File talk:76-Wappen Bamberg Domstr-Westfassade-Alte-Hofhaltung.jpg

Das Aufplustern der Kategorienmenge in Gestalt zahlreicher Einzelpersonen ist kontraproduktiv und wird dem Sinn von Familienwappen nicht gerecht, ich plädiere dringend für das Zurücksetzen der Bearbeitung von User:Mhmrodrigues.--GerritR (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GerritR: In English, please. What do you mean "a disaster"? You sound like I'm ruining the entire purpose of Commons Wikiǃǃ Please, avoid disrespectfulness. Maybe if we talk more calmly we can reach an agreement. Don't spread the problem to the images's discussion pages. Expose it in talk page, anf if you want someone else to know about it, just add, between the code {{}}, Ping|Username, just like I've been doing with you. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16ː37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: Let's talk about this example, because it's a pretty good one. At the left there's just the coat of arms of the Henneberg-Römhild family. It stands for the whole family and not for a single person. So it's wrong to put it in the categories of single persons. In the middle we have the coat of arms of a distinct person (Philipp of Henneberg). As you ca see, it uses elements of the coat of arms of the family (tower and chicken) and of the Bamberg diocese (lion), because this single person was from the Henneberg family and was bishop of Bamberg.--GerritR (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GerritR: , Yes, I understand that, but can't we also assume as well that, as Philip of Henneberg's coat was representing him, the normal coat of arms could be representing the head of the family at that time (Philip's father or brother)? If you agree, we would just need to know when was the facade built, and attribute the coat to the count of Henneberg-Römhild of that year... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17ː04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GerritR: , also, and again, I understand the problem about the coats in public spaces, associated to the specific persons who built it, but, it's possible to keep my edit at least in the .svg files (and alike)? Because when I read "Coat of arms of the counts" I usually read it as referring to each of the counts/heads of the family. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17ː08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: The coat of arms of a family does not represent the head of a family, it represents the family itself.--GerritR (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GerritR: I already understand your point of view. But, do you understand mine? I mean, the coat of arms, in spite of representing the whole family, was technically used by individual persons, the members of the family... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18ː25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

But these coats of arms still remain the coats of arms of whole families. They represent the family as a whole thing and/or their members. So it's wrong to put them into the categories of some family members and remove them from the family category. And, as also mentioned, it leads to redundance. And what about the other members of the family?--GerritR (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@GerritR: Because it's more probable that the heads/ruling members of the family used the original coats of arms than other members, which, as we seen with the example of Philip of Henneberg, are more easily subject to change. I've already restored the images of the coats of arms to the family category, but they also remain in the categories of the members I've created. I hope we reach an agreement now. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21ː21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: Your thinking about the "heads of families" is wrong. If you're a member of a (noble) family which bears a coat of arms, you have the right to bear this coat of arms, too. It doesn't matter if you're the head of the family or not.--GerritR (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: @GerritR: This is the same case as the one pointed out by me about Apollonia. This combination of coats of arms is a unique signature of Philipp of Henneberg. It is used like an Arms of alliance only beeing a bishop, Philip is "married" to his Diocese.

If you think that labeling your categorizations as a "disaster" as disrespectful, I can understand GerritR fully. Okay I tried to put it a bit more friendly to you two days earlier. But I also already expressed my fear - now proven correct - that your categorization indeed " [is]...ruining the entire purpose of Commons Wiki." Every one who has categorized in this field only has their efforts on their watchlist. But like putting mines into the sea, we can only observe the individual explosions as they happen on diferent watchlists. And since people come and go, some of these mines will stay undetected, unless you do the cleaning up yourselves. So please, reconsider your last activities in this matter. --Wuselig (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wuselig: I sometimes fell like EVERYONE here is trying to expel me from hereǃ Almost every edit I make is subject of discussionː the images I upload which didn't have the correct rights (this was long ago); the fact of putting coats of arms of a person on top of the person's category page (as if there's something bad about it), the organizing of categories (removing consorts from husband's houses; what's the matter in simplifying these categories by restraining a family category to those who were born into it?) and now thisǃ I'm just creating categories using coats of armsǃ And no one backs me upǃ NEVERǃ I feel like everyone's against meǃ How is even possible that every edit I make is against the rules of Commons? I have really bad luck, I see. This is just too stressful, and that's why sometimes I need to ignore some comments, because I would go madǃ Hope I'm not the only one in this situation. I would feel even worseǃ Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: working in Wikipedia projects is Learning by Doing. And since these projects have been around for almost 20 some years it is getting more and more difficult. More difficult because we have become better over time and the goal is to retain that standard. More difficult, because we have become bigger over time. More difficult because therer are more and more rules you need to follow. In the beginning it was easier to make mistakes. Not so many saw them, and we all made them. One mistake also didn't have such a big effect either, because there was not so much china around to break. But to avoid such mistakes a lot of rules and conventions were established and it is sometimes very hard to even find where these rules are actually all codified. Not even I would find them all.

So the only advice I can give you is to not give up. Keep learning by doing. Go at it like a computer. "0's" and "1's". If you do things right continue. If you make a mistake abandon that path. Everybody makes mistakes. And nobody wants to expell you. They just want to keep you from making mistakes repeatedly.

By the way, not everybody that calls out a mistake must be right. That is why it is perfectly okay to argue your point. And that is why we have discussion pages. To get second and third opinions and find a consensus.

Work on Wikipedia Projects is voluntary work. We are doing this for fun (with a pinch of vanity). We shouldn't let it become stress, or go mad over it. We should feel good, doing it, not bad or even worse than before we started our day. If you get to that point, take a few days off. And than start anew. In a project where you have excelled so far, or doing some clean-up where you overshot your goal. Good luck! --Wuselig (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Thank you for your kind wordsǃ Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)