Talk:Maria Theresa/Archive 2

Ancestry chart

 * 1) I have no idea where Zortwort got the idea that I removed the template for not liking it.
 * 2) Few graphics of this sort having a citation does not mean that graphics such as this do not need citations.
 * 3) If this ahnentafel were helpful, it would have been present in biographies of Maria Theresa and thus easy to source. Anna Dorothea of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein is entirely irrelevant to Maria Theresa's life, as is basically every ancestor of hers other than parents and grandparents.
 * 4) When Howcheng tagged the section as unsourced, I dealt with it the way that seemed best to me. I would appreciate if Zortwort dealt with it in a way he thinks best. Reverting an attempt to fix the issue and providing no alternative is not vey helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I ref'd it. Whether Maria's ancestor's are irrelevant to her life or not is itself irrelevant-- these types of charts are not for understanding her life but for easily seeing who she's descended from. Removing a section like that because it's unsourced is not the best way to deal with it-- sourcing it is. Better to leave it with the template than to remove it unless it can't easily be sourced, isn't true, etc. Zortwort (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a biography of Maria Theresa, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. Any chart in a biography should be there for understading the subject's life. I can hardly believe that this needs to be said. And who cares about the name of her mother's father's mother's mother? No biographer of hers, certainly! And Wiki biographies should rest on secondary sources. But anyway, I did suggest that you at least source it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Maria Theresa, the formatting of most articles involves the biography merely comprising a section of it. The ancestry section is useful for people interested in quickly redirecting to articles on her ancestors. Further, the sources I provided *are* secondary sources, something I should think would be clear. At any rate, the problem's solved now. Zortwort (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While the ancestry section might be interesting to genalogists, we would need a biography of Maria Theresa to show that an ahnentafel going back 5 generations is important to this article - much like this addition might be important to numismatists but not really in general. In any case, this is why ancestry charts should be sourced just like any other content on Wikipedia. Saying that it is frequently unsourced is a very odd justification. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Note style
Would there be any opposition to converting to EFN-style notes which simply display as a letter, e.g. "a", replacing the current numbered style, e.g. "note 1"? UpdateNerd (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @UpdateNerd I think both are more or less the same... Mimihitam (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Middle Coat of Arms of Luxembourg.svg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg