User talk:Verdy p/archive2

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition[edit]

I'm working on the Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition, due to be launched next Thurday, 1st Feb. We have a couple of templates, as below, that will be added to the Commons mains pages, and used to attract voters, but we need some help with translations. I wonder if you'd be able to assist, please? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French page and templates have been completed, see

Voulez-vous aider à récompenser le meilleur du meilleur ? Venez maintenant voter dans le
Concours de l’image Commons de l’année 2006
Le vote de sélection des finalistes est ouvert jusqu’au 14 février.

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/banner1/fr :

Quelle sera la meilleure image de 2006 ? Les candidats ont été sélectionnés. Participez maintenant en votant pour la finale du
Concours de l’image Commons de l’année 2006
Le vote final pour désigner l’Image Commons de l’année 2006 est ouvert jusqu’au 28 février.

Verdy p 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translations! Would you be able to do this page as well, please? --MichaelMaggs 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/final

Numbers in POTY gallery[edit]

Don't worry about the numbers. The number in the voting list (and gallery) was reduced from 323 to 321 here on 31st Jan, before voting started. It was to remove two pictures that had been de-featured. The entire competition has been correctly run with 321 images. --MichaelMaggs 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006 - missing votes[edit]

I did not want to interfer with the routine voting verification but I have too. We have a complaint from user Tsui here about a missing vote. This was the result of a mistake, or an act of vandalism, by User:75.5.9.244 at 3 Feb, 21:42 and affected also the votes from users Amrum, Wing045 and Dannycas (and maybe others, I didn't verify). The incident was not corrected to the moment and affects the voting results. I'm sending this message also to Bryan. Alvesgaspar 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a bit busy with school, and cannot look after the POTY until the weekend. If it is not fixed tomorrow evening, I will look into it. I will also notify WarX, as he is currently doing the counting stuff. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortlist[edit]

Please do not link a page with your own preferences. This is really not fair! You may link a shortlist according to votes only! For this reason i had to remove the link to your personnal page from the voting page! Verdy p 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? These are the best classified pictures, not my own preferences! I have removed the link and put only the gallery. Please give your opinion in the talk page before altering things. Alvesgaspar 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications by user 75.5.9.244[edit]

I have already reverted modifications by user 75.5.9.244. Please see above (POTY 2006 missing votes) and also on POTY 2006 discussion page. But I am not sure it was an act of vandalism, maybe only a clumsy edit. Alvesgaspar 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006 - 1st phase - closing rules[edit]

Nous avons besoin de votre aide pour organizer la fermeture de la première phase, et vérifier et compter les votes. Priez de voir Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006#1st phase - closing rules (my French doesn't seem good, there is a long time that I don't speak it). Alvesgaspar 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with SVG[edit]

hi thankyou for trying to help me with the svg. you see i have tryed a bit of everything to solve it. including changing of program. notmally when changing the size of the thumbnail a pixel bigger or smaller it works. but i can not do that in galleries. so it remains being a problem. Right now i am trying to use the method you described to me, with the image Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg but the first 2 tryes have resulted in a completly white screen. for that i have some example to ask you if i am doing it right:

i should delete the part in the square...

 <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
   <!ENTITY ns_extend "http://ns.adobe.com/Extensibility/1.0/">
   <!ENTITY ns_ai "http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/">
   <!ENTITY ns_graphs "http://ns.adobe.com/Graphs/1.0/">
 ]>
 <svg version="1.1"...>...

then look in the text for "&ns_extend ;", "&ns_ai;" and "&ns_graphs;" and substitut them with the url ("http://ns.adobe.com/Extensibility/1.0/", "http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/", "http://ns.adobe.com/Graphs/1.0/") , including the "".
should i also add a ; here?

No! The ";" is part of the reference so in a sequence like "xxxx&ns_ai;yyyy", all the characters between "xxxx" and "yyyy" (i.e. including the first character "&" of the reference and its last character ";") must be substituted as a whole, by the value specified in the middle of the quotes in the ENTITY definition.

The quotes surrounding the value specified in the ENTITY definition are NOT part of the substituted value.

