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.
@GerritR: We shall continue our discussion here. Please, explain to me once more about the coats of arms problem. In my point of view, your concept of family is an abstractionː family is a group of people, who used, generation after generation, the same coat of arms, so, technically, the coats of arms are not pertaining to a "family", but to its members. Of what I know, the main coats of arms are usually used by the head of the family, with an identification purpose. That's why I'm opening categories with ruling memebers and heads of the familyː the symbols of the coat of arms were used by them. If you still don't agree, please explain to me better your point of view, and preferrably in English. We know that Google Translator can distort the meaning of answers, sometimes. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 16ː30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mhmrodrigues, We had several discussions in the past. I repeat (from an earlier discussion): "You have been around here for almost ten years. You still don't seem to grasp what cooperation means." You keep pushing your own point of view, even if it's clear that you are wrong. Please stop. Vysotsky (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: Hiǃ Stop what? Do you mean I have to ask for permission for each edition I make? I wouldn't go that far. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues, 16ː13, 30 December 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!
You declared this file as an own-work! Are you really producing such ahistoric reconstructions? Please stop! They don't add any value to our project. --Wuselig (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I just took a look at all your recent uploads. I had to go back to July 14 to find the first that was not a copyviolation. You are aware that we only allow scans of 2-dimensional objects as valid sources for reproductions of PD-works. Coins and seals do not fall into these categories, since they are 3-dimensional, therefore you have to check the copyright status of the photographer of these images. --Wuselig (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So if it says "all rights reserved" you believe it is okay to publish those on Commons? I truly start to believe it would be better that you asked somebody for permission every time you make an edit. You are really starting to stretch any goodwill that I extended to you so far. Either you are indeed so naive, or abandoning good faith, we have to assume, you are a most cunning troll. --Wuselig (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Look, there's no valid reason for using longer, complicated names. Don't you see that virtually all articles are using names such as Umar I, Yazid I...? Also academic encyclopedias, because there are no namesakes of similar importance. Neither Caliphate of Cordoba is on the same level as Umayyad Caliphate. Regarding the redirected category, "Umayyad caliphs" is primary meaning for so-called "caliphs of Damascus" (very rarely used in literature) so there is no reason for having two separate categories. The similar situation would be with Iranian Arsacids (primary) and Armenian Arsacids (secondary). Also, you made two mistakes: (1) Uthman never ruled from Damascus, thus I put it for deletion. (2) His reign belong to Rashudin, not Umayyad period. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2021 (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!
Hello! This would have been better if you'd kept the name form Maria. She was not known as Anna Maria. I haven't even been able to fins out where that came from, and have now moved the English WP article. How about consulting me before you change any more categories for Swedish royals? I'd love to help. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @SergeWoodzing: ǃ How are you? I've categorized her as Anna Maria because the German Wikipedia (she was German) called her so. But, from what I've seen in the family, it was usual by then to be known with a double name (Maria Anna, Dorothea Susanna). If I was to change, then the Russian consorts should be also categorized only by their Russian name, or, for exemple, the Portuguese countess of Flanders (Theresa-Matilda) who was originally called Theresa changed her name to Matilda is categorized under her original name, Theresa. Please, give first a little thought on thisː should we respect more the country of origin of the person, or the country where they moved? If, after the thoughts, you keep wanting the change, tell me and I'll revert. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The question is not what she was called in one country or another. She is known as Maria, not Anna Maria, so we should call her Maria. I do not know why German Wikipedia calls her Anna Maria when I cannot find any other source that does. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@DerDeutscheFotograf: , your idea seems plausible, but one thing is to be crowned queen and almost "abandon" the public use of the name Alexandrine; other is being known as Anna Maria in the birth country and just Maria in the adopted country (by marriage). The question here is, in Anna Maria's case, should we valorize the birth name (Anna Maria), or the name she adopted in Sweden (just Maria)? Thank you for your opinion. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is so important that all names must be in English nomenclature. I can live with that, even though I just heard Mechthild von der Pfalz turning in her grave. If the categories are properly linked to the Wikidata entry, than the respective language versions will find their proper names anyhow. --Wuselig (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Where are we finding
Information about her baptism?
Reliable sources to support that she is widely known in history as "Anna Maria"?
