User talk:Mhmrodrigues/Archive 9

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.

Category:Friedrich Ludwig, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Hello, please leave the above category name as it is please. He was heir to Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg with the title Hereditary Prince. It's fine as it is. Thank you. Plus he was German, thus Friedrich Ludwig is appropriate. 31.125.215.135 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Gertrud of Saxony.jpg

File:Gertrud of Saxony.jpg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oursana (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted content

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Mhmrodrigues/Archive 9, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:JeaBrab.png

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 07:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted content

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Mhmrodrigues/Archive 9, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Sc01 Rob01Bar.png

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 07:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:CSc Hen02Bar.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:CSc Hen02Bar.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:CSc Hen02Bar.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 07:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Maya lintels - very much not all the same

As some Maya stone lintels are sculpted, and many others are not, I object strongly to this edit of yours -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Infrogmation! The mistake is now fixed. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Albanian_noble_families

Albanian noble families has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Bes-ARTTalk 19:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ruprecht von der Pfalz

Bitte nimm dort Stellung zu deiner unsinnigen Verschiebung [1] --Armin P. (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bourbon & Capetian House of Bourbon

Dear Mhmrodrigues, Today you effectively decapitated the Category:House of Bourbon and moved 163 subcategories to the newly created Category:Capetian House of Bourbon (created by you, today). I (and many others) have repeatedly told you that Commons is based on cooperation, trust and consultation of colleagues. You don't seem to want to consult others and just go straight ahead. Could you please change your method of operation? Vysotsky (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! @Vysotsky: ! Sorry. I hope you agree with the change. I thought I would do no harm (see the page in French fr:Maison capétienne de Bourbon). I just wanted to differentiate this family from the first House of Bourbon, known as Première maison de Bourbon, and the one who should be legitimately called House of Bourbon, as it is the founder of the lordship/feud. I've seen no problem because other branches of the Capetian dynasty have the prenomen "Capetian" to distinguish the Capetian branch of the same name of the original dynasty of the feud (examples in House of Anjou and Capetian House of Anjou). I would rather prefer an opinion and consultation, for example, in the Rurik Dynasty category. I'm having some issues in how to name the categories there. Thank you for listening! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Alexios III of Trebizond between his mother and his wife.jpg

File:Alexios III of Trebizond between his mother and his wife.jpg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Nanahuatl (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved category

You moved Category:Frederick William Adolph, Prince of Nassau-Siegen to Category:Frederick William I, Prince of Nassau-Siegen with the description: Added numeral; if the son is numbered as II, then he has to be I. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Frederick William Adolph was never called Frederick William I. In almost all official documents he is mentioned with these three given names, see Michel Huberty, Alain Giraud, F. & B. Magdelaine (1981). l’Allemagne Dynastique. Tome III: Brunswick-Nassau-Schwarzbourg. Le Perreux: Alain Giraud. p. 340.

So please be so kind to revert your edit and name the category with the correct given name again. Thanks in advance. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Roelof Hendrickx: ! So, you're saying that Frederick William Adolph never used a numeral, but then his son used II, or his son never used a numeral as well? If so, two options are left: a) we leave the father was Frederick William Adolph and the son as Frederick William (with no numeral for both); b) As father and son had the same three first names: Frederick William Adolph, they would be then Frederick William Adolph I and Frederick William Adolph II. The reversion is done, but please answer this question. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mhmrodrigues, thanks for reverting. I understand your question. Frederick William Adolph's son was named Frederick William. Neither of them used a regal number. But - and that is illogical - historians used the regal number II for the son, but not the regal number I for the father. So it should be Frederick William Adolph, Prince of Nassau-Siegen and Frederick William II, Prince of Nassau-Siegen. Greetings, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Change of DEFAULTSORT

Hi Mhmrodrigues, you've changed a lot of categories for people with roman names, e.g. Category:Tiberius Claudius Fatalis, so that they are sorted now by their first name. It is my understanding however (but I may be wrong in that regard), that people with roman names should be sorted by their nomen gentilicium (usually the second part of the name, in the above mentioned case Claudius).

