User talk:Stévan

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Stévan!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Como 1907 Logo.svg

Copyright status: File:Como 1907 Logo.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Como 1907 Logo.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This logo has been already released by the legal owner for using on the main it.wikipidia page of the football team (for further information, visit the same picture uploaded on it.wikipedia). I reckon that this is applicable even to the comparable pages in the other languages of Wikipedia as well. I added the OTRS permission to the description of this picture. --Stefano Tòdi (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:It-Como(local).ogg

Copyright status: File:It-Como(local).ogg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:It-Como(local).ogg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:600px Blu Royal with white bands.png

File:600px Blu Royal with white bands.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Friulian vs. Romansh

Hi, Stévan! I was wondering what the motivation was for switching Friulian and Romansh in the Romance languages chart. I know the former is spoken in Italy and the latter in Switzerland, so the label "N. Italian" isn't entirely correct, but the groupings are meant to be "based on structural and comparative criteria, not on socio-functional ones," so political boundaries shouldn't matter. Also, this map now contradicts the source (https://www.academia.edu/51180219/Koryakov_2001_Atlas_of_Romance_languages). That being said, the cited source doesn't give evidence for its groupings, and it definitely could be wrong. Do you have evidence for grouping Friulian rather than Romansh with Gallo-Italic, Venetian, and Istriot? For example, is there any unique common innovation shared between Friulian, Gallo-Italic, Venetian, and Istriot that is unlikely to be a parallel development and unlikely to have spread from one variety to another? Jackpaulryan (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jackpaulryan, thanks for noticing this.

The one reason why I swapped Friulan and Romansh is that the diagram shows "North Italian" as a group in the background, but Romansh is never considered part of it at all, whilst Friulan in some cases – like sociolinguistics – is, being spoken in diglossia with Italian (Romansh is with Swiss Germanic instead); so, I thought it was just a slip to include Romansh in it and not Friulan. Stévan (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! From my understanding, the groupings on the chart are meant to represent phylogenetic relationships, rather than later contact-induced similarities or diglossic relationships. (However, I’m not sure how much I believe in any of this chart's groupings.) Also, Tuscan is in a completely different group from N.Italian, so this change would not indicate any closer relationship between Friulian and Standard Italian(=a variety of Tuscan).

I would imagine the author separated Friulian because it lacks certain innovations common in Northern Italy and Switzerland (e.g., u fronting, unstressed penultimate vowel deletion, etc. (The Rhaeto-Romance Languages (Haiman and Benincà 1992,p.22))). However, none of these features that Friulian lacks are good indicators of historical development as they all are common developments cross-linguistically and thus could be coincidental. They also could be the result of aerial diffusions between Ladin/Romansh/etc. I have no reason to believe that Romansh shares a more recent common ancestor with Gallo-Italian/etc than Friulian does, but I would feel more comfortable sticking to the cited source unless we have solid evidence to contradict it. Would you mind if I changed it back? Jackpaulryan (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Jackpaulryan, I read the source, and unfortunately is not very clear on this point, but now I see what you mean.

I think we got misunderstanding because "Northern Italian" is generally a subgroup of the sociolingistic "Italo-Romance" (which in fact is explained as "traditional group" in this diagram), so it is not clear if it is meant to be a subgroup of Italo-Romance here as well, or else.

So – not knowing – I think you can revert it, even though it looks very confusing to me, because Rhaeto-Romance languages are not generally included in "Northern Italian" by phylogenetic classifications, nor Romansh is in sociolinguistics, as I said. -- Stévan (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't actually know how to change it back without reverting your other changes (which I really like), so is it possible you could do it?

I have a lot of doubts about traditional Romance groupings in general. I have been finding my own evidence by compiling lists of innovations. I believe that Castilian, Portuguese, and Galician share a more recent common ancestor with each other than with Aragonese, French, Tuscan etc., and I also believe Romance languages are more closely related to each other than any is to Classical Latin. That's all I'm sure of so far. Jackpaulryan (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jackpaulryan, I can do it.

Anyway, I am not so sure about what you said on Friulan, because it's true that it didn't develop u-fronting, but Venetian and Romangnol didn't as well, and they are Northern Italian; plus, Friulan did actually lose ending vowels like Lombard and Piedmontese, keeping distance from close Venetian, which restored them instead...

The remarkable distance of Friulan from Nothern Italian is keeping sigmatic plurals, but it is the same for Ladin and Romansh, and that's what makes them Rhaeto-Romance languages.

That said, linguistic groupings within a continuum are always conventional and arbitrary to some extent, so I'd not care too much; and yes, obviously Romance languages are more similar among them than compare to Classical Latin, because they all come from Vulgar Latin, which was sensibly different (it's enough to consider the huge reduction of grammatical cases). -- Stévan (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for agreeing to change it back! Sorry I don't know how to edit vector images. I will learn eventually. Very interesting thoughts on Romance languages! Also, the original order makes more sense geographically (with Romansh to the west of Ladin and Friulian). If you want, you could get rid of the "N. Italian" bubble, but I still think Romansh and Friulian should be back in their original places. Jackpaulryan (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jackpaulryan, it's not my thoughts, it's what we commonly know about Romance languages at now; what we have to do here is just sticking to the sources.

So, we cannot erase "N. Italian" just because we think so, since it's in there...

What I can do at now is just reverting the image at the previous version, that is identical to the one shown in the source, even because there was some arguing about postitioning of Gallo-Italic varieties that I added within the bubble. Stévan (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have undone your revision (thank you), but the switched Friulian and Romansh still appears for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpaulryan (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)