- Some anon. is adding the claim that the Sicani language is Iberian, with the most ridiculous refs (mirrors of Wikipedia, blogs, books a quarter millennium old). Seems to think that it's up to us to disprove speculation rather than the other way around. kwami (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please get your facts straight. I am not trying to claim Sicanian is Iberian - that claim was already in the article, and is referenced by both the sources that were earlier in the article, and the ones that I added. You have just made it apparent that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But adding sources which you allege support the idea that they were Iberian *is* a claim. You've made those claims your own. We have a Greek historian who states that the Sicani came from Iberia/Gaul, an 200+-year-old book which notes their name resembles that of a river in Catalonia (other sources say the same about the Seine), and some unspecified "linguistic connections" with languages that we hardly know anything about. Your sources admit some of this may be coincidence and is hardly convincing, but yet from it you make claims of near certainty. Very shoddy. kwami (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have so far not disproven the sources, so until you manage to do so, or find better sources, my oh-so "shoddy" work will have to stay. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to sabotage the article? Once again, read wikipedia:verifiability. Or reread it, if need be. You do not have a single reliable source for the language article. Once the unsupported claims are removed, there is nothing in that article that isn't in this one, so there's no point in having a separate article. Thus the merger. We can manage the info about origins & language here. kwami (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I commented on your talk page, it is undisputable that there are reliable sources to suggest evidence that they originate from Iberia. Based on that, and along with the other sources which say as such, there is no massive leap in acknowledging that the language they spoke was Iberian. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I note below, it is disputable, and the language hardly follows. I'm from America, but I don't speak an American language. If they were from the Seine (as one source suggests), it hardly follows that they spoke a language from Valencia. kwami (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- language & origins (merge)
Wrong. It is up to you to explain that the refs are not suitable. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which I have, more than once. If you can come up with a a reliable, published source, I have no problem with linking Sicani to Iberian. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability. —kwami (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, you seem to be under the impression I am the one who put this into the article - let me clear this up for you; I am not. All I did essentially was add a few more sources. Secondly, no, you have not. You must deal with each source one by one, and explain clearly why it is not valid. Any attempt to avoid this will be construed as an inability to do so. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason you're being so belligerent? It's irrelevant who wrote the material, and I have given my reasons. If you don't understand that we can't reference wikipedia with wikipedia, then I suggest you read wikipedia:verifiability. —kwami (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It becomes relevant when you accuse me of inserting malinformation into the article, when this is clearly not the case. A quick google search will confirm for you about the history of the Sicani, and although this does not count as a reliable source, it shows that they are potentially available, with one already being in the language article. In response to your "suggestion", I can assure you I am most likely more familiar with it than you, having even contributed a couple of lines to it in the past. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me put it this way: I don't care whether it was you or someone else who added those ridiculous excuses for refs. Mirrors of Wikipedia? Blogs which don't even say what they're being used to support? Quarter-millennium-old books when archeology has made one or two discoveries since? The article is still essentially unreferenced. kwami (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is apparent you cannot be bothered to do anything for the article, and are too proud to even admit that you are wrong, let alone apologize, so I shall go about collecting references myself. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking the same about you. I did do something for the language article: I merged it with the ethnic article, which contains the same info. Please read wikipedia:verifiability before you get indignant. Encyclopedias are not acceptable references, especially when the encyclopedia is Wikipedia itself. Blogs are not acceptable references. The only decent ref was over 200 years old, and archeology has moved on since then. If there is anything to these speculations, you should be able to do better than that. In the meantime, I do expect a minimal level of academic rigor when a claim is challenged; I hardly see that as "too proud", but simply common sense. kwami (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia allows tertiary sources (encyclopedias). It does not allow primary sources, and it does not allow openly-editable tertiary sources, or mirror sites of such. All the current sources pass this, unless you would like to disagree? 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do disagree: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources." "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." "Tertiary sources - compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources - may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."
