for the input, I can understand English pretty well, including your little advertising in Allempires, so would you drop that speak or write English proficiently? If you think my English was that bad you wouldn't even bother to dig out some primary source with the help of your friend to bring up an argument. Of course nothing is more laughably than you, a third-year speaker of Mandarin as you claim couldn't even properly make your own conclusion after gathering through the source you needed [2], let not forget that one of my friend who is also third-year speaker can do a better job than you. Since you couldn't read Chinese and yet trying to explain some meaning of Chinese characters to me, why bother to bring up the primary source on the first places? Why not tired whatever you got with your secondary source and see how it does?
"But I think it's obvious who has done the lion's share of contributions to these articles" You know, as people read through an aricle they won't bother whether who has the lion share of this wiki article or who doesn't, probably 4 to 5 years from now, no one would even give a shit about Eric Conner, do you know what I meant in plain English? "Also, are you simply saying that modern scholarly input or consensus on events should be stripped from the article" Do you know what scholarly consensus means? Its means one or two scholars who are obstinacy about their point doesn't make it a "scholarly consensus", in order for you to say that point is a scholarly consensus, you'll need to find more than 10 scholars to second one another, Xia Dynasty is not yet proven, I can easily find tons of information on that through Google Book, this is what you called scholarly consensus.
"Also, I don't really consider information on tributary relations and Buddhism as simple trivia" And what makes you think that I simply dismissed them as simple trivia? The translation of sutra should be input in each of their respectively articles. And whether or not These monks allegedly translated the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters from Sanskrit into Chinese, although it is now proven that this text was not translated into Chinese until the 2nd century CE is not the concern for this article as far as I know, those are details which I am talking about. There are also detail such as When Bi came to pay homage to the Han court, he was given 10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" do we need "10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" here? Another one "Huhanye was seated as a distinguished guest of honor and rich rewards of 5 kg (160 oz t) of gold, 200,000 cash coins, 77 suits of clothes, 8,000 bales of silk fabric, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of silk floss, and 15 horses, in addition to 680,000 L (19,300 U.S. bu) of grain" do we really need that information here? People had already complain about your style of mentioning "tribute" here. We already have a table for that in Economy of the Han Dynasty didn't we? Because you're not proficiently enough on the History of Han Dynasty and the general pattern of Chinese tribute here, I suggest you to wipe them off. Since you're no real expertise in the History of Han Dynasty, and yet insisting that those were more important than any other events, mind I suggest that the perform of kowtow of Shanyu in front of Chinese diplomats be mentioned in the article as well?
Would you calm down? I didn't said anything about your incivility didn't I? You're the one who started all this English proficiently vs sarcasm stuff, and if you think that you should had me blocked, you should go ahead, anyway I got block on occasion everytime I tried to edit here. I don't know why you've so many problem with me here, in contrast I don't felt a thing at all when you said something that can be rude (as well), I knew that wasn't truth anyway. More importantly, I don't see how my suggestion are invaild. The reason I brought out this section is because you did asked for suggestions on how to reduce the size of this article, I tired to help, unfortunately for you had took all this as an offence or something I don't know. I think you really have such an inferior complexity to concern about what people said. You write: 'Although I don't want to begin a discussion here on the alleged Xia Dynasty..." See? Here is the problem that you're clearly rambling, of course you should've know I was just pointing an example as the case for Xia Dynasty. Why exactly do you come to this board when you simply cannot write a coherent argument half of the time?
