Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral of Tbilisi

Sameba needs help!

Need help with Holy Trinity Cathedral, Tbilisi. Your suggestions please. Thanks to all. Ldingley 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Luis, I started to expand the article. We need to check if the Sameba church is really the largest functioning Orthodox cathedral in the world. The website of Geo. Patriarchate says it is the third largest.

Soso, can you please help me in translating these passages.

სართულებს შორის ურთიერთობით, ვერტიკალური კომუნიკაციებით, შიდა სივრცის გადაწყვეტით, ეს არის ჯვარ-გუმბათოვნისა და ცენტრალურ-გუმბათოვანი ტაძრის სინთეზი. თუ ცენტრალურ-გუმბათოვანი ტაძარი კელდებზე ეყრდნობა, ხოლო ჯვარ-გუმბათოვანი კი ოთხ სვეტზე, სამების ეკლესია რვა სვეტზეა გაწეული. გუმბათის პარამეტრები არ არის დამოკიდებული აბსიდის ზომებზე, ამით ქალაქის იერსახეში გუმბათმა და თავად ტაძარმა უფრო მონუმენტური სახე მიიღო.

სამების ტაძარი მოპირკეთდება ბოლნისის ტუფით. პროექტის თანახმად, წმიდა სამების საკათედრო ტაძრის კომპლექსი შედგება: ტაძრის, სამრეკლოს, საპატრიარქოს, მამათა მონასტრის, სასულიერო სემინარიისა და აკადემიის, სასტუმროებისა და სხვა დამხმარე შენობებისაგან. მთლიანი კომპლექსისათვის ელიას მთაზე 11 ჰექტარი მიწის ფართობი გამოიყო.

ტაძარი მიწისქვეშა და მიწისზედა ნაწილებისაგან შედგება. მიწისქვეშა ნაწილში 5 ეკლესიაა, ხოლო მიწისზედაში - 4. სამების ტაძარი შეიცავს მთავარანგელოზთა, იოანე ნათლისმცემლის, წმიდა ნინოს, წმიდა გიორგის, წმიდა ნიკოლოზის, 12 მოციქულის, და ყოველთა წმიდანთა სახელობის ეკლესიებს. ესოდენ დიდი სიმაღლისა და ფართის ტაძარი საქართველოში ჯერ არ აშენებულა. ტაძრის მოცულობა 102 კვ. მეტრია, თავისი სავესტიბიულო ნაწილით კი - 137 კვ.მ. ფართობი 5000 კვ. მეტრზე მეტია. იგი აღჭურვილია უახლესი საკომუნიკაციო, ელექტრო, გათბობის და ვენტილაციის აპარატურით. სამების საკათედრო ლავრის სიმაღლე მიწიდან ჯვრის ძირამდე 77 მეტრია. საკუთრივ ჯვრის სიმაღლე კი შვიდმეტრნახევარია. მიწის ქვემოთ საძირკვლამდე სიღრმე 13 მეტრია. სიგრძე - 70 მ, სიგანე - 64 მ. თუმცა ტაძრის გრანდიოზულობა მხოლოდ პარამეტრებით არ განისაზღვრება. მისი ექსტერიერი და ინტერიერი ძალიან საინტერესოდ არის გადაწყვეტილი. ის ერთ-ერთი დომინანტი ნაგებობაა მტკვრის მარცხენა სანაპიროს თავზე და ფაქტობრივად, ძველი თბილისის ზემო მხარე უკავია. საინტერესოა ისიც, რომ წმიდა ელიას მთაზე მშენებარე სამების საკათედრო ტაძარი ზუსტად მამა დავითის ეკლესიის აღმოსავლეთ ღერძზეა განთავსებული, ამდენად, თავისი გეოგრაფიული მდებარეობით ტაძარს სივრცე უკვე მოგებული აქვს. იშვიათობაა ისიც, რომ ნაგებობაში შესვლა სამ სხვადასხვა დონეზე ხდება და ის, ერთბაშად, ათეულ ათასობით მლოცველს დაიტევს. ამჟამად, ტაძრის ძირითადი სხეულის მშენებლობა ფაქტობრივად დასრულებულია. ტაძარი შიგნიდან მთლიანად გაილესა, მისი გუმბათი ფურცლოვანი სპილენძით დაიხურა. გარედან მოპირკეთებულია ქართული ქვებით: ბოლნისის ტუფითა და კურსების გრანიტით. ინტერიერში გამოყვანილია ქართული, ბოდბის გამარმარილოებული კირქვა, ძირს დაგებულია ჩინური და ინდური გრანიტი, კედლებზე - იტალიური, ეგვიპტური და ბერძნული მარმარილოები. კანკელი ბერძნული მარმარილოთია დამზადებული. წინასწარი გაანგარიშებით, ტაძარი 9 ბალიან მიწისძვრაზეა გათვლილი.