In a XML namespace definition like:

xmlns:mynamespace="&myextensionurl;2"

where the referenced entity named myextensionurl is defined as:

<!ENTITY myurl "http://www.mywebsite.org/"> <!ENTITY myext "mysvgextensions/"> <!ENTITY myextensionurl "&myurl;&myext;">

The correct substition of the entity will generate:

xmlns:mynamespace="http://www.mywebsite.org/mysvgextensions/2"

Note how the quotes surrounding the xml namespace definition are not affected by the substitution of the named entity which does not include them.

There are only four named entity references that are predefined in SVG (and in XML) and that you should never substitute without extreme care (because it could cause an xml syntax problem. These are

< which stands for <
> which stands for >
& which stands for &
" which stands for "

All the other named entities are non-standard without a definition in some DTD (for example in the DTD implied or referenced by HTML documents, or defined in the standard DTD specified by the URL at the top of the SVG document in its initial <!DOCUMENT ... > statement, which is the only place where the substitution of named entities is impossibleandforbidden by XML specifications).

Verdy p 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is all i have done to the moment. as for the illustration options ;here you can see the dialog box. even when i have tryed all posible convinations and nothing seems to afect it.. i hope this help you to find what is wrong. i am glad for any help.-LadyofHats 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EY! it does seem to work. i had to change the css properties to "style elements" deactivate all other options and then do what you told me with the ENTITY text. and like magic :). i will go over all my files and do the same. thankyou very much for the hint.-LadyofHats 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using a text editor to perform such cleanup (because these extensions are not necessary for the SVG rendering but may be only useful for the editing program that was used to create it), you may take profit of this manual edit to perform some cleanup in the generated XML code

some SVG editors are really too verbose (for example Inkscape and Sodipodi which is based on Inkscape) and do generate too many CSS properties without factorizing them in groups or using shared definitions; many of these CSS styles are even not necessary for correct rendering as they have all the standard default values of these properties;
Adobe Illustrator and others are also including their own namespaces for staring other editing properties; these properties are never used when rendering the SVG (they may for example contain the source definition of a path or glyph, and the transformations that were applied to them to create the final actual path, for example with arcs of ellipses or whencomputing the rendered intersection of simpler objects and forms, or a projection of a 3D object whose 3D coordinates are kept in meta-data)
They may also often store meta-data specific to the editor and related to the file, that is used for your local management of SVG files (for example the names of the local libraries used)
Some extension meta-data properties that may be useful to keep are those in the RDF namespace : they may contain a description, a copyright, licencing terms, and conditions of use (allowed for display but not for printing, or forbidding the creation of derived works; if such usage restrictions are there, they should not be deleted, and such SVG images are not suitable for Commons). But most often, the descriptions are not filled, and they should be.
Some editors are also inserting unnecessary comments that may be safely removed
Some editors are abusing the usage of indentation, and are often using unnecessary whitespaces in the middle of the definition of a path.
Some editors are storing coordinates numbers with a really too high precision, and don't allow fixing their exact value: often, this results from the internal computing by applying multiple transforms or manual edits in WYSIWYG mode at various display scales, and this causes some imprecisions in the final rendering (this is aproblem when the figure has really a strict geometry, or when multiple areas are joined side by side, because their common borders do not overlap exactly as they should, causing vizual artefacts like variable border weights, or transparent gaps between two areas).
This can be fixed by editing the XML code if you understand the SVG semantics (the official standard SVG specifications are available publicly for free on the http://www.w3.org website; this is a very valuable source of information if you want to make perfect SVGs, to perform things that are not very easy to do with your SVG editor alone which is most often designed to edit graphics in WYSIWIG mode where small details or imperfections are not easy to see or edit).
A manual edit of a generated SVG file will very often divide its size (and the number of instructions to process in the sVG renderer) dramatically (often by a factor of 5 to 10), without affeting its quality (most often, the quality will be even improved).
There are some external SVG optimizers available on the web: they don't modify the graphic, but perform such cleanup of unnecessary things, including the very frequent superfluous whitespaces, or unfactorized CSS properties, or the default CSS property values that may be inherited using groups with <g>)

Verdy p 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Wikiversity-logo.svg[edit]