- Your unpublished sources do not pass muster. One, a personal website, looks good enough to me, even if it is not technically acceptable, but does not support the statements you're using it for. For example, you claim (regardless of who first wrote it, you're editing the article, so it's now your claim too) that the Sicani most likely came from Catalonia, when the sources you've added explain that the historical record says "Iberia", not "Catalonia", and that that "Iberia" wasn't just the Iberian peninsula, but Gaul as well. When I made that correction, you deleted my comment. kwami (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Unindent) - You yourself quoted it: "Tertiary sources - compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources - may be used to give overviews or summaries".
- Incorrect. The source is only placed after the point which states "Iberia". The Catalonia point is explained and referenced on the Sicani article. If I removed your reference about Gaul, I sincerely appologize, but I do not recall this, and if it coincided with your removal of several other pieces of information/sources, then I must have assumed it was simply another mart of your misinformment and reverted along with the rest of it.
- Look, this is the sentence: "who are thought to have migrated from Iberia,[1] most likely Catalonia (Spain).[citation needed]" - explain to me how anywhere in that I have removed the citation needed part of the Catalonia bit? 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's changed since I made the comment. I was talking about the other article, which says "it is thought they originated from the Iberian Peninsula, most likely Catalonia (Spain), as also noted by the Greek scientific historian Thucydides." The source you had only said Iberia, which was the Iberian Peninsula + Gaul, not Catalonia. You now use a 200+-yr-old source, but still claim Catalonia is "most likely". The "few linguistic factors" linking it with Iberian have not been demonstrated in any of the sources that I can see. Then the extraordinary claim that "it is probable the language had ties to the historic Iberian languages" (of which we know next to nothing), when your source—which is not a reliable published source in the first place—admits "the evidence is hardly conclusive". This is shoddy scholarship, and adding a bunch of google searches doesn't fix it. It needs to be rewritten to reflect what the reliable sources actually say, and the other sources should be ignored. kwami (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had actually taken the time to check up on the article rather than reinforcing your pride, you would have realized that rewriting it is exactly what I have been doing.
- and "The theory of the Sicanians' Iberian origin is supported by a rather few linguistic factors thought to be shared with early Iberian tongues" - considering you (supposedly) are so advanced in linguistics, one hardly needs rocket science to link the two. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not rocket science. It should be easy, but you've still failed to provide those "few linguistic factors". kwami (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source states that those linguistic factors exist - unless the article moves on to imply what these are, we do not need a sources for that. I also find it odd how you direct all your energy at the Sicani related articles, yet one such as the Elymian language doesn't cite any sources at all, with the Sicel equivalent not being much better. I am starting to have concern of your motives. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh brother. I came across a bad article, and started to clean it up. You accuse me of malicious motives because I haven't cleaned up a second bad article that you've come across? You caught me: I'm a Sicani nationalist out to destabilize modern civilization. I will correct my behaviour by pirating your watchlist, so I can see all the bad articles you see.
- I've seen enough nonsense about linguistic connections that I assume unreliable sources such as yours[1] got it wrong. The vast majority of the time it turns our they did and my suspicions were justified. If you had a competent source mentioning "a few linguistic factors", I'd be tempted to take them at their word. But a family website can hardly be taken as a linguistic reference. kwami (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Once again, it appears you aren't reading your material. The Elymian article does cite a source, and a linguistic encyclopedia at that. If you were using sources that decent, we wouldn't be having this argument. kwami (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The theory of the Sicanians' Iberian origin is supported by a rather few linguistic factors thought to be shared with early Iberian tongues" - This for one backs up entirely the other source. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So one source plagiarized the other. Are you seriously claiming that an on-line travel magazine should be taken as a reliable academic reference? kwami (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also very well referenced that they came from Iberia [2] - This is not even disputable. Therefore, since they are likely of Iberian origins, they are also equally likely to have had an Iberian-originated language. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your own sources dispute it! Don't you read your material? Thucydides claimed they were Iberian, but the Sicanians denied it, and other Greeks as well. All such claims are disputable, since Thucydides didn't cite sources, and we have little way to resolve the issue today. And anyway, "Iberian" didn't mean from the modern Iberian Peninsula, but—as your sources also state—west of Italy. And if they were from Iberia, that hardly means they spoke an Iberian language. There were plenty of other languages in Iberia at the time. kwami (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if they were from Iberia, recently enough that Thucydides (400 BCE) could know it, then they weren't the original inhabitants of Sicily (8000 BCE), and they didn't colonize Malta (5000 BCE). Just one more piece of nonsense in this article masquerading as scholarship. kwami (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge from Sicanian language
Problems with that article: No reliable references, and almost no material that isn't found in this article. Once unsupported material is removed, there's nothing left to justify an article. kwami (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing in the Sicani language article we don't have here is on Sicani scripts, where it claims only the Phoenician alphabet was used. This is as relevant to this article as it is to the language article, since scripts are largely irrelevant to language. The unreliable source used for that statement actually says that an earlier Minoan script is found. The World's Writing Systems states that the peoples of southern Italy and Sicily "took their alphabets directly from Greek", though it doesn't mention the Sicani by name. kwami (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With recent changes to this article, there is nothing at all in the "main" article that isn't here. Ogre is right to redirect it. kwami (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- spelling out the problems
- The Sicano (Segre) - Sicanian connection could easily be coincidence, as one of the sources admits. This should be stated. More problematically, the 19th-century source could not ID a place in Iberia where the name Sicani could have come from, suggesting that the 18th-century idea of it being the Segre was no longer accepted. If that's still the case, we shouldn't mention it at all. That's why we don't use such dated sources.
- The "linguistic factors" are not cited from any source competent to evaluate such things. We have no acceptable source supporting a language connection, let alone a connection with the scarcely known Iberian language. Therefore we should not say anything about the language, as clearly stated in the wikipedia:verifiability guidelines.
- One of your sources suggests that the idea that the Sicani passed through Italy is a case of mistaken identity. We certainly shouldn't repeat the claim that they did so without qualification.
- "Earliest known people" is not the same as earliest people. Following up this statement with the date of 8000BCE suggests the Sicani migrating from Iberia in 8000BCE. Then the statement that the Sicanians settled Malta is entirely unsupported. (Again, unacceptable ref.) If the Sicani were the aboriginal inhabitants, they did not come from Iberia in historical times as the intro claims. If Thucydides was correct, then they weren't the original inhabitants. IMO we should leave all the settlement & Malta stuff to the History of Sicily article, and limit ourselves here to the Sicani.
- The copper trade paragraph again confuses Thucydides' Sicanians with the prehistoric inhabitants of the island.
The only source which appears to be reliable and up to date, though not for the language, is Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean. The only statement it supports is that Thucydides said the Sicani came from "Iberia". kwami (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the language article
According to the arguments presentes in the previous discussions I merged the language article into this one. The Ogre (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not the original inhabitants
Anon, you had restored my comment about the term 'Sicani' sometimes being used for the original inhabitants of Sicily, then took it out with the comment "Why am I even adding back this trash you added? It's not even sourced."
You're correct. It's not sourced, but we need to go further and take out all such material. I will therefore remove all the prehistoric stuff that's implied to be Sicani, leaving only what we know from historical records. kwami (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, you will note, I already did. For instance, all the Maltese history is clearly backed up by the sources. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are abusing the references. Wiki guidelines are very clear: Personal websites are not considered reliable, and if you do not have reliable sources, the info does not belong. I have asked you numerous times to read wikipedia:verifiability. You evidently refuse, so I can only assume that you are pushing a personal agenda and have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The article is locked for the day, so that you have time to review Wikipedia policies. I hope that we don't have to take this to arbitration, which will be a waste of everyone's time. kwami (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Kyarichy, that forced you to come out of the woodwork. Please log in when you edit. If you don't, you may be suspected of sockpuppetry. Meanwhile, I'm taking this to arbitration. kwami (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are truly becoming annoying now. There is proof of the first Maltese settlers coming from Sicily, and the dates of this. There is proof of the dates the other tribes arrived on Sicily, and it is later than the dates the Sicilian settlers travelled over. Take it to mediation, for you truly are being a disruption. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? Are you implying that Kyarichy is myself? If you think this, take it to the RFCU, thank you very much. Deary me, you break more policies everyday than I can count on one hand! 89.243.219.16 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not denying that Malta was settled from Sicily, but that these people were the Sicani. You have provided no evidence for this, just a claim on an amateur website. kwami (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, we know:
- Malta was settled by Sicilians
- The first people to settle on Sicily were the Sicani
- The arrival time of the people on Malta was too early to be anyone else other than the Sicani (based on the fact that the Sicani were the first ones there)
- How does that not equate it? 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I added the comment that some people used the term 'Sicani' to refer to the original inhabitants of Sicily, you said it was 'trash' and removed it. How is it that you now argue the 'trash' is correct?
- What we know is this: (1) when the Greeks settled Sicily, they recorded four peoples on the island. Of these, we know the Phoenicians had only been there a couple centuries. It's widely believed (though perhaps debatable) that the Sicani were the oldest of the other three. (2) archaeological evidence suggests Sicily was colonized c. 8000 BCE, and Gozo/Malta from Sicily c. 5000 BCE.
- What we don't know is that the colonists of 8000 & 5000 BCE were the same as the Sicani of c. 1000 BCE. If Thucydides was correct and the Sicani came from Iberia in historic or near-historic times, they could not be the original inhabitants. We also know from pottery that there were Minoan & Mycenean contacts. There could have been any number of immigrations between 8000 BCE and 1000 BCE, of which we only have records of the four peoples the Greeks recorded.
- If you want to argue that the original colonists were the Sicani, and also that the Sicani came from Iberia, then I expect an acceptable reference (and not some garbage from Gozo.com etc) that this is accepted in the archaeological community. kwami (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you obviously have not read the wikipedia page properly. At no point does it imply that the Sicani were the settlers of Sicily. It states this:
- "and approximately 5000 BCE the nearby islands of Gozo and Malta were colonized from Sicily,[5] and since the other tribes on Sicily did not arrive until later than this, the Sicilians who came to Malta were most likely the Sicanians.[3]"
- Again, you fail to get your facts straight. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely provide an opinion which is so entirely one-sided and clearcut, but this is an exceptional case. I've read the dispute, the article, and the sources proffered by the anonymous editor involved in the dispute and it seems really clear to me that there is absolutely no justification for the article claiming that the Sicani settled Malta.
The sources proposed by the anon are not acceptable, and cannot be used to support the assertions. In addition, there are unsurmountable logical flaws in the reasoning used by him or her to reach conclusions— which would not be permitted even if they were flawless.
