Talk:Pablo Picasso

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Warning: Default sort key "Picasso, Pablo" overrides earlier default sort key "Pablo Picasso".

Archive 1
Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Redirect

someone needs to redirect "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Picasso" to this page- his whole name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.230.148 (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surname

Picasso was his mother's maiden name; his father's surname was Ruiz. Presumably Pablo's legal surname remained Ruiz, unless he changed it formally. We need to explain why he chose to use his mother's surname for his artistic works, when this happened, and what implications it had for the surnames of his children. JackofOz 03:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Picasso was his mother's maiden name" NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Picasso wasn't his mother's maiden name for a simple reason, Women don't have maiden name in spain because they don't lose their family with the marriage. In spain we have a name( or two) and two surnames, the first surname comes from the father, and the second one comes from the mother, and this naming system is equal for men and women. Picasso's parents were José Ruiz Blasco and María Picasso Lopez, then his name is Pablo Ruiz Picasso.

Arrrrrrggggghhh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.113.105 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Mailer quotes him as once saying – jokingly – that all the great ones had double s’s. He writes about the name change in his biography but I no longer have my copy ... otherwise ... I could be more useful! ~nude grey~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.24.158 (talk) 08:44, October 13, 2006
I think that is a good question, but could it be that it is just usual for spanish people to take their mother's name, cause in some counties it is? soooo if anyone has more info please!! AniekM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.33.150 (talk) 15:30, October 22, 2006
So, for some reason people seem to think Picasso's full name is "Picasso was born as Pablito Diego Jose Santiago Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Crispin Crispiniano de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santisima Trinidad Ruiz Blasco y Picasso Lopez." I deleted this a week or so back, and someone added it back in. It's completely unsourced and kind of ridiculous. If anyone knows a source of this information, please add it or discuss it here in the discussion page. Otherwise I'll delete it again.--Drewcifer3000 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about "Ruiz Blasco y Picasso Lopez", but he did receive that improbable list of forenames at his christening. I'll come up with a citation. —Celithemis 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Picasso's name was indeed Pablo Ruiz Picasso. He's often cited like that. The reason he is known as Picasso is probably (though I'm only inferring this, I can't back it up) because Picasso is a much more resonant name than Ruiz, which is fairly common in Spain. The second comment in this section is right: in Spain we have two surnames: one comes from the father (usually the first one, although they can be swapped), the other from the mother. So Ruiz and Picasso were both legal surnames for him. In Spanish forms, it always says apellidos (surnames), not apellido (surname).--Juanmejgom 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not strictly true that Spaniards "have two surnames". I am not at all an expert, but I've known plenty of Latin's with "two surnames" and the father's name gets more prominence and is often the only one used, and a daughter passes on the father's name, not her mother's, so there is not the gender equality that one might assume from hearing about the practice without the accompanying detail.

Of course this is encyclopedically irrelevant, but the amusingly lengthy full name of this great artist recalls Monty Python's "Election Night Special."Yamahasixstring (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong: Don't confuse "Latins" (it's wrong to call them latins but I'll do it so everybody understand that We mean Latin Americans) with Spaniards, even it's wrong to consider all latinos as a group, there are a lot of countries, cultures, laws... in Latin American.
IT'S STRICTLY TRUE THAT SPANIARDS "HAVE TWO SURNAMES" (I'm a spaniard I know what I talking about). Children have the same naming system, there is not distinction between daughters and sons. We usually receive our first surname from our father's first surname, and our second one from our mother's first surname. This can be swapped (that's why I say usually), our first surname can be our mother's first surname, and our second surname can be our father's first surname, but a when a couple have their first children, the same order is obligatory for all their children.
Actually, the complete name of Picasso is Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Mártir Patricio Ruiz y Picasso.[1] It was usual at the time of his birth that the babys have all those names (I think they are the name their parents want PLUS the names of all the saints of his birthday), then father's firts surname and finally the mother's first surname. But, usually we use only the names our parent wanted, plus both surnames. So, his name was Pablo Ruiz Picasso. Some people says that he takes his mother's surname because of his love and respect for her, but it really become his artistic name because his friends in Barcelona thougt that being as unusual as his talent, it was more representative of him. Wikisilki.
(see spanish article of Picasso) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.156.186 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Pablo Picasso

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso's work

Please save these images by putting them in good use. These images can be included in the List of Picasso artworks articles under the fair use license. However, someone needs to match the original title of the artworks in the lists with the translated title used here.