Maybe there should be a discussion with other people involved on how to sort people with roman names, what do you think? Best regards. Agentjoerg (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! @Agentjoerg: ! Thank you for your question! Well, it's only logical that if you name a category of dead persons (and in times like roman ones, where surnames weren't that important), it should be sorted by its first name. Personally (and here I may see it differently than most people here, I assume) I don't see Commons like a encyclopedia which sorts names by surname/last name; I prefer ordering them by first name. Taking to your example, if, in "Tiberius Claudius Fatalis", the most important part of the name is "Claudius Fatalis", then why isn't the category named just "Claudius Fatalis"? If so, I would have categorized it in C. Please, feel free to ask more. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mhmrodrigues, I'll ask 2 other people, what they think about it. Hi @Caligatus: @DerMaxdorfer: , what do you think about the way, people with roman names should be sorted, would you prefer Tiberius Claudius Fatalis or Claudius Fatalis, Tiberius ? Best regards --Agentjoerg (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Buenos días:

Deberían ordenarse de la segunda forma: Claudius Fatalis, Tiberius, porque puede tener un hermano hipotético llamado Claudius Fatalis, Lucius ¿Cómo los diferenciaríamos?

Un cordial saludo scutum (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is normal in Wikimedia projects that pages for persons are sorted not by the beginning of their name, but by the most important or most differentiating part of the name ("second" or "family name"). For example, the Category:Bill Clinton is sorted nearly everywhere as "Clinton, Bill" (the only exceptions being categories like Category:Clinton family where "Clinton" doesn't help to differentiate between the entries of the category). Therefore, it makes sense and is the only consistent solution to sort ancient persons by their family name as well (in latin, that is the "en:nomen gentilicium" or "nomen gentile", normally the second name of a three-part Roman name). That is how it is done in many Wikipedia projects as well (and also in the indexes of printed literature on ancient Rome). Therefore the category name itself should be the full name of the person (like "Bill Clinton" or, in this case, "Tiberius Claudius Fatalis"), but the alphabetical sorting should be "Claudius Fatalis, Tiberius", like in "Clinton, Bill". Best regards, DerMaxdorfer (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A small addendum to the "times like roman ones, where surnames weren't that important" (quotation Mhmrodrigues). That is kind of right, but the first names weren't important as well. Those so called "praenomina" weren't comparable to what we call "first name" today. The definition of a first name today is (more or less) that it's an individual name that helps to identify a single person out of a familiy that shares a common second name. In Roman times, however, there were so few "praenomina" ("first names") that they couldn't be used to distinguish between individuals, especially as those praenomina were often even inherited in the families as a tradition. The function of distinguishing the individual person was mostly fulfilled by the third name, the "cognomen". To sort the roman names in categories, a format like "Fatalis, Tiberius Claudius" would still be better than "Tiberius Claudius Fatalis". But as I wrote above, the format "Claudius Fatalis, Tiberius" corresponds with most Wikipedia projects and scientific literature as well as with the approach for modern names. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DerMaxdorfer: , please explain me something: in the example, Claudius is considered a name or a surname? I was a bit confused with the explanation... For the categorisation, I agree that within the family category, people should be sorted by first names. Like I said, I prefer doing it that way, as I usually edit in monarchies. But, note that if you don't sort by name, you would have to have a different sort for presidents (and republics) and kings (monarchies) - note that the first ones are elected and not related to each other; I wouldn't oppose to the sort, in the context of listing presidents and other republican/democratic functions, by surname. But, in categories of kings, where every king of France is named of France, it would be a bit ridiculous ordering them France, Charles V of, for example. So, in my opinion, monarchies (and monarchy functions) and family (noble and not noble) categories should stand by the first name sort. Thank you for your patience (and for quoting me, big thanks)! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mhmrodrigues, thank you for your constructive reaction! The roman names have a completely different structure than modern ones. Today, every part of a name is considered to be either a (first) name or a family name/surname. Some persons have two or more first names, other have more than one family name (the latter case being common in spanish speeking countries). For roman times, that scheme doesn't work as (male) roman citizens had three types of names that can be clearly distinguished:

The (first) name, or praenomen in latin. In the earliest roman times, that worked like a first name today, but as I explained above, it lost that function completely in later times as it couldn't be used anymore to distinguish individuals.
The family name, or nomen gentile. That worked more or less like a modern family name.
The cognomen, that was put after the family name and helped to distinguish the individual persons.

For example: Gaius Iulius Caesar – Gaius (→ first name) Iulius (→ family name) Caesar (→ cognomen).#

Or: Tiberius (→ first name) Claudius (→ family name) Fatalis (→ cognomen).

Now, to come back to the topic of categorization: Monarchies are a very, very special case, as aristocratics are mostly known by their first name until today ("Elizabeth II" and not "Ms Windsor"). Ancient Roman names are more comparable to typical modern names, except that they had a third category of names at the end of each personal name (of a male Roman citizen). I therefore support your statement that monarchies and family categories "should stand by the first name sort", but I must emphasize that ancient Roman names aren't monarchic names! So they should be sorted by their family name like modern non-aristocratic persons, for example the "Clinton, Bill" that I mentioned above. Best regards, DerMaxdorfer (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Descendance of William II of Württemberg

Could you please check who this is supposed to be? He claims to be an heir to William II of Württemberg. You just categorized some of his uploads to the Category:House of Württemberg. Wuselig (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wuselig: ! Surprisingly, I didn't find anyone with his name within the recent Württemberg family. But I did find this. Maybe he's an american with a claim, a descendant of a bastard? How would you categorize this? In Nobility of Germany, or just People of the United States? Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Since there is no Nobility in Germany anymore since 1918 and his claim is obviously false, since William II died without heirs and the title as pretending Duke of Württemberg went to the Althausen Branch he is no more than a US-Citizen, if at all. Wuselig (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wuselig: , done! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Timurid Empire is not Mughal Empire

Timurid Empire is not the same as Mughal Empire. They were both ruled by Timurid dynasty, but some of the members of the dynasty were people of the Timurid Empire, and some members were people of the Mughal Empire. Therefore we cannot simply add category "People of the Timurid Empire" to the category "Timurid dynasty", and we also cannot add category "People of the Mughal Empire" here. Akbar or Aurangzeb weren't citizens of the Timurid Empire, the same way that Timur or Baysonqor weren't citizens of the Mughal Empire.--Nous (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nous: But I never put that in question. I know Mughals were a branch of the Timurids, and that they ruled two different empires. The only person from the Mughal dynasty I may have put in the Timurid categories was Babur, and no one else. In "People of Timurid Empire", we put people (other than the ruling family) who inhabited the Timurid Empire. The ruling family "Timurid dynasty" is included as a group (as a family of the Empire) in "People of the Timurid Empire". That's why I don't understand why you categorized Baysonqor (a member of the ruling family) alone in the bigger category of the people of the Empire. He is already part of a family of the Empire (the ruling family), and this ruling family, as a group, is already included in "People of the Timurid Empire". That's why this edit of yours seems redundant to me. Also, you seem to imply that there were Timurids (non-Mughal Timurids) who were Mughal citizens. If that's the case, in Timurid dynasty we add "People of the Timurid Empire" and "People of the Mughal Empire". People who consult this should already know who to look for in each of the cases inside the category's family. I hope you understood my point. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"In "People of Timurid Empire", we put people (other than the ruling family) who inhabited the Timurid Empire" - So why you put Akbar or Aurangzeb in the category "People of Timurid Empire"? Because that's what you do. Again, subcategory of the "Timurid dynasty" is "Mughal dynasty". So when you add category "People of Timurid Empire" to category "Timurid dynasty" you put Akbar or Aurangzeb in the category "People of Timurid Empire". That's whay you did. So you are saying to me one thing (that you perfectly know the difference between early Timurids and Mughals), and do something exactly opposite (namely you put them all together in category "People of Timurid Empire"). P.S. And I don't understand why this "other than the ruling family", but that's another story. Nous (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nous: No! I meant to add Mughal dynasty at Timurid dynasty only as a branch of the family, and not as correlated with the categories present at Timurid dynasty! The categories related to Mughal dynasty are at "Mughal dynasty" category, separately! I do know the difference between the two families. Regarding "other than the ruling family", I meant people that aren't part of the ruling family. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Again: "Timurid dynasty" has a "Mughal dynasty" as subcategory. I am not interested what you wanted to do. What you did is that you put Akbar or Aurangzeb in the category "People of Timurid Empire", because you make "Mughal dynasty" subcategory of "People of Timurid Empire". And Mughal dynasty was already part of category Timurid dynasty "only as branch of the family". It is your editions that makes it something more, namely ""People of Timurid Empire". Nous (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Renamed category