სრულიად საქართველოს კათოლიკოს-პატრიარქის, უწმიდესისა და უნეტარესის ილია II ლოცვა-კურთხევით მთავარი, სამების ტაძრის მოხატვის სამუშაოებს კოორდინაციას გაუწევს მხატვარი ამირან გოგლიძე. ტაძარს მოხატავენ კანონიკის სრული დაცვით და იმ ტრადიციათა გათვალისწინებით, რაც ქართულ ფრესკულ მხატვრობასა და ხატწერაშია დამკვიდრებული. ამასთანავე, ეკლესიის მოხატულობის კონცეფციის განსასაზღვრად ჩამოყალიბებულია ხელოვნებათმცოდნეთა ჯგუფი და სამების ტაძრის მოხატვაც მათ დასკვნებზე დაყრდნობით შესრულდება. გარდა მოხატვისა, ეკლესიის საკურთხეველი მოზაიკით უნდა მოიჭიქოს. ბატონ არჩილ მინდიაშვილის თქმით: „ერთ-ერთი ურთულესი საქმე იქნება მხატვრობა, რადგან აქ სირთულეს შექმნის ფრესკის მასშტაბის მონახვა თუ რა ზომის უნდა იყოს კომპოზიცია, რათა ის ამხელა სივრცეში არც დაიკარგოს და არც ამოვარდეს. გადასაწყვეტია საერთო ფერთა გამაც. რაც მთავარია, დიდი სირთულე, ალბათ, შეგვხვდება მოზაიკაში, რადგან ეს, უკვე დიდი ხნის წინ დაკარგული ტრადიციაა“. მოზაიკით მოიჭიქება საკურთხეველი, რაც ძალზედ შრომატევადი და ამასთან ერთად მეტად ძვირადღირებული სამუშაოა. --Kober 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Let's put Sameba-related images here until the article is completed.

• File:Tbilisi Sameba Cathedral.jpg

Armenian Pantheon Partial Destruction

Kober, This is not the first page you are deleting the changes from. You delete several link with reasons of 1 of them having no reference to Sameba without having properly read the references. This is quite unprofessional and undermines your goal to be objective. You could have at least searched keywords on the page. And you also claimed Armeniapedia not to be a valid website. Tell me, why would you also wish to delete the trace of other links? It's the Wiki way to discuss here first. I have undone your action and also added other links and a photograph for you and other readers to observe. As well as I'd recommend you to visit Sameba yourself, and have a look, that some Armenian tombs were remade on the territory of Sameba (though changing all the old writings and the tomb-complexes). If you have any questions or really wish to know the reality of things, I'd recommend you to make deeper researches and I am readily waiting to help you.Aregakn 22:37 28/02/2010 GMT.

Aregakn, first off, be more careful when throwing accusations around; second, please consult WP:SOURCE and WP:SYNTHESIS. Back to your "sources":

• The first one speaks of some unspecified damage to the Armenian pantheon. Not a single word about the construction of Sameba.
• The second one is a blog, which is largely not acceptable as a source unless it is notable itslef or maintained by an expert on the subject. Not only it is not authored by an expert, but the tone of narrative and, especially, the opening sentence (prohibiting "entry for dogs and Turks") puts his/her credibility (if not sanity) in serious question.
• One of sources has already been removed as a Wikipedia mirror page.
• Armeniapedia is a open wiki project which anyone can edit. As a open wiki, it is also not a source according to WP:SPS. Even this website does not relate damage to the Pantheon with the construction of the Georgian cathedral.
• AGBU says that the Pantheon had been in disrepair and was renovated in 2002. Again, not a single word about the construction of Sameba or related damage to the cemetery.
• The last of your sources is a web-journal, a travelogue, an account of personal impressions similar to a blog. Its authors are not known and their credibility cannot be established.

As you can see neither of your sources supports your claims. Part of them are not reliable per Wikipedia policies, others do not even mention the Sameba cathedral. Hence, I'm removing your additions until you are able to provide credible, neutral, third-party sources supporting your claims.--Kober^Talk 17:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kober, In accordance to your comments and notes I shall bring new links and references. Thank you for, I shall call it, help! But my comments about you being not objective and not willing for the truth to be shown are still in place and have even strengthened. In addition I can send you a movie showing you how things were taking place for Sameba construction. I still believe you might be interested in the real facts. Aregakn (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way Kober, you haven't yet attended the discussion at the Georgian Orthodox Church even after being reminded and having logged and screened it for many times. Previously you were editing it "back" on daily bases and suddenly you disappeared. We shall also talk about objectiveness there! I think I've lost my hope of you being interested in the reality. My regards Aregakn (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Firs off, I don’t much care about what you think about me. Neither are your thoughts about my “objectivity” of any importance here. Wikipedia has a rule: comment on content, not on a contributor. So I’d recommend you get some basic idea of Wikipedia policies before posing as an expert here. Second, you are not the right person to dictate which discussion I should “attend”. I will be back to the articles I had edited in the past whenever I deem necessary. Back to the subject, I’m again removing the sources which don’t even mention the Sameba cathedral per WP:SYNTHESIS and the “foto” the source of which has already been proved to be non-reliable. The rest of your links bear a semblance of reliable sources, but still they are not neutral, third-party sources and present only a one-sided story, reflecting exclusively Armenian nationalist view. In this case WP:NPOV requires us to properly attribute the claims to the cited sources and don’t present them as established facts. --Kober^Talk 07:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, can you provide a link to the PanArmenian disclaimer page? I failed to find any indication that your "foto2" is released under cc-by-sa-3.0 license.--Kober^Talk 08:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen our Armenian friend, you need to cool down, avoid chauvinistic attacks on Georgian articles (before you are reported to admins) and engage in more constructive cooperation with your fellow wiki editors. Iberieli (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

References

The only reference in this entire article before I edited it was a link to a tour agency. That's it. When I added two sentences that referred to Armenians, they were removed as a "most probably a nationalist hoax" by Kober. When I put the text back with a reference he did not like (much better than a travel agency I have to say) he removed it again. When I added a reference to part of it, he added tags noting other parts are unreferenced. Then he went and added an unreliable references tag to the Armenian Pantheon of Tbilisi article. But I ask - why no such tags for the text about the Holy Trinity? So I've added them, since the entire article other than what I wrote is completely unreferenced. Wikiboer (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree references are needed. But it's ridiculous to see how you're adding the tags in revenge. Take care, --Kober^Talk 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What's really impressive is that you don't see how ridiculous it was for you (after twice deleting my text and calling it "most probably a nationalist hoax") to add three tags asking for references to my two sentences referring to Armenians, yet not a single tag in the 7 remaining paragraphs of the article. I will remove the tags I added myself now, but please in the future assume good faith (rather than call the existence of Khojavank a hoax) and try for a bit more balance when deleting texts and demanding references. Thank you. Wikiboer (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not call the existence of Khojavank a hoax, but allegations that the cathedral is built on the Armenian bones are overinflated and serve to illustrate Armenians as martyrs at the hands of wicked Georgians. And you don't need to remove the tags you added. They are to remind the editors that the sources are needed. --Kober^Talk 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You said, in response to my adding text saying that the new cathedral was built on the site of a destroyed Armenian cemetery and church that what I had written was "most probably a nationalist hoax", and you deleted it. I am not interested in making Armenians or Georgians look like anything, I am interested in writing a correct history and article. The new cathedral is built on an Armenian cemetery and there are Armenian bones under it. Sorry if that bothers you. You can add the reference tags back that you had not seen fit to add originally if you care to. Wikiboer (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not bother me at all. But I'm afraid what you call "a correct history and article" is just POV pushing. I'd also ask you to find a third-party source for your claims. Otherwise all these bone-related stories based on a single Armenian (and Armenian-language) source is a just an Armenian POV and should be presented in the article as such.--Kober^Talk 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not written the word bone, and have not written "all these" bone related stories. I have written that there was a huge Armenian cemetery called Khojavank, and it had a church in it called Holy Mother of God, and most of it was destroyed (by order of Beria) in the days of the USSR. In the 1990s a huge Georgian Cathedral was built there. It's a very simple truth, and I really don't understand what is so hard to believe about it, what is POV about it, and what your problem is with these facts. What is obvious is that you do not like to hear this part of history for some reason, and do not want to accept it nor see it on Wikipedia. I would hope that there are Georgian sources covering this as well, and imagine you could probably find them, but based on what I've seen happen here I doubt you will look. Wikiboer (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

References seem to be the problem here, and given the controversy it would be prudent to have scholarly references. Or at least media reports from reputable outlets not based in Armenia and Georgia. This region media landscape is not exactly know for unbiased and neutral reporting, and should thus be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.229.183 (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Armenian