Hi Verdy p, I have seen you have upload (on 20 September) a new version of Image:Wikiversity-logo.svg. I really appreciate neat code made by hands instead of long and difficult to understand code made by programs. However the code of the image you upload was not svg valid [1] and the result was a blank image. So I edited the image (from your source) and uploaded it (on 21 September) after (hopefully) solved the issues. However I had to do a guess for the gradient of the colour (there were some parameters missing). So I would kindly ask you, if you have time, to see if the current version is acceptable or if it requires some changes. -- AnyFile 09:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version was not valid XML. That's why I edited it. But it WAS valid SVG, was correctly rendered by Adobe SVG renderer, by several SVG editors, by the Wikipedia renderer. it had NO missing parameter, not even in the gradients that were correctly referenced (so it must be your limited SVG renderer that is not conforming, and does not honor xlink:hrefs, despite it was correctly bound; there was no guess to do, one gradient was linked to the other, using standard syntax). Verdy p 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will restore the meta data you have deleted: this is required for keeping the needed copyright within the file.

I had removed the inclusing of the text within the SVG rendering part, but I had kept it in the metadata for this purpose.

There was no error, and it was already validating according to W3C (before my changes, it was invalid because of XML incorrect syntax, even if it was still accepted by the Wikimedia thumbnail renderer; in addition it was referencing an inexistant XML namespace that was not defined (that's why it did not render anywhere else...

So I will restore the copyrights you have deleted... Verdy p 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Petronas_Towers_view_by_night.jpg[edit]

Seidenstud replies here to my previous request (on his discussion page) to about the status of this image. Verdy p 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC):[reply]

That is not at all how I understand it. My understanding is that Public/Private has nothing to do with licensing. If you look at that image's flickr page, it clearly is listed as "All Rights Reserved." That is not at all the same as CC-BY. I will bring this to COM:FLICKR and see if anyone can clarify this. -Seidenstud 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Flickr has been boughtr by Yahoo, nothing is clear now... The interface is extremely confusive about the licencing terms. This has changed this the time I uploaded it from the English Wikipedia (where it was initially stored by someone else, but it has since been dropped from English Wikipedia, because it was on Common...).

Can you find the original upload from En.Wikipedia where it was ? I would not have uploaded it to Commons, without first verifying the licence when it was displayed on English Wikipedia.

How can we check the status if Flickr changes its policy without notice ?

If I made something wrong, I'm sorry, this was not intended, because I thought I had verified everything... Verdy p 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. The whole flickr thing can be very confusing. And to make matters worse, Flickr users can change the copyright status of their images without any sort of paper trail. So here, we have a whole system devised whereby images are confirmed. Your image was checked by a bot who was unable to confirm the licensing. So, I looked at it manually and saw that the photographer put "All rights reserved" which effectively makes the photo unsuitable for the commons unless it was at some point licensed under CC-BY, etc. But at this point we cannot prove that, so the image unfortunately would probably have to be deleted.

I have no idea how we could go about finding the old version on the english wikipedia. It was probably deleted long ago, and wold not be able to prove anything anyhow.

Thanks though for your excellent uploads here! -Seidenstud 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I never visit Flickr, unless I am required to do it. And now that it's owned by Yahoo, that's even worse, because I really don't like the practices of Yahoo in terms of privacy and commercial promotion within all sorts of softwares where it comes with bundled bars that must always be carefully unchecked before installing (and Yahoo never memorize the fact that I don't want their bulky bar...)

So most of my downloads to Commons are made manually, or composed from other sources. I don't upload very often, and I try to do my best to avoid putting things that I can't trust.

So delete this image. If I uploaded it, that's because of the past verifications I did (and at that time, your verification process was probably not active or not known or not working). I was just interested in getting an existing illustration, present in the English Wikipedia, to be used also on the French Wikipedia, by sharing it on Commons.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Next tim I will be even more careful about Flickr images, because this source is not reliable... Verdy p 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

Image:Petronas_Towers_view_by_night.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Seidenstud 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meuse (river)[edit]

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas vos changements ni la structure de Category:Meuse (river) et Category:Meuse River qui prêtent à la confusion. Il s'agit de la même fleuve il me semble. Est-ce que vous pourriez le documenter dans Category:Meuse (river) et/ou Category:Meuse. Merci. --Foroa 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oui il s'agit bien de la même chose. C'est l'unification des cartégories et conventions de nommage les plus utilisées qui impose de classer l'une dans l'autre, pour n'en garder qu'une comme principale, et mettre un lien de redirection pour la classification.

Sur Commons, les convention de nommage sont basées sur la version anglaise, même si les orthographes natives sont préférées.