Picasso

Head of a woman

Man with a Lollipop
DyingBull.JPG

Dying Bull

The Scream

Still Life with a bottle of Rum

Self Portrait

Girl in Profile

Girl Reading at a Table

Mandolin, Fruit Bowl, and Plaster Arm

Portrait of Gertrude Stein

The Actor

Leaning Harlequin

Nude in an armchair

Breakfast of a Blind Man

Actually, that's not entirely true. In order for these pictures to be kept, there needs to be critical commentary/discussion about the artworks themselves, as per the {{Art}} fair use tag. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision proposed

This article contains very little description of Picasso's art. As a first step toward fixing this I propose a reorganization: the "Career" section, perhaps renamed "Biography", will lead, and the life story will be followed by a section ("Works") with fuller description of his work, followed by the links to decade-by-decade lists. Among other things, this should make the article easier for future contributors to expand--right now, it's difficult to plug information about his work into the text without disrupting the flow. Are there any objections or suggestions? Ewulp 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me second this, and give a hint as to the direction it might take, too. I came to this page looking for at least a hint as to why Picasso is so important to the art world. I don't find the few photos of his works to be particularly compelling, and the text doesn't give much of a hint. It mentions he (co-)invented cubism, but so what? As an incorrigible art philistine, my reaction is, "BFD... My nephew did something about like Le guitariste when he was eight." 69.140.81.177 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree; There desperately needs to be a "criticism" section. Surely I cannot be the only one who thinks Picasso was overrated. 71.229.233.140 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Translations of Work

I think it would be a great idea to have the English translations of his work side-by-side with the original names. Thanks!--Knulclunk 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso: Just a Painter and Sculptor?

I think Picasso should be described as an 'Artist', rather than 'painter and sculptor', because his creative scope seemed very wide, and he practiced pottery, printmaking and designing, even did stage designing for his friends (Jean Cocteau, for example), which are held highly in the histories of the respective fields. It wasn't just like Bob Dylan doing a painting exhibition, you see. He actually has a place in the history of stage design with his cubistic division of space bringing an entirely different language into it. All this just to request a revision of the intro. Thanks...--Objecthood 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso's Full Name...

I think there's been some confusion over Picasso's full name...it's, as far as I knew, not "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Crispín Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso" but "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cripiniano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso" - that is, instead of '...Crispin Crispiano...', it should be '...Cipriano...' Please cross-check and verify before finalizing. Thanks.--59.93.240.131 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is due to the fact that his name on his birth certificate and on his baptismal certificate are different. Jvbishop 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving article status/Peer Review

This article appears to be at or near Good article status. Does anyone know if this article has recently (or ever) been through a Peer review process, with an eye towards making it a Good article or a Featured article?

Would any of the editors contributing to this article be interested in assisting in the Peer review, and nomination for Good article process? EspanaViva 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Good idea but not yet--I think peer review would be premature. The article has some serious deficiencies which should be corrected first: there are almost no inline citations and it says very little about his art. Ewulp 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protected

Is it possible we can make this article Semi-Protected? It seems to be the subject of quite a lot of Vandalism (especially recently). Sarm 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about vandalism that was moved to the archive. It was already semi-protected between the beginning of November 2006 and the middle of February 2007. Since that time it has been vandalized a couple of hundred times. I don't think it should have been taken off the list, but admins are reluctant to keep an article semi-protected for an extended period of time. Within hours of being unprotected it was vandalized dozens of times. Feel free to take it up at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you would like, I'm certainly behind you. Cacophony 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Python appearance?