Respecting the German article I have added an aka to her EnWP article, even though there is no source given there either for "Anna Maria". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want to move this cat title to category:Robert of Palatinate-Simmern, Duke of Cumberland? Several points to address: First, its a change from a popular and well known name to an obscure one. Institutions use the former title. Second, its now different from Wikipedia, where there's a link to it. Third, it was created in 2007, the original title was good for 14 years. Why is it not fit for purpose, now? Fourth, why was the change not proposed and discussed on the talk page? Cheers? Broichmore (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Hiǃ I thought of it to better identify him within the branch of Palatinate-Simmern. In a category with different branches shown, it's hard to place him within a branch. You see, "of the Rhine" is a bit ambiguous when you have many branches in Palatinate. This way, We can imediately identify his branch within his family. Also, I didn't neglect his link to British royalty, when I added his peer title. Thank you for your opinionǃ Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, however I still think the previous title was the correct one, the new title should be a redirect to the old title, not the other way round. The British title sits uncomfortably with the Palatinate. This man is Prince Rupert, that's how he is internationally and popularly known, the palatinate title is obscure. You would not rename Elton John to Reginald Dwight, just because it sits better that way in the family tree.
don't see any value in using an obscure name for an entity which has a gazillion images and documents about him under another name. His place in British history dwarfs anything he ever did in Germany.
We use family trees and and disambiguation pages to place people in families, we don't rely on names alone, especially member of a huge and sprawling family like this one.
You still have not said, why you deviated away from consensus on this matter? I really think you should revert this. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2021 (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!
House of Baden-Durlach is sub-branch of House of Baden
This should answer your first question
No need to categorize them under House of Baden, if they are already properly categorized. Please revert your recent changes yourself. --Wuselig (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Wuselig: ǃ I'm doing like the categories of "House of Hohenzollern", "House of Ascania" or "House of Wittelsbach". I'm joining all members in the main category, and at the same time they are kept separated by branch. They are from the Baden-Durlach line, but it's not a lie that they are from the "greater" House of Baden, which originated the branches. Hope you understand my point of view and thank you for your opinionǃ Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hiǃ @Wuselig: ǃ I understand the undercategorization, but the rules apply to many different subjects. I would say that, specifically in families or noble houses, it's more easy to find a nobleman in the main category than in other subcategories. Thank you for your help, but I feel that cases of noble houses should be different. But hey, it's my opinionǃ I will not force you to accept my point of view. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not to me, or you to change the categorization sytem on Commons. I agree that it more often than not hides files in boxes that need some knowledge of the structure of the business. But if they are all piled into one big box, sorted only by the aribtrary naming system chosen by the individual uploaders, they are hidden just as well. So please, start doing the clean-up work and don`t expect others do do it after you. I see your works only on files and categories on my watch-list. I have to fear that there are many more sites you are doing similar re-categorizations. --Wuselig (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel stalked. I think I can have a different view on this, right? I don't think that what I'm doing is directly jeopardizing the research method in Commons. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You are not beeing stalked. I am merely checking my watchlist regarding my activities on Commons. I don't have the time and nerves to go after all your other edits in different families. But if you want, we can take this to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, either by you accusing me for stalking, or me for calling out your interpetration of the categorization scheme into question. It is on you to clean up, not on others to clean up after you. --Wuselig (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh by the way, @Wuselig: ǃ Maybe you can answer me this. Why is James margrave of Baden-Hachberg (1584-1590) called III, when he is obviously the second James ruling? The James called II was an Archbishop-Elector (and is numbered II because he is the second Archbishop), and if he was a margrave in Baden, it was merely titular. The Archbishop shouldn't be counted. I didn't see anything that numbered James III as the third margrave of this name. Shouldn't he be renumbered II? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Without going into any original research looking into family trees, I categorically say: No it shouldn't be renumbered. If he goes by this name in common literature, that is the number that sticks. It is not Wikimedians who decide on numbering schemes. It is the literature we source. --Wuselig (talk)
I didn't even take the time to delve into the family tree. So no, I do not agree, that the numbering is strange. For me it was sufficient that other sources, more knowledgeable than you, or I, are calling him that way. That was as far as my research needed to go. --Wuselig (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
File:Vladimir4.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
In my eyes you are creating a mess again! And I can't figure out the Grand-Plan you are pursuing. But I will try!
Why? -- with the House of Württemberg you are entering an area which I have under close scrutiny. So please expect more questions towards the handlings of your recategorization spree. If you think you need to move a Duchess of Württemberg to the House of Württemberg category, which as I explained already in our discussion above regarding the House of Baden, I think is absolutly not well advised, you could at least leave her in the Duchess Category, because she still stays one and add some sort of sort-key to her if you must insist to clutter the House of Württemberg with individual images. You are creating a mess again! --Wuselig (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wuselig: , "Duchesses of Wurttemberg" is not a branch to where you can assign people, as you so passionately argued last time. It's a title. Its people should be present within their family. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Let me add one positive note: Not all of what you are doing is bad. It is okay if you change Category names into English, because this is the main language used here. You do seem to leave a redirect on the German names, which is also good, because under that name most users would search.
Some other recatagorizations are necessary, because the category tree wasn't as deep than as it is now.So here also you can do good work.
Actually I hope we can clean up the House of Württemberg together, because as I said above, this part of German history is what brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. --Wuselig (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are additing somebody to a category "Illegitimate relation of the House of Württemberg", shouldnt her category not at least indicate to whom? --Wuselig (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wuselig: , thnak you for trying to understand me. People have infoboxes to more information. And, as a conoisseur as you say you are of German nobility, I expect people like you to easily see that the dukes of Teck and Urach are not more than illegitimate branches, ad their origins are from a morganatic marriage.Mhmrodrigues (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
If you look into the history book there are subtle distinctions. The Counts of Urach are not considered an illegitimate branch by the House of Württemberg, even though they did relinguish their right to inheretance in the act of retaining that legibility. Not so with the House of Teck. I guess they became to British. Or to read it differently. There also were efforts made, but they got caught up in a war, and after that it didn't matter anymore, nobility having been abolished in Germany. --Wuselig (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wuselig: , They weren't considered, but they were illegitimate. I assume they didn't relinquish it, they didn't have any right from the start, as the marriage of their parents is not considered as valid for succession. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the current Baden-family there were ways to mend this and they were used when necessary. So I would make a distinction. Especially when I see what good standing the Counts of Urach have within the current family and in their outward appearance to the people living today in Württemberg. Unlike the Teck family, they are more than distant cousins. --Wuselig (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wuselig: , I hope you liked how the page turned out in the end. At least it's more clean. I think you can figure out the rest of it. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect name format
Your move here gave her a name form that is not correct. She was Duchess of Dalecarla (Dalarna) because she was a princess of Sweden. The ducal title cannot be combined like that with her German origin. Also, her official name as a princess of Sweden and as Duchess of Dalecarlia was Teresia, no other spelling. Will you never begin to ask me before doing things like that? I have asked you to ask me first about Swedish royalty. Why don't you? What's the big rush (to make mistakes)? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And restore her official name Teresia. That was her legal name. After 1900 people had legal names with definite spellings. Also please answer my question, to avoid more unnecessary movesǃ Will you never begin to ask me about Swedish royalty before doing things like that? The name of that category was just fine as it was and no move was needed. When you are trying to uniformize, what you are actually doing is destroying a lot of hard work I did years ago in naming these categories correctly and consistently, under the married names & positions of these women. Use redirects if you wish to put in other name formatsǃ Stop moving Swedish royaltyǃ --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: I'll restore her name, but under "Teresia of Saxe-Altenburg", if you don't mind. It may be better to indicate her country of origin, instead of the one by adoption, because it triggers a lot of confusions. I just didn't have problems in renaming local names to an English version. There's a lot of this in French or German nobility, so why would Sweden be different? And... you're into Swedish royalty? From which period is your domain, for me to know, and ask you about? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I do mind. Either restore the category name we had before your shenanigans or Teresia of Saxe-Altenburg, princess of Sweden (Norway need not be included since she was not a princess of Norway up until her death).
Legal names with legal spellings, starting with the 20th century, do not have other versions. When a person who lived into the 1910s was spelled Teresia, that's her name. If you don't even bother to read what I write to you, why am I wasting my time?
@SergeWoodzing: , Concerning the category in question, the infobox says that princess Teresia's birth name was "Therese Amalie Karoline Josephine Antoinette von Sachsen-Altenburg". Shouldn't we use the form "Therese" instead? I'm just asking, please don't be offended. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It's actually none of your business, but I maintain a private historical-biographical library of over 600 volumes which covers a period from the 10th (tenth) century till the present time. Several well-known Swedish historians living from the 1980s till today are good friends of mine. Wikimedia Commons is not a playground for you, where you can do as you please making all kinds of totally unnecessary category moves year after year for no other reason than your personal often incorrect opinions. Categories are not to be moved at all, ever, unless there are good reasons to do so. Your reasons often fail necessity, and you are obviously not willing to cooperate before you do these unneeded things. There is clear evidence that several of us have have tried to reason with you and you often display arrogance and stubbornness. I must now place a serious warning on your talk page. If you ignore it, there will have to be further action to put a stop to the damage you are doing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: , my primary concern was that Princess Teresia of Norway and Sweden could be confusing, as it shows no connection to her original family, the Wettins/Saxe-Altenburg, and (correct me if I'm wrong) this showing of origins in category names should be shown at least in categories of more ancient personalities or royal/noble families' members (at least until the French revolution, to avoid confusions). I'm also concerned with the problematic question of categories with multi-national forms of names (like having "von Sachsen" and "of Saxony" assigned to different persons in the same category, or the confusion that different defaultsorts bring (Having for example an Adelaide in V section because defaultsort has "Von Sachsen"). I just see this not changing and try to help by doing it (maybe I go far sometimes), but I never thought that I would come out to you as "arrogant and stubborn". If you really see me like this, then I'm profoundly sorry. From now on I'll check with you every change I'm thinking to do, and ask your opinion about it. Thank you for sharing with me this piece of your background, because doing it you showed me that you have very good sources. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
You are now formally told and warned not to continue changing the names of categories without good reasons to do so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: , these are my rules that I usually follow in my renaming of categories. Feel free to add your opinion. Of course, I won't touch anything before asking to you, but, these are my suggestions.
1. For distinction of people
I avoid dates to distinguish people in category titles, unless they died very young, or there are other people with the same name. In the latter cases, I usually address only the date of death in parenthesis () (ex.ː Beatrice of Castile, Queen of Portugal (1303); Beatrice of Castile, Queen of Portugal (1359))
To people who belong to the same family and same nameː I usually distinguish them by title (ex.ː Elizabeth of Aragon, Queen of France; Elizabeth of Aragon, Queen of Germany; Elizabeth of Aragon, Queen of France; Elizabeth of Aragon, Queen of Portugal). The title chosen is usually the higher, or the one they have held the longest. I usually don't apply titles such as "Hereditary Prince", but I'm considering it.
If there's one person who have the same name as otheres with remarkable titles but this person alone doesn't have one, then I usually leave their name only. The others are already distinguished by title.
if there's may people with no remarkable titles, I apply the case of the date of death in parenthesis for recognition.
2. For titles
Kings/Queens regnant usually only get the numbering (like Philip II of France; Richard I of England; Elizabeth I of England. Also, William I of Württemberg, for example, is well named in my view.)
In cases of ruling lesser titles (de jure or hereditary titles doesn't apply to this rule), the title comes after the name (ex.ː Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg; Adolph III, Count of Holstein). The title should also note the divisions made within the family (ex.ː Adolph VI, Count of Holstein-Pinneberg). This one is one of the main changes I'm planning to do in House of Württemberg category, as I've seen in many ruling counts. Count Eberhard I (Württemberɡ) will change into Eberhard I, Count of Württemberɡ soon.)
If the name is unique, let them be unique (William Louis, Duke of Württemberg). The same apply to females. This is the particularity that distinguishes, for example, countesses/duchesses regnant of consorts (ex.ː Isabella, Duchess of Lorraine). If happens the female in question to rule as consort in her territory, then repeat the name of the land (Queen Pauline of Wurttemberg shall become Pauline of Württemberg, Queen of Württemberg)
In German families cases, I'm statring to think to leave the title before the name to indicate that despite the noble title they aren't ruling anymore. So, I should keep this rule seen in House of Württemberg, but only in people living after the end of their county/duchy/land or of the monarchy in general (1918).
3.For names
Usually by alphabetical order. Adding the DEFAULTSORT is quite useful when trying to organize a category.
The names should be uniformized to one form, and in English preferrably (avoid having Elisabeth and Elizabeth; I always choose one of them, I think English has both forms). The exception I make is with people who lived after 19th century, when, as said in a discussion before, there are more records of the writing of the name.
4.For coats of arms
I usually associate personal coats of arms with people in a category (Coats of arms of [name of the category of the person]), which allows me to link this coats of arms category to the othe main category of the coats of arms of the families. Coats of arms here, under my supervised categories, can be as vast as the main family category, if many people have personal coats of arms. I add (imagine it's between brackets)ː Category:Coats of arms of xxx family|first name of the person (ex. Anna Elisabeth), to order the coats of arms by person's names within the family coats of arms category. The example shown will store the category under letter A, but if there's other who are only Annas, they will go before this one, as she is "Anna Elisabeth".
̈*5. For organizing categoriesː
Any illegitimate children or children of morganatic marriages go to the category Illegitimate relation of (name of the family). If the family has branches (usually, under my supervision, categorized as Branches of the (name of the family)), the category shall go to the Branches category. It will empty a bit the full categories.
Usually for decoration, I put the most elaborated version of the coat of arms of the family on the top of the category.
@Bahnmoeller: Hi! This comes from where? Which edit of mine are you complaining about? You know that you have to explain, right? It's just rude to just come here and say "you are expelled from x and y themes", without any explanation on your part. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Mhmrodrigues, A brief look at your contributions and at your talk page archive makes it quite clear what the fuss is all about. Your method of operation hasn't changed in the last years. (I have complained about it to you in the past.) You show up at a certain branch of whatever nobility, change names and categories, most of the time without prior discussion, and then go into lengthy debates about why your particular view is the right one. Most people just get tired of these discussions, because it doesn't look as if arguments or consensus count. That's why some people react angrily, because they fear to be drawn into an unnecessary and unhelpful struggle about your point of view. Vysotsky (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have seen politicians demolishing lots of wooden houses in traditional streets of an old town, to make space for modern houses in an accurately planned town to be built in reinforced concrete, but the inhabitants of the traditional huts did not like that at all. It might be difficult for you, to understand the difference between de:Kategorie:Tübinger and de:Kategorie:Tübingen (Adelsgeschlecht), and thus we propose that we wait for several Wikipedians, who understand the categories of the German Wikipedia, to make small changes on Wikimedia Commons step by step, instead of getting the mess resolved in a rush by one person on its own. Even if the status quo is not perfect, we do not want to change it too quickly, please, as we got used to it. As a group (the German community) we are more conservative than an individuum (Mhmrodrigues) would be. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bahnmoeller: @Vysotsky: @NearEMPTiness: Well, if you can't beat them, join them. I'll leave the German families pages (Hope you like at least my Wikipedia tables, where I try to organize the German families feuds, and, if possible, continue to work on these). I even unmarked the German families "House of Hagen", "House of Meinhard" and "House of Schauenburg" from my Commons Watchlist (not with some sadness). At least, I would only like to get an answer from @SergeWoodzing: , to rechange the category we were talking about. Should it be "Therese" (German version of her name; she was originally German) or "Teresia" (his Swedish form suggestion)? Thank you allǃ Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have answered that very clearly. I wroteː "Legal names with legal spellings, starting with the 20th century, do not have other versions. When a person who lived into the 1910s was spelled Teresia, that's her name. If you don't even bother to read what I write to you, why am I wasting my time?" But you've ignored just about everything I've written and keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with your very lengthy, mainly irrelevant rambling. On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It's extremely tiresome and irritatingǃǃǃ --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: , You also don't seem to read what I write. I mentioned earlier that I didn't intend to offend you with the question, so I don't know why all that ramblingǃ Calm down, ok? I asked because I saw the Infobox on her page says that her name was "Therese", and I wanted to be sure that you knew about itǃ But, very well, I'll do as you ask. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
We are talking about German noblemen with well established german names. You give them fantasy names. There is no "House of Schaumburg" anywhere. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bahnmoeller: Hi! So, how do you call the first ruling family of the County of Holstein? So may I keep those pages in my Watchlist then? I just have to avoid families still living in the 19th-20th century, am I right? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. "Keep your hands off German persons, towns and everything else connected with Germany, please." You may watch but not touch! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I would interpret the statement as "Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein" to get used to it. Feel free to make recommendations on the discussion pages, but do not harras the uploaders, please. Cheers. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