Je n'ai pas fait de confusion. Meuse est à la fois une rivière et un département français et désigne plusieurs régions de 3 pays. Il y a la classification nécessaire. Avant cela, on trouvait des infos sur la Meuse en Belgique dans unse sous-catégorie de "Meuse" le seul département français... C'était inapproprié et on trouvait d'autrers photos mal classées (de Belgique dans le département français, ou l'inverse...

Verdy p 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je vois. Votre classification avec le département Meuse était effectivement nécessaire. Ma remarque portait uniquement sur Category:Meuse River et Category:Meuse (river). Le problème vient du fait qu'il n'y pas d'uniformité entre les noms des rivieres, même en France. Les noms suivants sont possible avec les "règles" des commons: Meuse river - Meuse (river) - Meuse, river. Les noms suivants sont incorrectes, principalement par la mauvaise utilisation des majuscules : Meuse River - Meuse (River) - Meuse (rivière).

De toute façon, commencer une nouvelle catégorisation avec un autre nom parceque le nom actuel ne convient pas ne résoud rien: il vaut mieux de garder une seule catégorie ensemble et proposer un renommage global qui peut être fait par des robots. Donc je propose de réintégrer Category:Meuse River (nomincorrecte) dans Category:Meuse (river) et éventuellement procéder à un changement de nom de Category:Meuse (river). --Foroa 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non je suis plutôt de l'avis de garder Category:Meuse River car ce schéma de nommage est le plus utilisé (y compris par les principales rivières et fleuves français et d'ailleurs), afin de faciliter la gestion des liens sur Commons (qui sont basés sur un schéma anglophone). A ce sujet, les rivières françaises ne sont pas toutes QUE françaises... Donc nécessité de s'accorder aussi avec les autres langues et pays limitrophes.

L'usage de "(river)" est contraire aux noms utilisés partout ailleurs sur Commons.

D'ailleurs je travaille sur la classification des régions, départements, et catégories communes, et j'en fusionne déjà un certain nombre, en recherchant les conventions les plus utilisées avant d'en faire une isolément.

Verdy p 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personellement, je trouve que le nom "Meuse river" est le nom correct, "Meuse River" n'est pas correcte et Meuse (river), bien correcte, n'est pas cohérent avec les autres. Mon problème est que ça n'aide pas de catégoriser le même sujet sous deux noms différents: soit on le met sous un nom ou soit sous un autre, donc naturellement je prends celui qui est le plus peuplé, Si le nom doit changer, aucun problème: il y a des robots pour aider avec ce travail. Personalement, je trouve que le nom final est moins important: le plus important est d'éviter deux catégories pour le même sujet. --Foroa

Si! c'est important! Pour la navigation sur commons et la cohérence des catégories, et aussi pour aider à catégoriser les nouvelles images et s'y retrouver facilement (y compris quand ce sont les robots qui doivent classer des tonnes d'images, ou les importer automatiquement d'autres Wikipédias). C'est à cause de ces différences qu'on se retrouve avec des catégories en doublon, et les robots ne savent justement pas faire le tri sans des tonnes d'interventions manuelles pour reclasser le tout. En revanche, ce qu'un robot sait faire c'est consulter les listes marquées avec {{categoryredirect}} : on classe une catégorie en doublon dans l'autre, et on y place ce modèle, un robot se charge de faire le déplacement. Avant de faire appel à un robot, on utilise {{moveto}} et {{movefrom}} pour permettre de discuter du changement (il peut y avoir plusieurs choix possibles pour la réorganisation). Verdy p 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pour moi, le plus important c'est de ne pas avoir des doublons comme vous venez d'en créer. Le nom correcte est un autre débat qui demande aussi un consensus. Le redirect est une mauvaise solution parceque ca amène l'utilisateur dans une autre catégorie et il ne voit plus les impages qui sont dans la catégorie originale. Les robots ne font strictement rien avec les redirects, ni avec les moves. Le move signale la volenté de faire un renommage. Le renommage est uniquement fait sur des pages spéciales ou on peut demander des transferts. --Foroa 09:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ne perdons pas notre temps: je propose d'intégrer les deux cats en un et d'ouvrir un débat pour une uniformisation des noms des rivières parce que je ne vois aucun pays ou c'est uniforme. --Foroa 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Départements en France[edit]