Please remember that unless a reliable source makes an assertion, we cannot make it in an article even if it seems like an "obvious conclusion". — Coren (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're wrong: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing". 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not summarizing, you are making (flawed) inferences from separate points. — Coren (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And anyway, the text in no way assumes they were definitely Sicani anyway; this is what the current text says:
- "and approximately 5000 BCE the nearby islands of Gozo and Malta were colonized from Sicily,[5] and since the other tribes on Sicily did not arrive until later than this, the Sicilians who came to Malta were most likely the Sicanians.[3]"
- At no point during that does it involve any synthesis. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it up, unless you can find some support for your claims. By placing that material in the Sicani article, you're clearly implying that it concerns the Sicani. kwami (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the claims? The article claims that Malta was colonized by Sicily - this is supported by sources. The article brings up the point of the arrival times of the tribes on the island - this is supported by sources. Seems again you fail to follow the conversation properly. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supported by sources", is not adequate. Supported by reliable sources may be. Please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with that guideline. Remember that verifiability is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. — Coren (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should at least mention something about the potential link to the Maltese people, since there are reliable sources which state that the Maltese people came from Sicily, and a variety of other sources which specify that they were the Sicani. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be OR, and one which in view of the 4000-year gap strikes me as unlikely. We only consider reliable sources, so it doesn't matter how many internet sites we find that parrot the Sicani link. And anyway, the single web source you've provided that talks about this does not "specify that they were the Sicani"; it only makes the inference that the oldest named people might be equated with the entire archaeological record. That's like saying Stonehenge was built by Celts merely because the Celts are the earliest inhabitants of Britain that we know of. kwami (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and one which in view of the 4000-year gap strikes me as unlikely" - OR
- And anyway, no, there is a reference which clearly states that the Maltese people are descended from the Sicilians, and the article should mention how that, and that due to this, there is a possibility it may (and likely to) have been the Sicani in particular. No mention of unreliable sources in that. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put: No. The onus of verifiability is always on the assertion; unless there is a reliable source stating that possibility, then it has no place in the article. — Coren (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources which state that the first inhabitants of Malta were from Sicily. 89.243.219.16 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some sources from scholars and archeologists for you all to stop this. Reliable, solid sources. But kwamikagami just removed them right away, I do not know why... he didn't have a very good excuse and especially as some are from places like National Geographic. - Cradashj (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't know why, then you need to take the time to read the article and the debate here, so that you know what we're talking about. It's transparently obvious, as the third opinion agreed. kwami (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The third opinion was before I came and put in the scholary sources from the books. So the comment is not valid to what I put into the article. Do you think this article is yours and that you can say National Geographic and other scholars are not "reliable"? Just because YOU said so? What on earth is your problem here. In the last 24 hours you have reverted people SEVEN times and refused to let anyone put new stuff in, and locked the page when you were not getting your own way. - Cradashj (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect editors to have basic literacy. Would you read the third-party opinion above? Or can you really not be bothered? I'm not debating this any more, it's gotten quite ridiculous. kwami (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwami, you have so far broken WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:3RR and countless other rules, as even starting to be observed by other members of the community. What Cradashj put into the article was totally relevant. I suggest you quit while you are ahead, because you are attracting a bad name for yourself. 89.240.43.219 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm becoming uncivil, I'm hardly the first to do so in this charade. Things are not relevant because you say so, but because you demonstrate their relevance. How many times, in how many ways, by how many people, does that need to be said? I'm not claiming ownership of the article, only demanding that it meet the most basic Wikipedia guidelines. I did assume good faith to begin with. However, it seems to me now that you are either being careless, lazy, or stubborn. I'm sorry, but if you're intelligent enough to be here, you're intelligent enough to understand this, and I can't see any other explanation for the feeling that I'm beating a dead horse. Demonstrate that Malta has something to do with the Sicani, and I'd be happy to have all that info in this article. Not Malta with Sicily, which belongs in the History of Sicily and History of Malta articles, but Malta with the Sicani. Demonstrate that there's a connection between the Sicani and Iberian languages, and I'd be happy to have that in the article too. "Demonstration" means a reputable reference that addresses the topic, not your inferences of what it might mean, which is OR and all you've provided so far. kwami (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is on your side kwami, you are now completely against consensus. The only person who supports your edit is you. Go and play your little games elsewhere now or you will be reported for violating 3 reverts, going against consensus and abusing people you come into contact with. - Cradashj (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the third party opinion admin stated kwami's temper was rising and that he was becoming dangerously close to abusing his tools - oh wait, he did that. [3] 78.149.145.54 (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, Kwami, I think you'll find the opposition to you will be greatly decreased once all the sockpuppets are blocked.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! kwami (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yolgnu has as of yet given no evidence for anyone being a sockpuppet. 78.149.145.54 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