Thanks for the correction. "Please, be civil." I am, and my same advice to you as well. "I really don't care why you've made this assumption about me" Well in that case you should've drop it then, because you're just straying far off course by picking at one statement I made on this talk page that's all. "The only problem.. which you have astonishingly sustained for more than a month now." As if you had remain civil all the time, so you see the feeling is mutual. "but have never even been to China. If I was a third-year speaker living in China, then yes, I would have no excuse." Who said so? Do you know there are people who've been to China and yet still being a third-year speaker of Mandarin? Do you know that there are people who been and lived in America yet still bad with their English. I don't see how all this is related. You're just calculating excuse, that's the only problem I have with your edits. All the time. If you can't properly make your own conclusion with all the sources you gathered you should've step back and drop the issue which you're not familiar with, but no, you insisted to bring up an argument even when you couldn't read Chinese and needs help from friend, it just prove that you're wuss no matter how many years you're as speaker of Mandarin or any language as you claim. I think you're being a bit unreasonable here.
As if you think that studying the language via a university on a daily basis would get you help on Twenty-Four Histories. When it comes to primary source, you'll need some information on the background on each of the phase, it might even required modern commentary sometime. This means you really needs to read Chinese and not just direct reading or recognising 1,700 to 2,000 written characters by heart, I can even point you out some of mistake in Chavannes's translations at Ban Yong, a celebrated sinologist himself, which is the result of direct reading, usually from people who learn Chinese by recognising written characters.
Well, I am not sure whether Édouard Chavannes should be blame, since he was not the one who make all these English translations into Ban Yong. However, an obvious misunderstood here I found is from Ren Shang It is difficult to foster their good tendencies and easy to destroy them 难养易败, how would you translate it anyway? Easy to destory/attack them doesn't make any sense anyway.
For that phase I would simply translate as "difficult to foster and easy to be spoil", that's how I understand the whole dialogue of Ban Chao trying to said.
There are always many translations problem, it is also good to get one of those authentic translations done by published source if you want to survive in Wikipedia. Here is another I found in Ban Yong I will arrange things so that (Ban) Yong sees the Middle Territories [usually referred to as the 'Western Regions' - mainly the kingdoms in and around the Tarim Basin] with his own eyes while I am still alive, from the phrase it can be easily spot that the author who translate the passage have no understanding on Ban Yong's background, but this cannot be blame since his earlier information ain't found in anywhere, and common sense needed to be appiled here. Thus I wouldn't translate something like "Middle Territories" as "Western Region" here as implying Ban Yong was born in China due to my understanding of Ban Chao's life.
Anyway I'll not here by the mid June, so you see Eric, by the time you got to reduce the size for this article, I'll be long gone from here.
While you're at it, it would be nice to add brief infomation about the expansion of southwest with Yongchang Commantary (69 CE, somewhere around eastern Burma and western Yunnan) and the fall of Yelang Kingdom (then within Zangke Commantary) during its rebellion in 27 BCE, I am sure is easy to find the passing of these events in Google book or in Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms, if you can't you can simply use Zizhi Tongjian vol. 30 and 45 for source.
That's a good idea too, since Wikipedia has a limit on the size of article, IMHO you should do whatever you thinks that it serve better for the article.
I did a little snooping on wikipedia guideline, I had no idea why you're so eager in featuring an article, there are practically no difference between wiki featured article and an ordinary article (lol), unless you're talking about getting the article on the main page every once a while and letting pack of vandals make their edit so admins could protect the page to prevent them. In fact since ordinary article are not monitored and have little limit on the size of article, technically speaking I would says they are more informative than the majority FA articles. "tell me what you think about the possibility of creating two new articles, Western and Eastern Han" I don't think I can help much on that, my self-interest lies on frontier history and steppe tribes, the north and west and not just Han in particular, probably due to my little interest on ma chao few years back, but that could be impredicative.