Je suis content de voir que vous adressez d'une façon systématique les départements en France. Il me manquait la connaissance et le courage de m'y mettre. --Foroa 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality images candidates[edit]

Bonjour, I removed one of your images because it was double-listed in both both the main candidate list and the consensual review section. The former is for a single one-person review; and the latter is a vote tallied across multiple users. I'm restoring my comment to the consensual review section, but I'll leave it to you to decide which of the two you prefer to keep listed -- they shouldn't be listed under both sections. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't I make some comments in the vote section? The nomination section is too short for that ... I did not list myself in the voters. I followed the guidelines. Verdy p 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are welcome to make comments: it's just that the image itself only has to be in one section or the other; no need to be in both. If there is discussion involved, it should probably remain in the consensual review section. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdy p I think you should look carefully at the guidelines and QI process (if a translation is required let us know). In short here is the process:

You create a nomination entry, with a short description. This is not FP, the qualities of the image speak for themselves, this is mainly a technical evaluation, a long description is not needed.
Someone reviews your image, and either agrees with your nomination (promotion) or disagrees (decline).
At that point, if someone disagrees with the review they have 2 days to move it to the Consensual Review section for further discussion.

You have effectively got two nominations for the same image running at the same time, as there are already a number of reviews in the CR section, it is proper to remove the entry from the main nomination section. --Tony Wills 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings in Strasbourg[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ABuildings_in_Strasbourg&diff=9064059&oldid=9031137 Catégorie superflue : non, ce n'est pas vrai. Il y a la navigation par catégorie, et quiconque entre directement dans la Category:Strasbourg (par exemple en venant de en:Strasbourg) sans passer par la Category:Buildings in Bas-Rhin (à laquelle on n'accède d'ailleurs directement depuis nulle part dans Wikipedia) doit pouvoir accéder à cette sous-catégorie. Salutations cordiales, 81.64.196.160 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu n'as pas compris: la catégorie est aussi dans Strasbourg qui est lui même dans celle du Bas-Rhin.

Et il y a d'autres axes de recherche: Building in France (à travers Buildings by country).

Le doublon que tu avais mis donnait deux catégories depuis Strasbourg... Verdy p 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai essayé de réunifier les catégories pour la France afin que l'on puisse accéder à toutes les images pertinentes depuis une des catégories. Je l'ai fait pour l'ensemble des régions et des départements, et je l'ai fini pour les thèmes suivants: Géography, Maps, Cities and villages, Coats of arms, avec les liens depuis les autres catégories de classification, en repreant ce qui avait été fait sur La Réunion, le département et la région le mieux structuré. Le but est de ne pas laisser en plan dans des catégories non reliées des images qui devraient être groupées, simplement car la classification s'est faite sur un axe et pas un autre, d'où les catégoies croisées par thème ET par lieu, en choisissant la reubrique la plus fine qui peut être classée sur les deux axes.

Le travail de reclasification (plus fine) reste à affiner pour les images existantes, mais les catégories créées vont faciliter grandement la classification et permettre la recherche de toutes les images pertinentes à certains niveaux, quelque soit l'axe de recherche (par thème ou par lieu). Verdy p 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Verdy p/archive2

Contents

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition[edit]

Numbers in POTY gallery[edit]

POTY 2006 - missing votes[edit]

Shortlist[edit]

Modifications by user 75.5.9.244[edit]

POTY 2006 - 1st phase - closing rules[edit]

problems with SVG[edit]

Image Wikiversity-logo.svg[edit]

Image:Petronas_Towers_view_by_night.jpg[edit]

Category:Meuse (river)[edit]

Départements en France[edit]

Quality images candidates[edit]

Category:Buildings in Strasbourg[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Verdy p/archive2

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 competition[edit]

Numbers in POTY gallery[edit]

POTY 2006 - missing votes[edit]

Shortlist[edit]

Modifications by user 75.5.9.244[edit]

POTY 2006 - 1st phase - closing rules[edit]

problems with SVG[edit]

Image Wikiversity-logo.svg[edit]

Image:Petronas_Towers_view_by_night.jpg[edit]

Category:Meuse (river)[edit]

Départements en France[edit]

Quality images candidates[edit]

Category:Buildings in Strasbourg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search