At the bottom of the article it says that Picasso was on Monty Python's Flying Circus once. I know there are mentionings of Picasso in the muses of Monty Python, but he didn't actually appear on an episode did he? There are no sources supporting this and I haven't seen all of the Monty Python episodes, so this is why I am asking. --81.157.138.199 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gypsy Ancestry

This reliable source states Picasso as having Gypsy ancestry, you cant argue with a reliable source http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-229005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.33 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a sufficient source

[edit] pacifism?

unless sufficient sources can be found that have picasso self-identify as a pacifist, i think it's hardly an appropriate term to use. just because one doesn't fight in national wars doesn't make one a pacifist - somebody who is morally against the use of violence for any reason.--74.97.142.249 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Lovers song

Although this info is accurate, starting an edit war is not the way to proceed. Discuss such information on the talk page first. Freshacconci 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While this might actually be a song that actually mentions Picasso, it doesn't belong in a discussion about his art, and his life. Modernist 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Although the Paul McCartney song is mentioned in the article under "legacy", as I see it we need to keep a bit of control over the number of items that are in tribute to, in honour of, or are satirical of Picasso. The Modern Lovers song is an early tribute/satire, but I'm afraid of what it might lead to. The McCartney reference is one artist of international stature speaking of another artist of international stature. I love Jonathan Richman but he's not really in the same league. After that, do we mention John Cale's version of the the Modern Lovers' "Pablo Picasso"? I'm sure there's more out there. Then there's the poems and books and in-the-style-of paintings and so on. Freshacconci 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


This is a valid cross-reference to other information recognized by Wikipedia. It does not degrade Wikipedia or the article, given its placement in the "Trivia" section of the article.

You either permit some pop cultural references to Picasso or none at all. It isn't right to use culture snobbery to draw the line.

Hmmm. Yes. Maybe the article should not have a trivia section. Get it all out of there. Good idea. Modernist 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Added trivia tag Modernist 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Modern Lovers (a highly influential band, by the way) song cannot be cross-referenced because it is pop culture and somehow allegedly degrades the article, I think all references to pop culture should be removed, even those masquerading as "Legacy." A film about Picasso is equivalent to a song or book about him. If including references to tribute/homage songs by bands that did not enjoy commercial success is improper, then references to relatively unknown films should be out of bounds as well. Anything else exhibits editorial bias.

The prices of his paintings at auction should be renamed "Trivia." That is not his legacy.

The Legacy section should discuss his influence on other artists.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Char boy (talk • contribs).

To whom it may concern - SIGN YOUR EDITS please, using 4 tilde's in a row. ty Modernist 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Modern Lovers song is on Picasso (disambiguation) along with various other Picasso-related material. Tyrenius 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last words

The current ref digital-karma.org seems to have material submitted by users, so not quite up to par. I lent the book I need, though I vaguely recall it's not 100% certain what his last words were. On a quick search, the Daily Telegraph may be more acceptable. It gives "Drink to me."[1] Tyrenius 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The source does not support the full quotation attributed or circumstances of its utterance and thus doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia policy/guideline. Nor does it explain whether it was actually uttered in English or is a translation from Spanish or French. Perhaps your book will yield a better citation. Agreed that that site is user-submitted and a dubious source at best. Tag was not bad faith: this quotation needs a valid citation. Char boy 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree and you raise valid and interesting points. Accurate referencing from reliable sources is important. Tyrenius 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I don't have the Richardson biographies which are probably among the best sources, as for the Douglas Cooper remark - its nasty but sounds just like him. :) Modernist 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The midwife story

I have removed these lines: "He was believed to be a stillborn baby. However his uncle, Salvador Quiz Blasco a well known doctor, revived the baby by blowing cigar smoke into lifeless Pablo's lungs [2]."

The cited source, Penrose (1981), only partly supports this. He writes: "The birth had been made all the more dramatic by a misjudgement, nearly fatal, on the part of the midwife. the child appeared to her to be stillborn and she abandoned it on the table, so as to give all her attention to the mother. It was due only to the fortunate presence of mind of Don Salvador, one of his uncles and a qualified doctor, that the infant was saved from asphyxia before life had begun. This story, often told to him during childhood, of how death was so forcefully present at birth, lurked in Picasso's imagination throughout life." ( p.10) That's all; it's close but no cigar (ouch).