Kober, it seems you are not fluent in Armenian, yet you are insisting you understand what the referenced Armenian text says. You clearly do not understand. իսկ այժմ կառուցվում է հաջորդը` հնագույն հայկական Խոջիվանք եկեղեցու գերեզմանոցի տարածքում: is the line in question, and Խոջիվանք եկեղեցու գերեզմանոցի տարածքում literally is correctly translated "On the grounds of the Armenian Khojivank Cemetery." It does not say "next to", despite what Google translate may tell you. I told you already, you do not seem to understand what the source says, so please stop reverting what you don't like. Wikiboer (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What's so difficult to understand about "Three years ago the largest Georgian Orthodox Church Holy Trinity was constructed in Havlabar and now next to the church is being constructed a seminary in the area which used to be the oldest Armenian cemetery “Khojivank.”"??? That's what the article says, see http://www.armenianow.com/features/7696/havlabar_armenian_community_in_tbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.229.183 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Armenian text says on the grounds, and I think it is much more likely that the Armenian is the original text, and the English is probably a google translate assisted translation. Either way, the Armenian is in fact correct, as the plaque in the pantheon will attest. Wikiboer (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading the English link you posted - it in fact says quite clearly that the seminary is built upon the grounds of Khojavank. Wikiboer (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide which version is correct. In particular as Armenianow is an English language news outlet, and that thus the Armenian version is likely to be the translation. Nevermind anyway that for controversial claims such as these high-quality sources should be used, and not potentially biased Armenian or Georgian news outlets. 94.43.229.183 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In particular, since Armenian is the writers native language, let's assume that they are most concisely able to express themselves in Armenian. The whole thing in Armenian says "The seminary was built next to the cathedral on the grounds of Khojavank." The English pretty much means the same thing, though it is not quite as concise. Now let me ask you the same question I asked Kober. Why don't you have any problem with the entire remainder of this otherwise unsourced article? Wikiboer (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is not up to you to choose which version is accurate. In particular as we have an official English version, and an Armenian version whose accurate translation is disputed between you and Kober. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esteshamrid (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that you care, but Kober does not speak Armenian, the source you are talking about in no uncertainty in English refers to construction on the grounds of the cemetary, and I had added a second source/reference that you ignored before deleting the paragraph. Wikiboer (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Current dispute

Well, it looks like edit war is looming over this page (and, on a related note, at Georgian Orthodox Church regarding mentions of the same controversy). Krosenstern, it seems to me that you just broke WP:3RR on the opening of the paragraph, by opposing both Meowy's and my proposed versions. I think we can try to de-escalate this on this talk page rather than calling in the troops. Can we all put forward our positions and try to get some consensus on what needs to be on the article, what sources are valid, and what exactly they tell us?

Regarding the first point, I think that although an article is dedicated to the Armenian Pantheon, mention of it in the Sameba article is necessary, as both the choice of the site and the problems during construction initiated protests. Mentioning that another church used to stand where Sameba Cathedral is now is also of historical interest. We should include both historical and political aspects of the situation.

For sources, I agree that they should be as neutral and accessible as possible. Armenian sources, preferably in English, display a pov, and should be used only to prove the existence of protests/controversy. I have looked for Georgian-language sources, and have only found this article about the destruction of cemeteries in Tbilisi in the 1930s, which says (my translation) "the Armenian Khodjivank (sic) on Elia hill (today the site of the new Sameba), the Russian military cemetery in Navtlughi, the catholic cemetery on Chonkadze St - all disappeared, and where they stood, gardens or residential buildings were constructed". It confirms both the link between cemetery and Cathedral site, and the destruction of the cemetery in the 1930s. I just found a Russian-language reportage (here), co-written by an Armenian and a Georgian,for what it's worth, which details both ancient and recent history of the place, the "bones" scandal during construction, etc., in a non-nationalistic tone. I believe it could be used to document the most controversial parts. It also mentions the efforts that have been made by all parties involved to preserve the remnants of the Pantheon since 2002, which also deserves mention, and is omitted from the more polemical sources.

Finally, it seems well established to me that, contrary to what Krosenstern keeps pushing, the fact that the whole site of the Sameba Complex used to be (before the 1930s) an Armenian complex, with both church and cemetery, is well-established. The 1914 Baedeker map is clear on that; I made an overlay of it in Google Earth, and the limits of both coincide, with the Cathedral building being at the exact church's location.

Sorry for this long expose, and please discuss!--Susuman77 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the 1930s destruction of the cemetery was the destruction and removal or burial of almost all of the grave markers and tombs: most of the actual graves still remained under the ground. However, what is certain is that before the destruction there was not an actual object called "the Armenian Pantheon of Tbilisi". What is now being called "the Armenian Pantheon of Tbilisi" - the few remaining grave markers grouped together around the reconstructed monument to Raffi - is a modern creation. Krosensterg appears to be weasily using the fact of this modern "Armenian Pantheon of Tbilisi" being adjacent to the new Georgian cathedral to imply that the cathedral complex itself does not lie on the cemetery site. In reality, as you say, the entire modern complex lies within the borders of the former Armenian cemetery. Meowy 21:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Krosenstern has been blocked as a sockpuppet account of a blocked editor who has used various other socks to edit war on this article. Meowy 01:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cemetery section

I have changed the title simply because the former implied there was a destruction of an Armenian cemetery. Now it is clarified that the controversy is that is was constructed on the Armenian cemetery (knowingly or not is another story). --92slim (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, because it's not clear if this was done deliberately for a malicious reason (as it could well be), I fixed the point of view to reflect neutrality. --92slim (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How does "Armenian cemetery controversy" sound to you? "Controversy over the site" sounds to vague and "Controversy over its construction on a cemetery" sounds too long. --Steverci (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, but in my opinion stating "Armenian cemetery controversy" sounds like there was an unrelated controversy nearby the project, a statement which is proven false. The project was realized on the site of the cemetery. So maybe "Armenian cemetery removal" or along the lines is the best bet. --92slim (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Susuman77 mentioned above an article in Georgian about the process and the solution between the affected parties, including the Georgian administration. This document is no longer online, and I can't access it anymore, as it probably was deleted (it was a blog entry). If anyone has access or can find the documents that prove the inter-governmental collaboration that some people have mentioned, it should be included, as right now the content of the section is slightly biased. --92slim (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I don't live in Tbilisi anymore and have not focused on Georgian topics lately, but I hope I can still be of help.

Looking back at what I wrote above in 2012, I think the dead link (the one to an article in Liberali magazine) was mostly about the Beria destruction of the 1930s. The second source relevant to the controversy (this report) is still available.

I'm not too worried about the section title. It is indeed difficult to summarize accurately in a few words the issues. "Controversy about its construction on a cemetery" removes the ethnic/religious angle but is otherwise clear if a bit long. In my mind, "Construction over an Armenian cemetery" could better work (that it was controversial and why is pretty well explained in the paragraph itself). I have no objections to your changes to the paragraph.

If you have any other questions, please ask, and I'll try to dig into the sources again. Susuman77 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Since when is a dubious travel guide an authoritative source on architecture and/or the history of the site? The same applies to the cited Armenian online publications, like ArmeniaNow, articles of which seem to be based on hearsay of local Armenians. And again, same applies for www.encyclopedia.am, a dubious website with nothing corroborating it. If you want these sources to remain, you need to keep them with relevant tags, since their authoritativeness has not been established. For every dubious Armenian online publication, blog and encyclopedia, one can find Azerbaijani or Georgian counterparts that say the complete opposite. This is not a competition of who accumulates more garbage sources. --Damianmx (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence whatsoever that it is a "dubious travel guide" and given that this guidebook is currently into its 5th edition, with all but the 4th edition written by the same author, suggests that it is anything but "dubious" but is successful and popular. The guidebook source is not being cited for specialist architectural terms or descriptions, it is being cited as an English-language source on the contemporary history of the site and local public opinion about the cathedral. ArmeniaNow is not an "Armenian publication", it is a British-owned and run independent news organization based in Yerevan. Also, there is not a single source presented that disputes any of the claims, so there is no evidence to back your assertion that there is media "saying the complete opposite". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

NB, The latest ref link is to the 2015 edition of the guidebook, the earlier link is was to the 2008 edition. That this particular information has been retained through all 5 editions of the guidebook is, for me, further proof of the truth of its content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Damianmx, do you know what the function of a clarify tag is? It is a tag to "flag wording that is likely to be confusing to the average reader". When I put this clarify tag in [1], I explained it was to check whether the content was a quote or not. When it was ascertained that it was, I removed the tag [2], again explaining why I was removing it. What reason do you have for reinserting the same tag again [3]? The clarify tag is not for raising issues about source suitability, this is where such issues need to go: [4]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cathedral of Trinity (sameba) tbilisi georgia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014 Tbilisi, Sobór Trójcy Świętej (17).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Catedral de la Santísima Trinidad, Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 133-135 HDR.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tbilisi (30416507376).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)