Why did you rename the category Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein from the correct name to the incorrect name Sophie Polyxena Concordia of Sayn-Hohenstein? Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! @Roelof Hendrickx: ! It's a way to simplify the sometimes overly long list of approximations of places (Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein are three different places!). To be objective, her family was ruling from Hohenstein (which was once part of Wittgenstein, it's sure, but no longer at her time). I've reduced this info to just two: Sayn as her family's name and Hohenstein as her objective place of origin (a.k.a. the capital from where her close family was ruling). But I can also see your point of view, probably she is mentioned in documentation with her three plece names, and that's why I accepted your reversion of my edition. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I have not reverted the category name, because I'm not allowed to. So therefore I want to ask you to do that yourself. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sponheim

Hi Mhmrodrigues, please allow me to direct your attention to this discussion as this concerns categories created by you. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Eupraxia Mstislavna.jpg

File:Eupraxia Mstislavna.jpg 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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ghirlandajo (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Anna_of_Austria,_Duchess_of_Bavaria_in_art

Anna of Austria, Duchess of Bavaria in art has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ecummenic (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Parantaka I

Category:Parantaka I is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ ^{🩺 • 💉} 05:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Mhmrodrigues/Archive 9

Contents

Category:Friedrich Ludwig, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

File:Gertrud of Saxony.jpg

Deleted content

Deleted content

File tagging File:CSc Hen02Bar.jpg

Maya lintels - very much not all the same

Category:Albanian_noble_families

Ruprecht von der Pfalz

Bourbon & Capetian House of Bourbon

File:Alexios III of Trebizond between his mother and his wife.jpg

Moved category

Change of DEFAULTSORT

Descendance of William II of Württemberg

Timurid Empire is not Mughal Empire

Renamed category

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sponheim

File:Eupraxia Mstislavna.jpg

Category:Anna_of_Austria,_Duchess_of_Bavaria_in_art

Category:Parantaka I

Navigation menu

User talk:Mhmrodrigues/Archive 9

Category:Friedrich Ludwig, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

File:Gertrud of Saxony.jpg

Deleted content

Deleted content

File tagging File:CSc Hen02Bar.jpg

Maya lintels - very much not all the same

Category:Albanian_noble_families

Ruprecht von der Pfalz

Bourbon & Capetian House of Bourbon

File:Alexios III of Trebizond between his mother and his wife.jpg

Moved category

Change of DEFAULTSORT

Descendance of William II of Württemberg

Timurid Empire is not Mughal Empire

Renamed category

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sponheim

File:Eupraxia Mstislavna.jpg

Category:Anna_of_Austria,_Duchess_of_Bavaria_in_art

Category:Parantaka I

Navigation menu

Search