While Stassinopoulos-Huffington (1988, p.15) relates the episode, including the cigar smoke, with no caveats, other biographers have expressed some reservations. Richardson (1991, vol 1, p. 25) tells it this way:

In later years Picasso gave precise but conflicting information as to the hour of his birth: 'half past nine P.M.,' he wrote on the flyleaf of Geiser's copy of his catalogue of Picasso's engraved work; 'midnight' is what he told others. According to his birth certificate, the artist was born at 11:15 P.M. It was a difficult birth, and the baby showed so little sign of life that the midwife concluded he was stillborn, and left him lying on a table while she attended the mother. He would have died, Picasso said, if his uncle Salvador had not been present. 'Doctors ... used to smoke big cigars and my uncle was no exception. When he saw me lying there he blew smoke into my face .... I immediately reacted with a grimace and a bellow of fury.' 'This story so often told in childhood,' Penrose has written, 'of how death was so forcefully present at birth lurked in Picasso's imagination throughout his life.'

Richardson keeps this anecdote in perspective by noting that it was a story Picasso told, based upon family lore, and by demonstrating that Picasso was an unreliable witness as to the details of his birth. Mailer's Picasso bio (1995, p. 3) repeats the story in full but follows it with a disclaimer: "Since such family accounts are open to exaggeration, Don Salvador may not actually have shocked the newborn into life. All the same, the story is agreeable." Olivier W. Picasso, in Picasso: The Real Family Story (2004), does not mention anything of the midwife/Don salvador drama, nor does Daix (1993).

For the purposes of this article, this tale has little value except perhaps to illustrate the kind of stories Picasso told about himself, or the stories his family told him. We don't ordinarily expect an encyclopedia biography to specify that the subject was delivered by Caesarean section, was a quiet baby or cried a lot, etc. Ewulp 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) em portugues

[edit] Theft.

A Picasso was stolen on December 20th in São Paulo Museum of Art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.34.16 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso-Man Who Lost Wednesday

The Man Who Lost Wednesday is a seminal piece by Picasso! Please do not take it down, as it is essential to understanding his oeuvre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureman1199 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate. Kindly don't add it again. Tyrenius (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate how? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Tyrenius (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, inappropriate because it's not real. Gotcha. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names says the full name should be in the lead: it's been moved to the start of the main article. Also articles should have infoboxes. Tyrenius (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the infobox, it seems appropriate here...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a really long full name, not particularly interesting to the reader of an introduction. I have to dispute the infobox; most of wikipedia's best writers dislike them in biographies because a) they simply repeat what is said in the lead; b) they oversimplify peoples' lives down to a few fields. I think that Picasso's infobox saying his "movement" is "Cubism" is a perfect example of that. Thanks, Modernist, for the comment in your edit comments. We need to encourage substantive additions to articles in general with this encyclopedia, not gnome over stuff like this. If I was a newbie and you hadn't said something like that—combined with this discussion about "recent edits"—my impression would be "well, I guess they don't want people to write anything here". I'm not a newbie, but it's still not clear to me. :) –Outriggr § 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about infoboxes for the most part. Please join this conversation at the visual arts project: [2]about infoboxes. I felt the Picasso article is one in which as Tyrenius says there is a multilevel of information and the box is helpful. However like you - I write stuff and I think the occasions that I've edited in infoboxes are less then five (not counting vandalism). Your edits to the article were excellent. I wanted not to appear critical. Thanks, for your input. Modernist (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that Modernist has deemed your contributions "excellent". Everyone contributes what they can to the article. It's team work and gnoming has its place in that as well. If it doesn't interest you, leave it to others.

Regarding the name, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names says, "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version." An example give is of François Mitterrand, namely: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand.

Regarding infoboxes, see the widespread use in Category:People infobox templates. I've not been that keen on them for a long time. Recently I tried some out, and it made sense to me. It means an article contains three levels of information:

  1. The main article has everything in depth.
  2. The lead is a summary.
  3. The infobox contains the key points.

Thus readers have a good choice, depending on exactly how much information they need. The infobox saves them having to dig out the bare bones from a weighty text, if that's all they want. It also provides a good starting point for then reading the main text, as they have at least a broad idea of what's going on.

However, I noted your remark that "most of wikipedia's best writers dislike them in biographies". This may well be true, but the best writers are still part (albeit an extremely valuable part) of the process of article creation towards a featured article, which is the standard for the best work. I checked out the last 4 biogs to make the main page. They are, starting with most recent (and with date they became a FA): Ronald Reagan (25 Aug 2007), Archimedes (23 Oct 2007), Daniel Boone (Sept 2006), Jack Sheppard (10 Feb 2007). The first three have infoboxes, but the last doesn't (note though that it was promoted to FA a year ago).

I checked out the most recent bio articles to be promoted to FA, and they do all have infoboxes: Giovanni Villani, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Pauline Fowler, Eardwulf of Northumbria. My observation is that there is a growing expectation that infoboxes are a standard part of an article and should be included (when the article reaches a reasonable size, that is).

As regards Picasso and Cubism in the field "movement", I have to disagree. If you are to find a key identifier for him, this is undoubtedly the one, and is very useful for someone who wants a starting point, and perhaps doesn't even know that Picasso wasn't one of the Impressionist, for example (true example).

I can't see that any of this should be problematic for your continuing to add excellent content to the main article.

Tyrenius (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius. No, it's not problematic, and thank you for the detailed reply. My only hope was to make a small contribution to the effort to de-emphasize what guideline pages say as the sole arbiters of how articles should be set up, and to emphasize specific reasons why one can reasonably say, "for this page, let's do this". I don't mean to seem critical of your comment here just for making a mention about putting the infobox back. If anything, it was great etiquette to bring it up on the talk page. But the feel of the comment brings me back to a concern about wikipedia... that "gnoming" has led to the development of a lot of formalisms that have been over-deployed so that people can gnome all the more. This has an odd, systemic effect: the substantive, content-oriented edits tend to be treated as givens, fodder for reverts and discussion on the talk page about how these edits "caused" some formalism to be disobeyed. Editorially, it puts the cart before the horse. At a high level, it doesn't reinforce article writing because that, the most difficult task (it is—I'm not saying this as someone who "does it", or fishing for compliments, or dismissing gnome edits, which we all make), tends to receive the least feedback, criticism, praise, input. Now I should shut up, because I've gotten on one of my tangents involving leaps from specific to general. :) –Outriggr § 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)quem vai querer a minha pirikita

[edit] Intro

The introduction seems to cover the contents. The article is long, detailed, hampered by not enough available images...Add to the lead if you can. Everything can certainly be improved, if you add a paragraph keep in mind there has been some adjustment in light of the lack of images...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [[Quem vai querer a minha Piri]]kita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.56.255.2 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diphtheria is spelt wrong

the article wrongly says diptheria. i can't fix it cuz the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Fixed. Get a user name (free and quick), wait 4 days, then you can edit semi-protected articles like this one. Ty 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

The article for the actual painting correctly states that it is merely believed that LDdA is based on African artifacts, and that Picasso denied it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.214.60 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to (english) official website

The link is broken. It should be http://www.picasso.fr/us/picasso_page_index.php. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.208.90 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Femme Au Beret Rouge

Does anyone have any information at all about the painting Picasso painted, named "Femme Au Beret Rouge"? Thankyou. Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handedness

Looking for a little expert input over on the Left-handedness article. I am certain that it is frequently repeated myth that Picasso was left handed, but am finding it hard to source a definite statement on it. There are dozens of mentions of the "fact" online, but nowhere authoritative that I can find saying one way or the other. Even a few indicative photos would help. Could anyone here point me in the right direction? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo