This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
But would it make sense to categorize this family under the "Werdenberg" Category, either here on Commons or in the German Wikipedia? I remember many instances of modern people with bought titles, especialy of the Montfort-Name, who try to gain notabiility by such links. This looks to me to be the same case here, only by some nouveau rich war profeteers from the 30 Years War. --Wuselig (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Slascy-herb.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hello! This man was Duke Albert III of Mecklenburg and Duke Albert III of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, according to the numbering system they used. Just thought I'd let you know, and send good wishes your way. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: Hello! Best (belated) wishes of a happy new year! Thank you, but I'm aware that the "chain" Mecklenburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Gustrow and Mecklenburg-Strelitz have one single numbering. However, this doesn't happen on other lands of Mecklenburg: Werle, Rostock and Stargard have independent numberings. I'm paying attention to that. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Names in this dynasty were numbered at that time both by birth (Princes of Mecklenburg) and by territory (dukes of regions of that state such as Mecklenburg-Schwerin) which could lead to the confusion of different numerals being attached to one and the same person. Thus the king’s famously powerful father was Albert II of Mecklenburg but Duke Albert I of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. The king himself was Albert III of Mecklenburg (by birth), King Albert (I) of Sweden, and later also Duke Albert III of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, counted before his nephew (Albert IV) as Prince of Mecklenburg, but after the same man (Albert II) as Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. The surviving younger son of the king was Duke Albert IV of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Albert V of Mecklenburg. And a great 2020 to you too! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
PS I am writing to Schwerin Castle today about this portrait. More and more experts believe it has been misidentified there and actually is of Albert's son Eric, ruler of Gotland. He has the symbol of that island hanging from his heck. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: Should we recategorize it now? Or maybe wait for Schwerin Castle's answer? I'm having doubts with somes images as well. Look here. This image is supposed to represent Albert IV, Albert III's nephew, but in here, it is said to represent Albert III and his son Albert V. The similiarities between the first image and the duke at the right side are pretty obvious (compare the clothing). So who is this Albert? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait & see. My boss just sent an e-mail which they might not see till Monday. Looks to me like the other image you're questioning is King Albert's second son Duke Albert V, shown here! If they reply, we'll ask them about that one also. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Great! This version tells us that the king's younger son and his nephew seem to look a bit different. So the other painting might indeed be his newphew, even if many other details (than the face & hair) are identical. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Hi! Best (belated) wishes of a happy new year! Please, I had a hard work to convert the names in this category. There were categories with names in English and German, so I chose to convert them all to English. I hope you understand my decision. I'm sorry, but I'll revert your reversion. Please, next time ask first before reverting. Regards, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to disagree with you. It was you who should have asked for consensus before changing a long-established main category, and your revert now borders on edit-warring. Anyhow, I don't think I will proceed from here. I'll see what others think about this matter and just leave it be. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Hi! You're right, I didn't ask before changing as well... but, then how could this "conflict" be concluded? Ok, I don't mind if you want to revert again...but if I were to make a suggestion, and thinking about this conflict of language names, maybe it's better to apply german names to more recent rulers (at least from the 18th century) and from there backwards, change to English form? It's a suggestion, anyway. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be rather confusing. So we should at least have consistent category names that are either in English or German. If it helps, the {{SpanishKings}}also have mostly categories with their native names; and even Joseph Bonaparte got to keep his French name and was not dubbed "José" in order to fit into any alleged scheme. The only outlier there would be "Ferdinand VII" as opposed to "Fernando". De728631 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Generally, as I see it, it is appropiate to translate all given names using established exonyms when it comes to people who lived before 1900. After that, names had begun to be registered with legal spellings, and it would then no longer be appropriate to translate them. So, anyone who lived past 1900 should not have his or her name translated. That's the general rule that I go by. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: @SergeWoodzing: I agree with both of you, but it's a problem hard to solve, because we can't have consistent names if we are going to rename people who lived past 1900 according to their native language. This would cause that, taking for example this same category we are discussing, that Frederick Francis IV of Mecklenburg should be known as "Friedrich Franz IV", and the other three rulers before him who bore the same name would be kept as "Frederick Francis", as they died before 1900. It feels a bit strange for me, because I'm trying to uniformize, in a family, people with the same names, as you can see, in "House of Mecklenburg", with the Adolf Fredericks, the Johns, or the Alberts. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Correct assumptions. In English there are Swedish kings Gustav I through Gustav IV Adolf with standard English exonym spelling Gustav, but after 1900 beginning with Gustaf V we spell them with standard Swedish Gustaf because the registered legal name is spelled that way and it is not considered correct to exonym translate any registered legal name after 1900. Another example: only King Carl XVI Gustaf is spelled that way in English because that is his registered legal name, whereas all the previous kings by the same name are spelled Charles, which is the standard English exonym pre-1900. If your current legal name is James Hill, Swedes in their language cannot use Jakob Backe (correct Swedish exonyms/translations) for you today, but they could if you died before 1900, because then there was no registered legal spelling for your name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Name not Hedwig
The name of this woman was Haelwig in English, Helvig in Swedish, Helvig in German. It was not Hedwig/Hedvig which is a different name and a misprint in a few old books.
@SergeWoodzing: Hi! Thank you for working with me on this!! Maybe it's better to call her Heilwig, like her relative, Heilwig of Holstein-Kiel, who was Margravine of Brandenburg. Do you agree? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No. English: Haelwig, Swedish: Helvig. Commons primarily uses English exonms. She was Queen if Sweden. One of those should be used. German Wikipedia uses the Swedish spelling. Thanx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: I was wondering, however, if the Margravine should be as well renamed as Haelwig... What do you think? The spelling of these two names are the same, so maybe the Margravine of Brandenburg should be styled Haelwig... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who died before 1900, I always recommend legitimate English exonyms on Commons. Since I am a bit of an expert on them & have access to a large biographical library, you are always welcome to ask me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have her specifically but I always recommend legitimate English exonyms on Commons: Haelwig in this case, no matter what local spellings there have been. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you please stop moving category articles randomly? Yazdegerd I is for example simply known as 'Yazdegerd I', not 'Yazdegerd I of Persia'. If you continue to do it, I will have to report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Hi! I know that the Sassanids didn't rule just in Persia, and it's not the best way to call them, but I was trying to distinguish them from their relatives, the Kushano-Sassanids, who I want to bring to this category as well (they are also Sassanids) and have identical names (for example, Ardashir I of Persia and Ardashir I of Kushan). The name only won't do, because there are other rulers called Ardashir besides the Sassanid emperors (know the Kushan-Sassanids?). I was trying to find a way of distinguishing them other than the terms "Shahanshah" and "Kushanshah". Do you know any? As they call themselves "Kings of Iran and Aniran", "Ardashir I of Iran" could suit better? And maybe the same for the other Sassanian emperors and family? And keep the "Kushan" for the Kushano-Sassanians? Please give me your thoughts and opinions. (P.S. And please take this matter more lightly, everyone makes mistakes!!! You didn't need to threat! A message with your opinion on this matter would have been more valuable...) Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Call the Kushano-Sasanian kings by their names in Wikipedia then, no need to completely mess up the naming of all the Sasanian kings. No, neither "of Iran" or "of Persia" works, its simply "Ardashir I", "Bahram I", etc. Please revert your changes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Hello! I've already changed the main titles of the categories. (I've noted that there are file with my proposed designation). However, I've already created subcategories with of Persia in it, that I can't revert unless I do it manually. Are you an administrator? If so, and if you don't agree with the designation "of Persia" at all, even in subcategories, I suggest you use the User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
@Vysotsky: Hi! I'm trying to move every file to another category named "Maurice, Prince of Orange", to distingish him from other Maurice of Nassau, son of William, Duke of Nassau. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
No please. When renaming on a scale like this, you should first make your proposal clear at the relevant talk page. Vysotsky (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mhmrodrigues, I see you are adding coats of arms in a very prominent place on the pages of several persons, namely on top of the page. See e.g. Category:Prince Floris of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven. In my view, this is unhelpful and even distracting in the layout of the page of these categories. Can you explain why you are doing this? Vysotsky (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: Hi! It's just a way of associating the person with one of their main symbols, the coat of arms, but I do that only where they are available in svg format, which is more clean, or when the image is coloured (colours are important in coats of arms as you may know) and has white or transparent background. In my opinion my editions aren't distracting. in fact, besides beautiful, it's an important information of how the individual saw himself: as part of a continuity (when the coat of arms is the same of their progenitor or the last holder of a certain title), as a separate individual (when there are differences) or even when and if they claimed land (e.g. As you may know Edward III of England adopted the French quarters in his crest to represent his claimancy to the French throne). I did this "exposal of the coat of arms" in many pages: in dynasties (when I try to group until three different coats of arms to identify at least three of the most important branches of the family; see categories where I did this: House of Burgundy, House of Blois, etc.. This way, by recognizing the coats of arms, people who enter the category may know immediately that people of that family held specific titles associated with the coats exposed at the top of the category), and persons (obvioulsy in an individual I show just one coat of arms). I hope you understand my point of view on the matter. Greetings, and stay safe. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mhmrodrigues, It's exactly like you say it is: your point of view. Commons is not Instagram. These coats of arms are distracting, superfluous and unhelpful on these pages. Vysotsky (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree that this is not very helpful. The Wikidata infobox is already a prominent feature in many category pages, and these huge arms on top of the page are even more distracting. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have already taken the coats of arms from the Vollenhovens. And I didn't start this fashion, if you want to know. For example, the category Mary II of England has the coat of arms on top of it. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for editing the Vollenhovens' pages. Well, I can see how the royal arms could be added to the categories of monarchs, but for the reasons named above I think it should be a rather limited practice and not be the default for any member of nobility. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Hi! Thank you for agreeing at least partially with me. I just assume that nobles (at least from 12th/13th century onwards) have their own coat of arms as symbol (even if it's the same as their progenitor). It might not be true, but I think we'll never know that for sure. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
The fact that you user page is blank is not helpful when Wikimedia project colleagues try to figure out & understand who you are & why you do some very confusing, sometimes damaging, things. Please create a user page as all the rest of us have done when we do extensive work here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
@SergeWoodzing: Hi! It makes no sense categorizing the image in "Queen consorts of Sweden" when each of the queens have already been identified. The category "Queens of Sweden" should only show images which have not been (yet) assigned to specific queens. Since this image has already identified in its categories all the queens represented, why put it the general category? I hope you understand my point of view. If you do, please revert your edition. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The category is for images relevant to more than one queen. You have made the same error on several other images, removing the only category that makes it possible to find images that are relevant to more than one person. That does serious damage to this project. Please stop it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Read and try to grasp what I wrote to you, please! The category is for images that are relevant to more than one queen, not just one queen. What's not clear about that? More than one in other words Queens (queens) of Sweden. More than one queen. Images that are relevant not just to one queen but to two or more queens. Several or many. More than one. Images showing two or several or many queens.
People looking for an image representing more than one person of a certain type can only find it under a category of images representing more than one person of that type of person. Think before you remove very helpful & necessary categories - please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: , you don't need to be aggressive like that! I'm trying to make my point of view clear to you. I thought that what mattered the most was to identify the women in the image, not just stating the obvious fact that they were "queens of Sweden". You don't need the general category, because if you enter in any of the categories of this women, you'll already know that they were queens of Sweden. I don't see the image as whole picture representing "queens of Sweden", but various portraits of different queens of Sweden, all of them identifiable and with an individual category available. We should only categorize in the general category "queens of Sweden" when we don't know who is/are the queen(s) represented, or when an individual category for the woman in question isn't yet available. Following your logic, every single image of a queen of Sweden should be in the general category as they depict, in fact, a queen of Sweden. Why the categorization then? You should think too! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
What is it about the words "an image that shows more than one queen" that you do not understand? We do not need to discuss anything else. If you refuse to read and react to those words, the discussion is useless and I'll have to ask for administrative assistance to get you to stop damaging Commons this way. You are doing serious damage with this. That's why my reaction is strong when you refuse to read and react to those words. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Coat of arms of Apollonia of Henneberg at Wildenstein Castle
I reverted your categorizing of this coat of arms to individual persons. Whereas other members of the family bore the same coat of arms its use in the context used here is to denote the family relationship of Apollonia as wife to Gottfried Werner of the the Zimmern family residing in Wildenstein Castle where this coat of arms is used. The other members of the Henneberg family you linked it to do not fit into that context. I don't know if you made similar edits with other coats of arms, but if you did, you should think about reconsidering these edits. --Wuselig (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hiǃ If this is Apollonia's particular coat of arms, it may be better to be in her coats of arms category. I've already done that. Thanks for the warning. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 16ː33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It's complicated: Of course it is the familie's coat of arms. But in the context it is used on the castle or on the altar it is her personal signature so to say. The other family members do not have anything to do with the alter, and probably never got to see that castle in their lives. But you may find the same coat of arms in other places where they used it. On a tombstone for example. But if it wasn't one of a direct decendent of Apollonia, it would not have any cotext to Apollonia.--Wuselig (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
You are continuing this in many other cases. The families' coats of arms are not the coats of arms of single persons, but of families. This leads to an avoidable redundance. Just stop it.--GerritR (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@GerritR: @Wuselig: But the head of the family usually wears the coat of arms of the family, right? I'm just trying to open categories for people with no other image sources. I don't see a problem or infraction in that. And there are many other people's categories with a section for coats of arms... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 21ː49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Starting a category without having files for it is the wrong way, I think. (switching to German language) Außerdem sind es weiterhin Familienwappen, daher ist es zusätzlich falsch, die Familienkategorie zu entfernen und nur noch einzelne Personenkategorien zu verwenden. Manche Familien existieren seit Jahrhunderten und haben hunderte Mitglieder. Wohin soll das führen???--GerritR (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@GerritR: I don't understand German, sorry (but Google Translator indeed does miracles). Of course I'm not doing this for those families with hundreds of members, but to the ones that become extinct at least in 15th-16th centuries, with lesser amount of members and with the least depictions (as they have usually their peak at 13th/14th centuries). Medieval depictions pay more attention to the most powerful, and leave out noble families of lesser importance (like the ones I'm editing). And it is for the categories of those lesser noble families that I'm doing this. And don't panic, please. As I said, It is just for the heads/ruling members of the family, unless there is specified coat of arms for a person. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 22:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@GerritR: If I don't understand, please explain again. I could put the images of the coats of arms in its category page, while being at he same time on the members's coats of arms categories, right? And why can't you understand my point of view? Is it so wrong? I'm not violating any Commons rule... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 16ː11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@GerritR: , @Wuselig: 's case above was referring to the use of that specific coat of arms to the whole Henneberg family, when it should be attributed just to Apollonia, because it located in her residence, which makes it specifically hers. It has nothing to do with your problem. You are precisely complaining about making general coats of arms into specific ones. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 16ː20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Mhmrodrigues, your allocating the generic coats of arms to individual members without knowing from a specific context that they actually used it in such a way is in fact Original research. Individual members very often "expanded" their coats of arms to include new aquisitions of rights (some think territories, but that would take us to far out of this discussion). Take for example the House of Württemberg, as history progressed their coats of arms changed from ruler to ruler. The way to sort that out in the Category:Coats of arms of Württemberg is to categorize each coat of arms by a year, like this: [[Category:Coats of arms of Württemberg|1495]] or this: [[Category:Coats of arms of Württemberg|1613]]. They might be similar, but the conaisseur sees the distinction. --Wuselig (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Blason Ferrette This is imho not the coat of arms of a family but of o territory in the Austrian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire. Please reconsider your categorization of people again. See County of Ferrette --GerritR (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know. But in fact this is not really important. The main problem is how you try to connect coats of arms to people an to generate new categories of people before knowing which files to put in these categories. I recommend to undo all edits of that kind you did in the last time.--GerritR (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@GerritR: How can you say it's not important? I don't want to leave these categories empty. What can we do? Maybe if we knew the coat of arms is the same of all the family, we could apply the Montbéliard (blue version) coat of arms to these ones as well? I know about the conversation about general coats of arms to individuals, but this may be better than just leaving their categories empty... I don't know, what do you think? Mhmrodrigues, 23:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