Yeah I will be busy on later, so I will not be able to help you, I guess we're all busy for the moment. One of the greatest drawback I find in Twenty-Four Histories is that many foreign battles and expeiditions (outside or periphery of China) were either cook up or mispresented by literati court historians, you can easily see interposal dialogues from some ministers whenever an expeidition or campign took places, these are called apocryphal stories "to win over emperor's love", they were either made up, or compiled for extraordinary purpose. And that's pretty good assumptions since people are rational and that self-interest was very well known to people of antiquity, court officials were no exceptions since they often downplay on military affairs. That's why Li Shiji was torn apart by the times of Song Dynasty because of his petty intervene that he shouldn't involved with the royal members despite how good he was outside of China. I must say that the ancient dynasty are pretty much like a family enterprise, where we have employee on their biography in these histories written only when their career began with the royal member (CEO), while leaving rest of their life simply unknown, not even their date of birth or story before/after they start their career. You can see the same standard in private works of history by scholar as well since they simply ripped from histories for convenience motive.
I have just been through the article and changed the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout. The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' See, for example: Pan (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Pulleyblank (1991), p. 48; Bailey (1985), p. 32.
It appears that same information can be located in [3] as well. But I guess why shanyu was used, it was probably becuase it was once changed to 善于 by Wang mang and some context thought that might be closer to the original reading.
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/reada/crowell-7.pdf
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/reada/chp6.pdf
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hand/hd_hand.htm
Rajmaan ( talk) 06:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of the Han dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
History of the Han dynasty has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
History of the Han dynasty is part of the Han Dynasty series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
PericlesofAthens writes "In fact, we should be discussing ways of reducing the prose size of the article, not increasing it."
This is good, but there are many ways of reducing the article. In doing so, I wouldn't want my reducing become a sort of censorship here like you often did, instead information that can be find in other of your Han's articles should be remove or reduce here, many of them are just over trivial trivia. There are also quite a number of scholarship assumption and affirm here that need to be wipe out, since this is about written "History of Han dynasty" and not about academia view. But since this article had failed its FA review due to its inaccuracies perhaps, I think the whole reducing the prose size of the article maybe be quite unnecessary. I also noted that you recently comments about "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) article in Allempires [1], you couldn't get enough of the good things don't you, I was hoping while I was editing "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) articles like Han Dynasty and Song Dynasty you could spend your time looking through Wikipedia:OWN.
Sorry who are you, I know you're the guy with PericlesofAthens in CHF, but I will still wait for PericlesofAthens's reply. But if you don't understand my post don't bother to response. "could you be more specific about what” I could be more specific if I could edit the article, unfortunately this article is locked. "And what do you mean about "written "History of the Han dynasty"?" Its means written history here, meaning any scholarship assumption and affirm (with exception of some clear evidence ground on archeology ) should be put aside or create a new article on such topic for its own, becuase such debate may only drag the lenght of this article, if we're talking about prose size. "or the kind of "trivial trivia" that could be removed?" Many stuffs, well I see, including details (note that I used detail here) that cover from buddhism-related to "tribute"-related items, and etc.
"And what do you have against "academia view"?" I have nothing held against academia view, keep that in mind, because they belong to another article, we should've deal primarly history on the subject here. I have hundred of Chinese and English-languages journals and books which present global view on each subjects, Han Dynasty-related included as well.
Thanks for the input, I can understand English pretty well, including your little advertising in Allempires, so would you drop that speak or write English proficiently? If you think my English was that bad you wouldn't even bother to dig out some primary source with the help of your friend to bring up an argument. Of course nothing is more laughably than you, a third-year speaker of Mandarin as you claim couldn't even properly make your own conclusion after gathering through the source you needed [2], let not forget that one of my friend who is also third-year speaker can do a better job than you. Since you couldn't read Chinese and yet trying to explain some meaning of Chinese characters to me, why bother to bring up the primary source on the first places? Why not tired whatever you got with your secondary source and see how it does?
"But I think it's obvious who has done the lion's share of contributions to these articles" You know, as people read through an aricle they won't bother whether who has the lion share of this wiki article or who doesn't, probably 4 to 5 years from now, no one would even give a shit about Eric Conner, do you know what I meant in plain English? "Also, are you simply saying that modern scholarly input or consensus on events should be stripped from the article" Do you know what scholarly consensus means? Its means one or two scholars who are obstinacy about their point doesn't make it a "scholarly consensus", in order for you to say that point is a scholarly consensus, you'll need to find more than 10 scholars to second one another, Xia Dynasty is not yet proven, I can easily find tons of information on that through Google Book, this is what you called scholarly consensus.
"Also, I don't really consider information on tributary relations and Buddhism as simple trivia" And what makes you think that I simply dismissed them as simple trivia? The translation of sutra should be input in each of their respectively articles. And whether or not These monks allegedly translated the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters from Sanskrit into Chinese, although it is now proven that this text was not translated into Chinese until the 2nd century CE is not the concern for this article as far as I know, those are details which I am talking about. There are also detail such as When Bi came to pay homage to the Han court, he was given 10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" do we need "10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" here? Another one "Huhanye was seated as a distinguished guest of honor and rich rewards of 5 kg (160 oz t) of gold, 200,000 cash coins, 77 suits of clothes, 8,000 bales of silk fabric, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of silk floss, and 15 horses, in addition to 680,000 L (19,300 U.S. bu) of grain" do we really need that information here? People had already complain about your style of mentioning "tribute" here. We already have a table for that in Economy of the Han Dynasty didn't we? Because you're not proficiently enough on the History of Han Dynasty and the general pattern of Chinese tribute here, I suggest you to wipe them off. Since you're no real expertise in the History of Han Dynasty, and yet insisting that those were more important than any other events, mind I suggest that the perform of kowtow of Shanyu in front of Chinese diplomats be mentioned in the article as well?
Would you calm down? I didn't said anything about your incivility didn't I? You're the one who started all this English proficiently vs sarcasm stuff, and if you think that you should had me blocked, you should go ahead, anyway I got block on occasion everytime I tried to edit here. I don't know why you've so many problem with me here, in contrast I don't felt a thing at all when you said something that can be rude (as well), I knew that wasn't truth anyway. More importantly, I don't see how my suggestion are invaild. The reason I brought out this section is because you did asked for suggestions on how to reduce the size of this article, I tired to help, unfortunately for you had took all this as an offence or something I don't know. I think you really have such an inferior complexity to concern about what people said. You write: 'Although I don't want to begin a discussion here on the alleged Xia Dynasty..." See? Here is the problem that you're clearly rambling, of course you should've know I was just pointing an example as the case for Xia Dynasty. Why exactly do you come to this board when you simply cannot write a coherent argument half of the time?
Thanks for the correction. "Please, be civil." I am, and my same advice to you as well. "I really don't care why you've made this assumption about me" Well in that case you should've drop it then, because you're just straying far off course by picking at one statement I made on this talk page that's all. "The only problem.. which you have astonishingly sustained for more than a month now." As if you had remain civil all the time, so you see the feeling is mutual. "but have never even been to China. If I was a third-year speaker living in China, then yes, I would have no excuse." Who said so? Do you know there are people who've been to China and yet still being a third-year speaker of Mandarin? Do you know that there are people who been and lived in America yet still bad with their English. I don't see how all this is related. You're just calculating excuse, that's the only problem I have with your edits. All the time. If you can't properly make your own conclusion with all the sources you gathered you should've step back and drop the issue which you're not familiar with, but no, you insisted to bring up an argument even when you couldn't read Chinese and needs help from friend, it just prove that you're wuss no matter how many years you're as speaker of Mandarin or any language as you claim. I think you're being a bit unreasonable here.
As if you think that studying the language via a university on a daily basis would get you help on Twenty-Four Histories. When it comes to primary source, you'll need some information on the background on each of the phase, it might even required modern commentary sometime. This means you really needs to read Chinese and not just direct reading or recognising 1,700 to 2,000 written characters by heart, I can even point you out some of mistake in Chavannes's translations at Ban Yong, a celebrated sinologist himself, which is the result of direct reading, usually from people who learn Chinese by recognising written characters.
Well, I am not sure whether Édouard Chavannes should be blame, since he was not the one who make all these English translations into Ban Yong. However, an obvious misunderstood here I found is from Ren Shang It is difficult to foster their good tendencies and easy to destroy them 难养易败, how would you translate it anyway? Easy to destory/attack them doesn't make any sense anyway.
For that phase I would simply translate as "difficult to foster and easy to be spoil", that's how I understand the whole dialogue of Ban Chao trying to said.
There are always many translations problem, it is also good to get one of those authentic translations done by published source if you want to survive in Wikipedia. Here is another I found in Ban Yong I will arrange things so that (Ban) Yong sees the Middle Territories [usually referred to as the 'Western Regions' - mainly the kingdoms in and around the Tarim Basin] with his own eyes while I am still alive, from the phrase it can be easily spot that the author who translate the passage have no understanding on Ban Yong's background, but this cannot be blame since his earlier information ain't found in anywhere, and common sense needed to be appiled here. Thus I wouldn't translate something like "Middle Territories" as "Western Region" here as implying Ban Yong was born in China due to my understanding of Ban Chao's life.
Anyway I'll not here by the mid June, so you see Eric, by the time you got to reduce the size for this article, I'll be long gone from here.
While you're at it, it would be nice to add brief infomation about the expansion of southwest with Yongchang Commantary (69 CE, somewhere around eastern Burma and western Yunnan) and the fall of Yelang Kingdom (then within Zangke Commantary) during its rebellion in 27 BCE, I am sure is easy to find the passing of these events in Google book or in Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms, if you can't you can simply use Zizhi Tongjian vol. 30 and 45 for source.
That's a good idea too, since Wikipedia has a limit on the size of article, IMHO you should do whatever you thinks that it serve better for the article.
I did a little snooping on wikipedia guideline, I had no idea why you're so eager in featuring an article, there are practically no difference between wiki featured article and an ordinary article (lol), unless you're talking about getting the article on the main page every once a while and letting pack of vandals make their edit so admins could protect the page to prevent them. In fact since ordinary article are not monitored and have little limit on the size of article, technically speaking I would says they are more informative than the majority FA articles. "tell me what you think about the possibility of creating two new articles, Western and Eastern Han" I don't think I can help much on that, my self-interest lies on frontier history and steppe tribes, the north and west and not just Han in particular, probably due to my little interest on ma chao few years back, but that could be impredicative.
Yeah I will be busy on later, so I will not be able to help you, I guess we're all busy for the moment. One of the greatest drawback I find in Twenty-Four Histories is that many foreign battles and expeiditions (outside or periphery of China) were either cook up or mispresented by literati court historians, you can easily see interposal dialogues from some ministers whenever an expeidition or campign took places, these are called apocryphal stories "to win over emperor's love", they were either made up, or compiled for extraordinary purpose. And that's pretty good assumptions since people are rational and that self-interest was very well known to people of antiquity, court officials were no exceptions since they often downplay on military affairs. That's why Li Shiji was torn apart by the times of Song Dynasty because of his petty intervene that he shouldn't involved with the royal members despite how good he was outside of China. I must say that the ancient dynasty are pretty much like a family enterprise, where we have employee on their biography in these histories written only when their career began with the royal member (CEO), while leaving rest of their life simply unknown, not even their date of birth or story before/after they start their career. You can see the same standard in private works of history by scholar as well since they simply ripped from histories for convenience motive.
I have just been through the article and changed the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout. The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' See, for example: Pan (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Pulleyblank (1991), p. 48; Bailey (1985), p. 32.
It appears that same information can be located in [3] as well. But I guess why shanyu was used, it was probably becuase it was once changed to 善于 by Wang mang and some context thought that might be closer to the original reading.
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/reada/crowell-7.pdf
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/reada/chp6.pdf
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hand/hd_hand.htm
Rajmaan ( talk) 06:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)