![]() | National Debt Clock has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 11, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
National Debt Clock in
Manhattan ran out of digits on 30 September 2008, when the
United States public debt passed the $10 trillion mark? |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't seem to find any source mentioning just why the Dursts didn't upgrade the clock when it became apparent that another digit would be needed soon (one source from May 2006 quotes as early a date as Christmas 2007 [1]). It looks to me as if they deliberately decided to actually let the clock physically run out of digits, maybe for effect, but there's nothing whatsoever on their motivation to not upgrade the clock earlier. If anyone can find a reliable source that covers that, by all means please add it. I for one think it would give the article a much deeper scope. Everyme 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Another item I'm having a hard time backing up with an RS is the location move when the clock was being restarted in July 2002.
Everyme
17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates at the top of the page are in Germany. This needs to be changed
Hillshum| Talk 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Edge3 ( talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm now passing the article. The sourcing issues, in my opinion, are very minor and don't violate the good article criteria. Keep up the good work!-- Edge3 ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The section describing the AMD promotion that includes the sentence "AMD used the increasing public awareness of green computing and related environmental issues to thematically center their comparative advertising campaign around "raising awareness on a critical issue," as AMD Senior Vice President Marty Sayer put it" is, in my opinion, neither relevant nor proportionate and makes a poor conclusion to the article. I would like to remove it. Having a source does not protect an addition from being WP:IRRELEVANT and of WP:UNDUE weight. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"In portraying AMD's marketing campaign as having the intention of raising environmental awareness you engage in [...]" -- While it is correct that I apparently misread the source and thought that the discussed power-consumption issue is one of
green computing, you should
assume good faith and not
personally attack me by insinuating that I intentionally misrepresented the source. By assuming bad faith with me and attacking me in this way, you are not helping this discussion.
"Intel directly refutes AMD's claims, but the article as originally written merely allowed them as facts." -- Erm, what. I am putting any quotes in quotation marks. Also, please do not pretend that your interest was in accuracy or in improving the paragraf at all. You simply wanted to remove it completely as "spam".
"accept and repeat AMD's assertions at face value" -- Again, (i) please do not assume that I did it intentionally, and (ii) what assertions are you talking about? A simple, openly sourced quote is not "
presenting an opinion as fact" by any stretch.
"your original edit asserted as a fact that the numbers promoted by AMD "[track the] amount of money spent on electricity bills by companies running Intel-based servers"." -- No, it did not. You should maybe work on your text comprehension skills. The remark was put in
quotation marks, with a reference attached and thereby most obviously not trying to pass off the source text as fact. Also, your concerns about the wording come across as slightly disingenious, considering that you didn't initially try to improve the wording but simply tried to remove the paragraf completely.
"You see AMD's billboard as comparable with the non-partisan ideology of Douglas Durst; I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style." -- Your attempt to ascribe personal views to me and intentions to my editing is sadly misguided but apparently representative of your style of "argumentation". I do of course not see any comparability between the two as being independent of AMD's marketing intentions. You are accusing me of not understanding or of deliberately ignoring/white-washing that AMD's advertising campaign is in fact an avertising campaign and nothing else. Why don't you just go ahead and accuse me of promoting AMD? That would at least be the intellectually honest move on your part. Seriously, dude: "I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style" -- Clearly implying that I do not see the AMD ad campaign as a promo trick etc is assuming so much bad faith and/or incompetence on my part that this is really a total conversation ender. You are saying that I am stupid and/or in AMD's pocket. And while clearly implying that, you are just using it as a dirty trick in your "argumentation", trying to bait me into a (well-deserved) personal attack of some kind or something. Sheesh.
"Thankfully, there is no need for the article to express an opinion on this point" -- The article never did "express an opinion", and even if it did, please stop pretending that your original intention was to improve the paragraf. It wasn't.
"this appearance of neutrality was spurious and for marketing purposes only, so it deserves no more mention than any other steadily accumulating totaliser" -- You are most welcome to replace the example with another, better fitting one. But, I have to note this yet again since you fail to do so, remember that your initial edit was not to improve the paragraf in any way but to just remove it wholesale.
In closing, while --again-- you are correct about the source, you have only now examined it and based your concerns around it. Your initial rationale was more along the lines of removing "spam", your concerns were not based on the source at all, and your intention was not to improve on what is there but to merely destroy it as "spam". Having re-assessed the sourced and witnessed your style of "argumentation", it is clear to me that you just want to get your way no matter what. I hereby give up. I give up the attempt to improve the destructive aspects of your edits, and I give up on my maintenance of this article which I held so dear until you came along. Shame. Be proud of yourself. --
78.35.226.103 (
talk)
18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The photograph of the Debt Clock looks like a 7-segment display, rather than a 5 x 7 dot matrix display. It is described as a dot matrix display in at least two places in the article, at the time that I write this comment. (Whereas dot matrix displays create imagery or alphanumerics with "pixels" that are usually arranged in a rectangular grid, a 7-segment display has luminous or light-modulating elements in a pattern that looks like an "8". LED clocks often use 7-segment displays.) I don't have any direct knowledge of this Clock - if I'm right, perhaps someone could update the article. Gregg Favalora ( talk) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite having been editing around Wikipedia for a quite a few years (slacked off in more recent times, though), I've never had the opportunity to upload an image of any kind to the Commons, much less have it included in any article. That being said (please don't turn this into another debate similar to those already on here), I took a new photo of the clock on Tuesday, June 19 and the debt is substantially larger than in the 2009 photo currently in use (a good four trillion greater). I can probably figure it out, but failing that, could someone provide clear instructions? Also, the bit about an overhaul of the clock to include more digits is rather outdated; it's very clear that the clock now permits a debt up to the unfathomable $100 Trillion (one Dollar shy, of course), and a family share of up to $999,999. I'll happily edit that part, myself, and the photo, if it's fine with you guys, sans wikilawyering, I'd like to also contribute to replace the existing photo. Thanks. KirkCliff2 ( talk) 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. There is consensus that adding "United States" is unnecessary; as there are no other currently existing articles on national debt clocks, it is not needed for disambiguation. Should another article be created, we can cross that bridge then. Cúchullain t/ c 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
United States National Debt Clock →
National Debt Clock – Requesting as potentially controversial although I believe that the move back to the original article name is really completely uncontroversial. However, the user who
moved the article appears to have a different opinion. I've contacted the user, but s/he appears to not be a regular contributor and hasn't been active at all in almost two weeks. As I noted in my
message to User:Gfcvoice,
article titles are not supposed to be overly detailed, or to be descriptive where it isn't necessary to disambiguate or define the topic. There is absolutely no need for "United States" in the title since the clock is always and only ever called "National Debt Clock", and that is its actual name and it is fully sufficient to disambiguate and define the topic. I can see nothing in the
naming criteria that would support the addition of "United States" in the article title. --
85.197.13.202 (
talk)
01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The precision is necessary-- No, it is not. What other entity might be confused with the National Debt Clock? Is there any other entity that has the same name, or is commonly referred to as "National Debt Clock" (or even just generically as "national debt clock")? If there isn't, then "National Debt Clock" is evidently fully sufficient to disambiguate the topic from any other. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't even any other article about another debt clock of any kind on Wikipedia.
While I understand that in the US the clock is called the "National Debt Clock"-- Nope. It isn't called that only in the US. It is called that everywhere on earth, because it's the device's proprietary name, printed in large letters on its face.
it ignores national debt clocks of other countries-- No, it doesn't. You appear to have problems understanding Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation. We use disambiguation only when and where a certain topic might be confused with another topic. This is simply not the case here. There is no other entity called "National Debt Clock". Again: It's the proprietary name, not a generic title. It's not "national debt clock", but the one and only thing on earth called "National Debt Clock". The name "National Debt Clock" invariably refers to the entity discussed in this article, and nothing else anywhere on earth.
the article about the United States National Debt Clock should not be called "National Debt Clock"-- Very true. But this article isn't about a (purely fictitious!) entity called "United States National Debt Clock", it's about the National Debt Clock, and therefore this article's correct title is "National Debt Clock". -- 85.197.25.92 ( talk) 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As stated before, there is a national debt clock in Berlin, Germany.-- Yes, exactly: "a national debt clock". However, there is only one National Debt Clock. Please try to understand the categorical difference between a proprietary name ("The National Debt Clock") and a generic description ("a national debt clock").
How do you know (and how can you prove) that there is only "National Debt Clock"?-- The burden of proof rests firmly with you. Since you still ignore the most basic aspects of article titling and disambiguation, I'll break it down for you: For this article to merit a disambiguator, several conditions would have to be met: (1) There would have to be another National Debt Clock (which you would have to prove, and mind the capital letters National Debt Clock, not just a debt clock in another country which isn't actually called "National Debt Clock"), (2) that other National Debt Clock would have to be notable (which you would have to establish with reliable sources) and (3) it would have to have an article about it -- and (4) even if all of that were the case (where in actuality, none of it is the case), that other National Debt Clock would have to be somewhere near as notable as this one, because otherwise this one would qualify as the primary topic and still not have a disambiguator in its title.
Your implication that I don't understand "the categorical difference between a proprietary name ("The National Debt Clock") and a generic description (a national debt clock)" is incorrect.-- It would really help your case if you didn't prove yourself wrong in the sentence immediately preceding that one:
The fact there are multiple national debt clocks demonstrates the need to specify that the subject of this article is a clock in the US.-- Yet again: "a national debt clock" / "The National Debt Clock". You have just proven yet again that you don't understand or accept the fact that there is a categorical difference. The fact that I'm forced to waste my time trying to educate you just to prevent you from doing harm is just unnerving. Just go away. You have zero arguments on your side. Zero, zilch, nada. -- 85.197.40.70 ( talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include " Avenue of the Americas" as the location where the clock is? " Sixth Avenue" will suffice, and is a more common name used by New Yorkers. Seldom do people use "Avenue of the Americas". Besides, the AotA name, appended to the Sixth Avenue name, is too long. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says that the second clock ran out of digits in 2008 when the national debt exceeded $10 trillion, but the image at the top of the article shows a national debt clock displaying a national debt of over $11 trillion. The article currently states that an overhaul or replacement of the second clock is planned to add an additional digit. Jecowa ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no source to support this and verifiable sources that show that the debt was never going down. Perhaps the clock was down for maintenance or whathaveyou, but the claim is not only unsupported by factually incorrect, easily verified - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm . Seola ( talk) 23:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | National Debt Clock has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 11, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
National Debt Clock in
Manhattan ran out of digits on 30 September 2008, when the
United States public debt passed the $10 trillion mark? |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't seem to find any source mentioning just why the Dursts didn't upgrade the clock when it became apparent that another digit would be needed soon (one source from May 2006 quotes as early a date as Christmas 2007 [1]). It looks to me as if they deliberately decided to actually let the clock physically run out of digits, maybe for effect, but there's nothing whatsoever on their motivation to not upgrade the clock earlier. If anyone can find a reliable source that covers that, by all means please add it. I for one think it would give the article a much deeper scope. Everyme 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Another item I'm having a hard time backing up with an RS is the location move when the clock was being restarted in July 2002.
Everyme
17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates at the top of the page are in Germany. This needs to be changed
Hillshum| Talk 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Edge3 ( talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm now passing the article. The sourcing issues, in my opinion, are very minor and don't violate the good article criteria. Keep up the good work!-- Edge3 ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The section describing the AMD promotion that includes the sentence "AMD used the increasing public awareness of green computing and related environmental issues to thematically center their comparative advertising campaign around "raising awareness on a critical issue," as AMD Senior Vice President Marty Sayer put it" is, in my opinion, neither relevant nor proportionate and makes a poor conclusion to the article. I would like to remove it. Having a source does not protect an addition from being WP:IRRELEVANT and of WP:UNDUE weight. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"In portraying AMD's marketing campaign as having the intention of raising environmental awareness you engage in [...]" -- While it is correct that I apparently misread the source and thought that the discussed power-consumption issue is one of
green computing, you should
assume good faith and not
personally attack me by insinuating that I intentionally misrepresented the source. By assuming bad faith with me and attacking me in this way, you are not helping this discussion.
"Intel directly refutes AMD's claims, but the article as originally written merely allowed them as facts." -- Erm, what. I am putting any quotes in quotation marks. Also, please do not pretend that your interest was in accuracy or in improving the paragraf at all. You simply wanted to remove it completely as "spam".
"accept and repeat AMD's assertions at face value" -- Again, (i) please do not assume that I did it intentionally, and (ii) what assertions are you talking about? A simple, openly sourced quote is not "
presenting an opinion as fact" by any stretch.
"your original edit asserted as a fact that the numbers promoted by AMD "[track the] amount of money spent on electricity bills by companies running Intel-based servers"." -- No, it did not. You should maybe work on your text comprehension skills. The remark was put in
quotation marks, with a reference attached and thereby most obviously not trying to pass off the source text as fact. Also, your concerns about the wording come across as slightly disingenious, considering that you didn't initially try to improve the wording but simply tried to remove the paragraf completely.
"You see AMD's billboard as comparable with the non-partisan ideology of Douglas Durst; I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style." -- Your attempt to ascribe personal views to me and intentions to my editing is sadly misguided but apparently representative of your style of "argumentation". I do of course not see any comparability between the two as being independent of AMD's marketing intentions. You are accusing me of not understanding or of deliberately ignoring/white-washing that AMD's advertising campaign is in fact an avertising campaign and nothing else. Why don't you just go ahead and accuse me of promoting AMD? That would at least be the intellectually honest move on your part. Seriously, dude: "I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style" -- Clearly implying that I do not see the AMD ad campaign as a promo trick etc is assuming so much bad faith and/or incompetence on my part that this is really a total conversation ender. You are saying that I am stupid and/or in AMD's pocket. And while clearly implying that, you are just using it as a dirty trick in your "argumentation", trying to bait me into a (well-deserved) personal attack of some kind or something. Sheesh.
"Thankfully, there is no need for the article to express an opinion on this point" -- The article never did "express an opinion", and even if it did, please stop pretending that your original intention was to improve the paragraf. It wasn't.
"this appearance of neutrality was spurious and for marketing purposes only, so it deserves no more mention than any other steadily accumulating totaliser" -- You are most welcome to replace the example with another, better fitting one. But, I have to note this yet again since you fail to do so, remember that your initial edit was not to improve the paragraf in any way but to just remove it wholesale.
In closing, while --again-- you are correct about the source, you have only now examined it and based your concerns around it. Your initial rationale was more along the lines of removing "spam", your concerns were not based on the source at all, and your intention was not to improve on what is there but to merely destroy it as "spam". Having re-assessed the sourced and witnessed your style of "argumentation", it is clear to me that you just want to get your way no matter what. I hereby give up. I give up the attempt to improve the destructive aspects of your edits, and I give up on my maintenance of this article which I held so dear until you came along. Shame. Be proud of yourself. --
78.35.226.103 (
talk)
18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The photograph of the Debt Clock looks like a 7-segment display, rather than a 5 x 7 dot matrix display. It is described as a dot matrix display in at least two places in the article, at the time that I write this comment. (Whereas dot matrix displays create imagery or alphanumerics with "pixels" that are usually arranged in a rectangular grid, a 7-segment display has luminous or light-modulating elements in a pattern that looks like an "8". LED clocks often use 7-segment displays.) I don't have any direct knowledge of this Clock - if I'm right, perhaps someone could update the article. Gregg Favalora ( talk) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite having been editing around Wikipedia for a quite a few years (slacked off in more recent times, though), I've never had the opportunity to upload an image of any kind to the Commons, much less have it included in any article. That being said (please don't turn this into another debate similar to those already on here), I took a new photo of the clock on Tuesday, June 19 and the debt is substantially larger than in the 2009 photo currently in use (a good four trillion greater). I can probably figure it out, but failing that, could someone provide clear instructions? Also, the bit about an overhaul of the clock to include more digits is rather outdated; it's very clear that the clock now permits a debt up to the unfathomable $100 Trillion (one Dollar shy, of course), and a family share of up to $999,999. I'll happily edit that part, myself, and the photo, if it's fine with you guys, sans wikilawyering, I'd like to also contribute to replace the existing photo. Thanks. KirkCliff2 ( talk) 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. There is consensus that adding "United States" is unnecessary; as there are no other currently existing articles on national debt clocks, it is not needed for disambiguation. Should another article be created, we can cross that bridge then. Cúchullain t/ c 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
United States National Debt Clock →
National Debt Clock – Requesting as potentially controversial although I believe that the move back to the original article name is really completely uncontroversial. However, the user who
moved the article appears to have a different opinion. I've contacted the user, but s/he appears to not be a regular contributor and hasn't been active at all in almost two weeks. As I noted in my
message to User:Gfcvoice,
article titles are not supposed to be overly detailed, or to be descriptive where it isn't necessary to disambiguate or define the topic. There is absolutely no need for "United States" in the title since the clock is always and only ever called "National Debt Clock", and that is its actual name and it is fully sufficient to disambiguate and define the topic. I can see nothing in the
naming criteria that would support the addition of "United States" in the article title. --
85.197.13.202 (
talk)
01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The precision is necessary-- No, it is not. What other entity might be confused with the National Debt Clock? Is there any other entity that has the same name, or is commonly referred to as "National Debt Clock" (or even just generically as "national debt clock")? If there isn't, then "National Debt Clock" is evidently fully sufficient to disambiguate the topic from any other. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't even any other article about another debt clock of any kind on Wikipedia.
While I understand that in the US the clock is called the "National Debt Clock"-- Nope. It isn't called that only in the US. It is called that everywhere on earth, because it's the device's proprietary name, printed in large letters on its face.
it ignores national debt clocks of other countries-- No, it doesn't. You appear to have problems understanding Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation. We use disambiguation only when and where a certain topic might be confused with another topic. This is simply not the case here. There is no other entity called "National Debt Clock". Again: It's the proprietary name, not a generic title. It's not "national debt clock", but the one and only thing on earth called "National Debt Clock". The name "National Debt Clock" invariably refers to the entity discussed in this article, and nothing else anywhere on earth.
the article about the United States National Debt Clock should not be called "National Debt Clock"-- Very true. But this article isn't about a (purely fictitious!) entity called "United States National Debt Clock", it's about the National Debt Clock, and therefore this article's correct title is "National Debt Clock". -- 85.197.25.92 ( talk) 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As stated before, there is a national debt clock in Berlin, Germany.-- Yes, exactly: "a national debt clock". However, there is only one National Debt Clock. Please try to understand the categorical difference between a proprietary name ("The National Debt Clock") and a generic description ("a national debt clock").
How do you know (and how can you prove) that there is only "National Debt Clock"?-- The burden of proof rests firmly with you. Since you still ignore the most basic aspects of article titling and disambiguation, I'll break it down for you: For this article to merit a disambiguator, several conditions would have to be met: (1) There would have to be another National Debt Clock (which you would have to prove, and mind the capital letters National Debt Clock, not just a debt clock in another country which isn't actually called "National Debt Clock"), (2) that other National Debt Clock would have to be notable (which you would have to establish with reliable sources) and (3) it would have to have an article about it -- and (4) even if all of that were the case (where in actuality, none of it is the case), that other National Debt Clock would have to be somewhere near as notable as this one, because otherwise this one would qualify as the primary topic and still not have a disambiguator in its title.
Your implication that I don't understand "the categorical difference between a proprietary name ("The National Debt Clock") and a generic description (a national debt clock)" is incorrect.-- It would really help your case if you didn't prove yourself wrong in the sentence immediately preceding that one:
The fact there are multiple national debt clocks demonstrates the need to specify that the subject of this article is a clock in the US.-- Yet again: "a national debt clock" / "The National Debt Clock". You have just proven yet again that you don't understand or accept the fact that there is a categorical difference. The fact that I'm forced to waste my time trying to educate you just to prevent you from doing harm is just unnerving. Just go away. You have zero arguments on your side. Zero, zilch, nada. -- 85.197.40.70 ( talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include " Avenue of the Americas" as the location where the clock is? " Sixth Avenue" will suffice, and is a more common name used by New Yorkers. Seldom do people use "Avenue of the Americas". Besides, the AotA name, appended to the Sixth Avenue name, is too long. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says that the second clock ran out of digits in 2008 when the national debt exceeded $10 trillion, but the image at the top of the article shows a national debt clock displaying a national debt of over $11 trillion. The article currently states that an overhaul or replacement of the second clock is planned to add an additional digit. Jecowa ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no source to support this and verifiable sources that show that the debt was never going down. Perhaps the clock was down for maintenance or whathaveyou, but the claim is not only unsupported by factually incorrect, easily verified - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm . Seola ( talk) 23:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)