Alexandre, you can communicate with my on my talk page if you wish. Basically, I would like you to integrate Wikimapia with Wikipedia. How it would work: When contributors draw their rectangles around places, landmarks, etc., the info. box that comes up inviting them to write a note about the landmark should feature a Wikipedia article about it, if there is one. If there isn't one, writing a note for a place on Wikimapia would automatically create such an article on Wikipedia. You could talk to User:Fred Bauder, who runs the Wikinfo project, which uses special software to incorporate Wikipedia articles into its own structure. David Cannon 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't particularly like the notion that an article would be created in Wikipedia when a bounding box is created in Wikimapia, at least at this stage. My concern is one about article notability. There are no controls on notability in Wikimapia, nor (it could be argued) should there be; noteworthy here is the comment on a related blog that folks in India are adding their home information to Wikimapia. I personally have added things that I wouldn't want to see appearing in Wikipedia as articles (residential addresses .. no names .. and gas stations, for instance). I believe that creation of object references in Wikipedia and Wikimapia should be left separate right now, but that the interlinkage between the two be made as easy and bidirectional as possible. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not good for adding indian homes to Wikipedia, but there are still many places which might be in Wikipedia. I propose there will be a link, create an article in Wikipedia wich redirect from Wikimapia place to Wikipedia NEW ARTICLE EDIT PAGE (maybe for all or for registered users) with some information from Wikipedia (for example if place has no description - the system won't let you automatically create Wikipedia article, etc.. ). What are your thoughts? Alexandre Koriakine 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikimapia is a great concept. Integration with Wikipedia would maximize its usefulness by connecting landmarks with well-written and verified information. It would also allow Wikimapia to "ride" on Wikipedia's popularity. David Cannon 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all of what David has said in this preceding passage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Functions suggestions are welcome.

What is ready:

• registration
• move/resize works (you must be a 3-day user), with moves history
• article locking

To do:

• tracking users/anonymous for: obj creation, article changes, place move/resize, comments
• some supplementary statistics for users
• blocking unwanted users
• simple place delete for reg. users
• discussion under user profile

To know:

• is there a possibility for Wikipedia admins to ban vandals? How we could implement it in Wikimapia.
• any suggestions on admin functions - welcome.

--AK

Thanks! Yes, administrators on Wikipedia have the power to ban vandals and troublemakers (by blocking their user name or IP address). They also have the power to delete pages and to "protect" pages from being edited by unregistered users (semi-protection) or by non-administrators (full protection). (This power is used in the case of repeated vandalism). Above Administrators are Bureaucrats, who have the power to create administrators (but normally only after a vote to approve them). We also have Arbitrators (appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation) to handle cases where administrators are alleged to have misused their powers. There are also a small number of Stewards, who are able to exercise administrator/bureaucrat powers on all Wikimedia projects (Administrators and Bureaucrats, by contrast, are chosen for only specific projects. In my own case, for example, I am an Administrator on the English language Wikipedia. I also edit other language projects and other Wikimedia projects (such as Wikiquote) from time to time, but as an ordinary user, not as an administrator. When I edit the English Wikipedia, several tabs appear at the top of the page that do not appear when I edit other projects).

Generally speaking, users who have proved themselves trustworthy get "nominated", and a week-long referendum follows. If there are no, or very few, serious complaints voiced against the candidate, he or she is almost always approved.

Wikimapia does not need an identical system, but as the project grows, you will need some way to empower trusted users to exercise certain powers that it would not be wise to give to just anybody.

For your information:

• Wikipedia:Administrators - this explains the powers that administrators have, and the restrictions they are expected to obey. It also has information about other user levels.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - This shows the process by which we decide whether or not a user can be trusted with administrative powers.
• Wikipedia:List of administrators - this list is self-explanatory.

I hope this helps. David Cannon 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just registered. I found the instruction to use the above words:-) David Cannon 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done it. Alexandre Koriakine 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! David Cannon 09:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Mosesofmason --Mosesofmason 12:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve kessler --Kessler 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve OlivierAuber--Olivier Auber 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Alexandre Koriakine 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Alexandre--Olivier Auber

Approve vijaygirish2001.

Wikipedian user not found, please provide Wikipedian username - or link to Wikipedia user page.Alexandre Koriakine 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

approve shaji

Approve jodamiller

hi Approve shanmukhanand

Please approve shibulona

Approve aaho

Approve ceyockey --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Bronx, please Bronx 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC) APPROVE kschandran[reply]

Approve PaddyMalone, Thanks Paddy

Approve palani12kumar

approve harshadod

Approve anindya_56

Approve ahadiputra

Approve Munira

Approve nejron With respect, nejron 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve bruce89, bruce89 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

himasaram: Himasaram 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Chairboy - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Approve lynnseck lynnseck 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Moorlock -Moorlock 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on your delete function. I tried to delete a couple of placed that were totally unsuitable and/or superfluous (e.g., one building had not one but two rectangles around it, with identical information in both). I found that the correct question screens came up (e.g., ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DELETE THIS PLACE?), but that after I confirmed it, the place was still there. This happened several times. Is this a bug, or is it something that hasn't been made available yet? David Cannon 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it, will be finished today. Alexandre Koriakine 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you try to delete, then it will be shown that the place will be deleted in 12 hours, with a link for cancellation.Alexandre Koriakine 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

following from "Delete function stil not working" thread

Do you have a caching system in place that provides a lag between creation and writing to a more permanent store? The reason why I ask is that I created a Place, then a few minutes later was able to delete it without a lag. As object references become more complex, you should consider introduction of a Preview function that allows the editor to see how the final entry will appear prior to committing the edit; this would be useful right now, in fact, because there is a difference between the edit view and the saved view as the edit view has the 4-corner bounding box handles which are not present in the saved view ... fine-tuning the bounding box is useful for tagging 'small' closely spaced objects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's an "upcoming mode". Usually you may delete within 3 hours your place without delay. (In menu you choose upcoming mode, the new places are yellow colored). Alexandre Koriakine 08:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would allow registred users to edit usefull infos for other users (and stop using wikipedia as FAQ ;-)...--Olivier Auber 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier, at this time we don't have functionality for the Wiki window (you're right, in the future it's good to make a kind of this Wiki FAQ window), and why not using Wikipedia. We a not using it as a FAQ, we are using it to be in contact with Wikipedians. Alexandre Koriakine 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm a little unsure about this. A number of people have been hotspotting private houses - e.g. "Peter's house", "My place", etc. Such labels are meaningless to the public and they only serve to clutter the map. Should they be deleted? Also, some people have been hotspotting street names. That seems superfluous to me, because anyone who wants to find the name of the street can select "Hybrid" view. David Cannon 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there :) We understand the page clutters with private places, that's why we included devision private/public. We have idea to make another layer for private or show them with low priority. It's a next step and it will be done. Alexandre Koriakine 08:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotspots with street names should, indeed, be deleted as this is in many cases superfluous information; usually it means the user doesn't realize the hybrid mode will give you this information. However, in cases where an alternative valid street name is given, or where the street name is missing from hybrid mode, that hotspot annotation should be retained. This would be one feedback mechanism to Google Earth, thereby potentially enriching their byways reference map. As far as personalized places go, I feel that 'ephemera' should be discouraged from the map. Thus "Peter's house" would be a no-no, but "37 Chunk Lane" would be ok. By 'ephemera' I mean information that might easily and frequently change over the life of a given structure. For instance, I have added a couple of gasoline stations, but I've labeled these as "gasoline station" and in the description labeled as (for instance) "owned by Exxon as of 2006-10-10"; the fact that a gasoline station was on a particular spot is important from subsequent use, environmental and demographic perspectives, but the fact it was owned by a particular company is an ephemera. Likewise with family names associated with personal homes; the fact that a personal home of address X is the identity of a particular building is important from the various perspectives, but the identity of the owner is an ephemera, relevant only to personal geneaological research except in those rare cases where the person-site association is particularly notable (e.g. person X murdered by serial killer Y at place Z or persons a,b,c,d all died of cholera and they were all within walking distance of well g [from a classic epidemological study in London]). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I do understand that the 'person residing in a building = ephemera' perspective is very much a rootless modern Western one and though relatively representative of the majority of contributors to these resources does not necessarily reflect the perspective of the majority of people on the planet. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't understand the whole "private place" business at all (luckily there will be a separate layer for it), adresses seem less disturbing than ephemera based on mere vanity. There is, however, another thing about hybrid mode: a lot of regions have street-level photos but no corresponding maps (like here in Lithuania). saimhe 14:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that case it's perfectly reasonable to add street name tags to overcome the deficit. I took a look at centeral Lithuania and was surprised (though I should not have been) that the level of aerial photographic resolution was the same as for the continental United States (available down to z=18 but not available for z=19). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to make a proposal about a colour-code for hotspots. At the moment, you have white rectangles for approved places and yellow rectangles for upcoming places. How about expanding the system to have different colours for different kinds of places (e.g. red rectangle for government buildings, blue for churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc., green for cultural institutions like libraries and museums, purple for shops, orange for famous monuments, and so on. Alongside the UPCOMING PLACES link could be tabs for all these different kinds of places, giving users the option to show only one kind of place, or any combination of places, so they can easily find what they are looking for. Just a thought.

I agree that's a good idea. As for Google Earth we think to make different icons for different types, then for Google Earth and Browser Wikimapia it will be good to change color (and for private it will be a kind of light gray). Again, it's a good adia, just we have to see if it will be looking good with many colors on the map. Alexandre Koriakine 08:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could users have some way to enter an "edit summary" like what we have on wikipedia? That would allow users to explain what they have done and why - e.g., why they have deleted a place or changed its description. David Cannon 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on it :) Alexandre Koriakine 08:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've created a biographical article for you - just a stub, two sentences - on Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd like to check it for accuracy, and add some information to it. David Cannon 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you think it must be, then it must be. I'll add more info.

Great! David Cannon 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I created Template:Wikimapia by merging two other templates and fiddling around with the syntax. Just one thing bothers me: the image appears to be the Wikimapia logo, not a public domain image, and some other administrators do not approve of using company logos in templates.

There are two ways to solve the problem: (1) you could edit the image page (Image:WikiMapia2-logo-en.png) and explicitly give permission, as the copyright owner, for the image to be used in the template and on any page which uses the template, or (2) we could change the image to one that is in the public domain, has something to do with maps, but isn't the Wikimapia logo. Please let me know which option you prefer. David Cannon 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will think about the situation. Also we wanted to discuss with you some questions about Wikimapia policy - I will ask you later. Alexandre Koriakine 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time:-) As a temporary solution to the image problme, I have uploaded an image I designed myself (it shows a world map) which is somewhat similar to the Wikimapia logo, but not the same. This solution is only temporary, and satisfies the public domain requirement for template images.

Hi there! Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I am indeed in New Zealand. [You can see my house here] - directly opposite the one with the swimming pool. Yes, we have sharks off the coast; there have been some shark deaths, but they are not common. Yes, I think our nature is our greatest asset; spots of natural beauty are never far away. No, I've never read the book you mentioned - but I'll have to look it up now!David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is very interesting read, they are moving along 37 parallel to find captain Grant (they cross South America, Australia,New Zealand) and written by Joules Verne. (Still trying to find the sw. pool).

Thanks, I'll have to get a copy of the book! I'll temporarily hotspot my house (as a private place), so that you can see it. It can be deleted tomorrow (nothing wrong with private places, seeing that your're working on software to hide them, but for privacy reasons I don't want my own house hotspotted. But I'll do it temporarily, for you:-)David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what your problem was! I must have been half asleep - I've entered the code for a place that's nowhere near where I live! I've corrected it now, and my house is now hotspotted too:-) correct link is here. David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, concerning the matters you wrote about.

1. What do you think if we have a place with some information (approved place), say, in 10 sentences. Then we show to user a button 'Create a new ************ Wikipedia article ' pointing to with already generated text from ***********? What do you think?

I think that's a great idea, which will ease the cross-referencing of the two projects. I'm looking forward to it.

2. Also is there now a real necessity that we must choose a 'licence' for the project? Probably a kind of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/? Just wondering must we think about this more closely?

I don't know how the law stands in Russia, but in many other countries (including mine), there could be legal complications for people wishing to use Wikimapia images on their websites if there is no license. In New Zealand, I have never heard of such laws being enforced, but adopting a licensing system would avoid any potential problems.

What do you mean by Wikimapia images? You meant with places? I have to check if it's corresponding with Google Map TOS. We can give permission from Wikimapia, but we don't own satellite imagery.

Yes, I mean places - maps. You have allowed people to put a portion of a Wikimapia map on their webpage - so some form of licensing would be appropriate. I'm no lawyer, but I think giving permission from wikimapia should be sufficient, as Wikimapia already has permission to use the imagery. David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a couple of questions of my own.

1. I'm pleased to see the box linking hotspots to Wikipedia articles. Would it be possible to add a second box, to link famous monuments to that structure's own website?

Could you explain a little bit more? A monuments in Wikidepia?

No, on Wikimapia. For example, if I create a place on Wikimapia for, say, New Zealand's parliament building, there's a box allowing me to enter a link to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Could we have a second box for the parliament building's own website?David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I tried to hotspot some Fijian islands, but kept getting the error message that I could not create a new place at that zoom level - I must zoom in closer. But (a) I wanted to hotspot the whole island, and (b) there was no image or map at a closer zoom level. Is it intended to be that way?

I forgot to make this for approved users.

I see. I'll look forward to it.David Cannon 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! David Cannon 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some new functionality -- an attempt to add a linking function to Wikipedia -- which isn't at the moment working exactly correctly. However, when I went to the Wikimapia Blog to see if there was a notice of the change there which would provide a feedback opportunity, I didn't see any mention of it. I'd like to post comments mostly to the Wikimapia blog if they regard Wikimapia functionality ... it would be helpful to keep the Wikimapia blog assiduously up to date by posting new comments to it when changes to Wikimapia are made. I know that can be a lot of work, but I think you'll find the effort pays off in the end. Regards ... --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceyockey. We write about funtionality when it's done in correct way. I will write about some new features, but they are still under construction.

"which isn't at the moment working exactly correctly" - what was not working correctly, could you tell me?Alexandre Koriakine 10:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the "Wikipedia Link" field. Links in general work ok; for instance, I've added a bi-directional reference for Mount Cuba Astronomical Observatory. The type of link I've found so far that does not work is that which contains parentheses. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Georges_Bridge_%28Delaware%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Georges_Bridge_(Delaware); both of these yield error messages ('given link is incorrect'). The same error is thrown if the url is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St. Georges Bridge (Delaware)". Hope this helps. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem I found is in the use of ampersands (&). The link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_%26_Delaware_Canal_Bridge works but the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_&_Delaware_Canal_Bridge does not; the latter is directly representative of the Wikipedia article title. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the correction will be uploaded soon.

It also appears that there are problems in urls with commas in them, which are also common. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton%2C_Delaware is a working URL, but neither http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton,_Delaware nor "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton, Delaware" are supported. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I read the URL specification at Wikipedia, so some characters are not wikipedia links. I am not sure that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton, Delaware" must be acceptable (at lease in wikipedia link field). I thought about links there. Must be revised, though.

Wikipedia uses the '#' intra-page bookmark link liberally as a way to jump directly to specfic sections of articles. The Wikimapia link to Wikipedia does not accept links in the format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Diocese_of_Delaware#New_Castle_County (for example); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Diocese_of_Delaware is a valid link for Wikimapia, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links with apostrophes are not accepted in the link field; for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's is not accepted as a valid link. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ceyockey. Will be fixed! Thanks for pointing it. Alexandre Koriakine 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! A few days ago, I marked some places on and around the Fijian island of Taveuni (here). They appeared for several days, then disappeared yesterday. Did somebody delete them? I didn't see them listed for deletion, so I'm just wondering. David Cannon 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I expect they were already normal places (not upcoming)? Now I see: Ringgold Isles, Somosomo, Labasa, Vanua levu. I will look at deleted places (I see only one deleted place where with your typing: This should be deleted as a ship is mobile. It is only temporarily at this location, and may be gone by now). I will check database to see more (there's z Zero meridian, so it's possible that it need to be checked).

UPDATE: yes, it's a trouble of -179 to 179 longitude, I'll check this, at this moment places are shown. Have you seen Matrix 3? Same here. But what with Somosomo village? Is it correctly marked?

Amazing isles! I hope to visit this part of the world: Australia, NZ, Nearest islands.Alexandre Koriakine 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Somosomo village is correctly marked. The Ringgold Islands, Labasa, and Vanua Levu are all correctly marked also. I marked some other places on the same island (including the Matei airfield in the far north and the Bouma Waterfalls on the east coast), as well as 3 nearby islands - but they have disappeared.

No, I haven't seen Matrix 3 yet. I will try to see it as soon as I can find some time!

I hope you can visit my country! I look forward to welcoming you here! David Cannon 10:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest: You've fixed it! All the places that vanished have now reappeared. Thanks! David Cannon 10:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I think the area around Fiji is still problematic. In the last couple of days, I created about seven places in the Lau Islands ((here)). I don't think anybody voted to delete them, but only one of them is still there. They were upcoming places, not confirmed, but if nobody voted to delete them, why have they vanished? Is it the same problem as before? Sorry to bother you. BTW, I've voted in favour of your bot request :-) David Cannon 09:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No it's not a bother, it's necessary. We have to check some formulas, it's math. Thanks for the bot, I expect I did everything correctly. Could you tell me one thing - you've seen them in UPCOMING and they dissapared.. I just recreated obj cache and they've been to NORMAL. So it's a problem of moving from cache, I expect. Alexandre Koriakine 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! That could explain it. One curious thing, though: it never seems to happen with places I create in New Zealand, but it's happened a number of times with places I've created in Fiji. David Cannon 11:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's close to 179 -179 coordinates. By the way, what do you think, http://wikimapia.org/#y=-18077979&x=-178857422&z=8&l=0&m=a&v=2&show=/1479813/ (Matei Airfield is the only airport on the island of Taveuni, off the coast of Vanua Levu) is places like this have to be in Wikipedia, or they need more info? Alexandre Koriakine 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You asked: By the way, what do you think, http://wikimapia.org/#y=-18077979&x=-178857422&z=8&l=0&m=a&v=2&show=/1479813/ (Matei Airfield is the only airport on the island of Taveuni, off the coast of Vanua Levu) is places like this have to be in Wikipedia, or they need more info? Um, the prevailing policy on Wikipedia allows extremely short articles, called stubs, which other users may expand later. The only rules are that they must be about notable topics, and must be tagged with a "stub" template, inviting users to expand the article. An airfield is considered notable; on the other hand, a corner store would not be. The information about Matei Airfield, in this case, is quite sufficient to begin a stub. David Cannon 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all new articles will have STUP sign, and.. usually grocery stores don't have more than once sentence. Users will decide to post or not this article, and Wikipedia admins will delete it if the article is bad. (I go to the sweeming pool.. eh, lucky you, I expect you have visited a lot of isles!) Alexandre Koriakine 12:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing them out. Yes, those templates are protected, but as an administrator, I can modify them quite easily, to include a wikimapia link. I'll get around to it in the next day or two.

I'm excited about all the new developments. David Cannon 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen (in India) several hugely oversized private houses marked and they were typically marked when the place was having low resolution imagery and also at that time upcoming place feature was not there. Now when I try deleting them, it simply takes the request but nothing happens (pls note I haven't logged-in as a registered user in the system). Example of such places can be see at Jhansi at Wikimapia (check the bigger boxes) Vjdchauhan 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)