Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:Maria Theresa

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 182.253.54.95 in topic No reference of "agnatic"?

Good articleMaria Theresa has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 20, 2004, October 20, 2005, October 20, 2006, October 20, 2007, October 20, 2009, October 20, 2010, October 20, 2011, October 20, 2013, October 20, 2014, October 20, 2015, October 20, 2017, October 20, 2018, October 20, 2019, October 20, 2020, October 20, 2021, October 20, 2022, May 12, 2023, May 13, 2023, May 12, 2024, and May 13, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Slow edit war on the infobox pic

edit

@Dancingtudorqueen:, @Gryffindor: this seems to have been going on for a while. I don’t have much of a view either way although *I think* the painting by Meytens is the status quo. So consensus is required to change it. Would you both sort it out here please rather than through reverting and edit summaries?. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the Meytens one - it’s been the long standing image. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
But do you have any other reason why it’s better? Just because it’s the longstanding image isn’t really a reason to keep it. DeCausa (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It’s also the image most frequently used in her biographies and portrayals of her - Gryffindor is using a low quality image with a ridiculously long caption. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And Gryffindor continues to try to insert their preferred image with no adequate explanation. DeCausa (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You cannot remove referenced information without proper cause WP:REMOVAL. None of which you are giving so far. The image you keep on inserting has less importance than the full state portrait that is in the center of Schönbrunn Palace and which has referenced information on its status WP:REFB. See also articles like Louis XIV, George III, George IV, etc. which show full state portraits. Gryffindor (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gryffendor, the Meytens panting is the stable WP:EDITCONSENSUS supported pic that has been there for years. Since August you have been attempting to replace it with the new pic via, to date, 10 reverts. Each of your reverts has been reverted by 5 different editors restoring the Meytens painting -you’re not following WP:BRD and are edit-warring. Per WP:ONUS you need consensus to change it to the image you want - but you don’t have it. Please stop edit warring and respond to the points made. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Mary II of Hungary" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Mary II of Hungary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Mary II of Hungary until a consensus is reached. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No reference of "agnatic"?

edit

@Yourlocallordandsavior, despite maria theresa being the last habsburg monarch under an agnatic line, then why this page lacks any mention of "agnatic"? 182.253.54.95 (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply