User talk:R Prazeres

Regency of Algiers

Hi R Prazeres, there was significant rise of vandalism in this article lately, some IPs were literally putting insults in arabic inside the article or removing content and sources, i think it's better if a semi-protection is added for a considerable time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. However the vandalism/disruption usually needs to be fairly constant and intense before an admin will agree to semi-protect it (e.g. if there are a lot of edits in a day or two and they're all consistently reverted as disruptions, that's clearer evidence). There are still enough productive edits in the last couple of days it seems, so I think we're not at that point yet. Feel free to ask again if it does get worse and you want some help to request semi-protection. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hi, why was the coat of arms removed ? It’s pretty well sourced and I don’t remember the website having any copyright restrictions on it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware. You mean the image was deleted from Wiki Commons? R Prazeres (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I see the deletion nomination page now. It seems that file was deleted because it was uploaded by a disruptive user (I'm vaguely familiar with the user, so I'm not surprised). If the coat of arms image is properly sourced and it's in the public domain (which would be the case if the image is found in historic sources), I don't think there's any issue in uploading it again. R Prazeres (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hi , first one is based on two secondary sources, what's wrong with them ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I decided to reply on Talk:Regency of Algiers to make it easier for other editors to see the explanation, if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @R Prazeres hope you’re doing good, I nominated the article for GA review after a B assessment and some improvements based on some advices by the military history reviewer, do GA reviews take much time ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nourerrahmane, yes I saw that you got a reviewer to make suggestions, which was a great idea, and that you nominated it for GA. I've only been involved in a GA process once (Talk:Fez, Morocco#GA Review), so I'm not familiar with what's typical. I wouldn't worry if it takes time for someone to accept the task, as I assume it depends on who's available and interested. The review itself, however, can take time, yes, especially for a long article like this. Based on a couple of other examples I've seen, I think you should expect that the review could take weeks, but I'm sure it varies. The reviewer might go section-by-section, pausing along the way to give you (and any other editors) some time to review and implement their recommendations; or they might give you a full set of recommendations all at once, let you work on it, then do a second read-through; etc. R Prazeres (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @R Prazeres, is it possible to give a short description to Algiers as "Autonomous Ottoman Corsair State" per RS [1][2][3][4] [5] [6]? i mean does this indicate a reasonable status of Algiers ? Also, i found in numerous sources where Algiers was described or recognised as a republic prior to 1659 revolution of the Odjak, as the Pashas and Beyleybeys didn't have absolute authority and were subject to the approval of the corsairs and the janissaries, the Barbarossas created military institutions which were the actual government of Algiers having an egalitarian and "democratic" aspect.[7] So the Viceroyalty period could also include the military republic status, although other RS specify that it was the revolution of 1659 that turned Algiers into a military republic when the Pasha of Istanbul lost all effective authority and the ruler was elected from the military elite rather than being appointed by the Sultan. what do you think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nourerrahmane. For the short description, I would leave it as is. Its only purpose is to quickly identify the topic of an article so that readers using the Wikipedia search bar and editors adding links can confirm that they've found the correct title (e.g. if they're not familiar with the name "Regency of Algiers" but they know they're looking for an article about this period of Algeria, the short description allows them to see that this is the title they're looking for). The current short description is what I would expect for this purpose; it doesn't need to explain anything further, just the minimum required to identify the topic.

For the viceroyalty/republic/1659 question, I'm not sure exactly what change you're proposing? Do you mean changing the dates in the infobox, or changing the coverage of the subsections in the "Political status" section? My first thought is that you can always discuss any further nuances in-line in the body of the article, either way. The infobox is just a summary of the most important overall facts and the headings are just for navigation, so we should keep things simple there, while the main text can cover much more complexity.

PS: Sorry for the delayed reply again; I'm stretching myself a little thin and doing a few too many things at the same time. R Prazeres (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres No worries, and i'm sorry for the deleyed reply, WP is inaccessible in China...Well actually i'll leave it be as most RS agree at least that the military republic status was attained formally in 1659, although it was still recognised as such at least de facto prior to that date, could you please change the remaining 5 citations in the article to sfn ? thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for the sfns, I may not have time to do that but if you have technical questions about them, let me know (or ask Mathglot, who seems to be on top of it too). I just converted some refs to sfn in the Almohad article, and I still have a few other articles where I want to do that in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Almohad-Ayyubid war

The source says that the Ayyubid campaign to Ifriqiya was basically Saladin's decision. Which means he must be added as a commander. Well, I think you disagree because the the event was limited to the period between 1187 and 1188, but I think that's wrong since the Ayyubid-Banu Ghaniya conquest of Ifriqiya was way before those dates. (Banu Ghaniya should also be added to the infobox)TybenFree (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Saladin did not command anyone in person, so it doesn't make sense to include him; that implies he was there. (Also, for next time, this type of discussion should be on the talk page of the article, not on a user talk page.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/George Roper (ship)

Think I broke the ping, so how d'ye feel about the new image crop? Wanted a little bit of the context, to show the Point as well as the ship. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sijilmasa

I replaced it with "Archeological site" because "settlement" seems strange and unclear TybenFree (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not strange at all. It was literally a settlement. Again, see the instructions at Template:Infobox ancient site. R Prazeres (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to remove this section as I just checked Template:Infobox ancient site and Human settlement. I think it's more clear now, thanks. TybenFree (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I was confusing "settlement" with "colony" I'm sorry. TybenFree (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Victorian Turkish baths

Hi R Prazeres, As I'm sure you know by now, I uploaded the first part of my revised page on VTb. I wanted to thank you, first for being so supportive, two years ago, of my suggestion to split Hammam into two. And second because I have tried to use your Hammam page as a structural model and hope I have not moved too far away.

But I also owe you an apology for not first sending you my comment on the Hammam Disambiguation Talk page. Quite apart from the fact (as was gently pointed out to me) that I had misunderstood the purpose of a disambiguation page, it was a lack of courtesy which I had not intended. Ishpoloni (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ishpoloni, no apologies are needed, I don't think you've done anything wrong. Trying to improve articles is what Wikipedia editing is about, and you don't need my specific input unless there's something you think I can help with. The occasional error or misunderstanding is pretty normal, and that's what other editors (and talk pages) are for. Thank you for your continued work and I'm glad I was helpful in the past.

PS: The only immediate feedback I have for you at Victorian Turkish baths, if you weren't already planning to do so, is to add more citations for the last section (the "(...) today" section). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello R Prazeres!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice to meet you!

Dear @R Prazeres: I came across your article at DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib) and it was well-researched! Glad to meet another one who works in religious architecture and history. Please accept my appreciation. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 07:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! R Prazeres (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Auto-da-fé

My revision did not delete any sourced text. What it did delete was unsourced and inaccurate history of the Reconquista:

"From the 8th to the 15th centuries, much of Spain was controlled by Muslims. Around the 11th century, growing suspicions of Jews prompted Christians to unite against the Muslims and Jews. From that point, Spain became a political soup of different powers and territories, each with its own policies regarding the status of Jews and Muslims.." Zztop12 (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is attributed to what looks like a reliable source. So you literally deleted sourced content. And you haven't explained what's inaccurate about it. If you have good reason to think there's something wrong with that text, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

My revision was sourced, to the entry on the Reconquista in the online version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. My impression is that you are cancelling these revisions without reviewing the edits at all. Zztop12 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate

My revision deleted the following misleading (sourced) text: "Christians and Jews still continued to produce great theological thinkers within their communities, but as time wore on, many of the intellectuals converted to Islam, leading to a lack of great thinkers in the non-Muslim communities."

However, this is misleading because the Jewish community in Spain produced its greatest intellectuals in post-Umayyad Muslim Spain, e.g. Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Samuel ha-Nagid (ibn Naghrela), Joseph ibn Naghrela, and of course Maimonides.

Zztop12 (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. I don't see how that first statement contradicts your own statement, and moreover it's again supported by a reliable source, unlike your edit. So your justification makes no sense. R Prazeres (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Accoding to the entry on Solomon Ibn Gabirolin the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "A prolific poet and the author of the Fons Vitae, Ibn Gabirol is well known in the history of philosophy for the doctrine that all things —including soul and intellect—are comprised of matter and form (“Universal Hylomorphism”), and for his emphasis on Divine Will. "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-gabirol/.

So to the sourced quote "leading to a lack of great thinkers in the non-Muslim communities" is indeed "sourced", but misleading - because it is wrong. Zztop12 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

You beat me to it

Got here from polishing up Regency of Algiers, and clicked wondering if the display text should say Andalusia. I see that it should not and was doing a quick assessment. If that's your work I am going to consider it the least of my problems.

Back to polishing. There are some questions on the talk page if you are looking for something to do. He put it up for good article, a little prematurely I think, but it really is a great article. I mean... Pirates rescuing refugees from the Inquisition ;) I want the movie rights to this article.

Getting back to historiography, yeah, most people need.an introduction to the concept I think. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If helpful: "Al-Andalus" and "Andalusi" are more precise terms for referring to the Muslim-controlled areas of the Iberian Peninsula and their inhabitants, respectively. Andalusia (which derives from that name) more properly refers to the southern Spanish region which corresponds to a modern-day province. In the case of Wikipedia, of course, the links are distinct either way. The demonyms "Andalusian" and "Andalusi" are sometimes used interchangeably, even by some historians, so it's not a big deal either way, but "Andalusi" is technically less ambiguous, because "Andalusian" could potentially refer to anyone living in Andalusia, including the Christian Spaniards, which isn't what's intended in the context of this period/region. R Prazeres (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Spanish–Algerian War (1775–1785)

Hello! Ive been recently scrolling through this article, when i realized someone had changed the result to spanish victory, so i reverted the edit thinking it was just gonna be a small vandalism problem, however this had escalated to a whole editing war, i tried reasoning with the user warning him to stop editing the page however he continued doing so by citing offline sources, saying that Algeria feared a ghird expedition and urged peace with the spanish, and i thought id reach out to you. The User is: Emilioveh Thanks ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion for both of you on the talk page. In the future, try opening a discussion as soon as it's clear an editor is continuing to push a change you disagree with. Ideally, the reverted editor will open the discussion themselves, per WP:BRD, but even if they don't, then you're still expected to do this in order to avoid edit-warring. Give a warning on the user talk page (use Template:Uw-ew) if their edit-warring continues. If they still refuse to discuss and to stop edit-warring after you've made these good-faith attempts to resolve the issue, then you can indeed write a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (make sure you follow the requirements of a report that are explained there). If the edit-warring stops but the discussion is still unresolved, there are dispute resolution options either of you can use. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help i appreciate it ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkey#Architecture

Hi R Prazeres! I see that you have done an amazing job in Ottoman architecture. I am trying to improve Turkey to GA and then FA, I was wondering if you'd be interested in going over the architecture section in Turkey. 3 short paragraphs around 100 words each would be great, if you are interested.

Btw Ottoman architecture looks great. The only thing is that it is too long, with 20k words. If you were to copy paste some of the details into sub articles, you could easily get it promoted to FA. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks! I am in a busy period but sure, I'll see if I can make time in the near future to revise that section. I'm most familiar with Seljuk & Ottoman periods, which I can cover easily, but I'll try to dig up a more balanced overview of Byzantine and modern architecture too.

And for Ottoman architecture: yeah, its length has been on my mind for a while. I've already created subarticles for most periods and I've been thinking about creating another, so I think the major sections can be condensed accordingly. R Prazeres (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing with Featured Articles is that your work would be more recognized. Also if you lose interest in Wikipedia in the future, it makes it more likely that your work is maintained by others. Because if an article is FA but degrades over time, sometimes people try to "save" it if it goes through FA review again.

As for Turkey article, I think a paragraph about Ottomans could work? I can try to cover Republic period with another paragraph. And maybe a 3rd paragraph for Seljuks, Byzantines etc? Bogazicili (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I'll focus on the those periods. If I have time and references for more, I'll add more and let you decide whether to keep it, revise it, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Sounds good! Bogazicili (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		WikiProject Architecture Award
		For your amazing contributions to Ottoman architecture! Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib

On 15 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib has the first "flat" muqarnas vault (pictured) in Cairo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well done, lovely article. nableezy - 03:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Another edit war

Hello! Ive recently notified you about an edit war, well it seems ive found yet another Case of this, in my own article, Dhurma Massacre (1818), with the user, vandalising the article, making it smaller, and disrupting peace, while also not respecting neutrality, by favoring the Saudi side in this case, he was already warned by Unknown-Tree, but no matter how much i warned him of not touching the article, he didnt stop, i would like for you to warn him, and maybe open a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a warning on their talk page, as yes this is clearly edit-warring, but you can do this yourself in the future. If the editor continues to revert, please report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (follow the instructions there), as I mentioned in our last discussion above. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ: I forgot to remind you to open a discussion on the talk page, so I've done it again there. If Araboud reverts again, don't bother reverting them back (or you might end up getting blocked due to 3RR), just report them. They have no excuse left now. R Prazeres (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Marrakesh

Hey. Hate to be this bothersome, but could you tell me if you're willing to restore the original montage until consensus is reached? That's really all I'm asking of you. If not then I guess we've reached a stale point and the only option seems to be filing a request for dispute resolution. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a justification for placing the single-image montage without a community consensus to do so. Yes, you can look into WP:DR options, if you're not willing to wait for other editors on the talk page. Since only two of us are involved so far, the easiest option is probably a third opinion. If you're not willing to accept a third opinion or you want something more comprehensive, then Request for comments (RfC) would seem like the logical step. Either option requires that you write a brief, neutral summary of the issue; you can use the existing summary question I wrote at Talk:Marrakesh#Question for all editors (minus the last sentence), or something similar, if it is satisfactory to you. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

God in Islam

I just opened a discussion on the topic of God in Islam. I am waiting for your attention. Maybe it will also help you understand my point of view.NGC 628 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Peristyle, arcade, gallery...

Hi RP, and I'm glad we crossed paths.

I guess the terms I'm looking for in English are quite fluid in common parlance, and perhaps even in more rigurous contexts. Or maybe not. When you have rows of colums/pillars and straight lintels, it's a peristyle - but only if it has four sides to it and fully surrounds the courtyard. Plus it's antiquated, not commonly used for more recent or even modern architecture. Rows of curved arches are - arcades? But arcade seems to work with straight lintels too. Is there any word for rows of curved arches? You have stoa, arcade (btw: only if covering both sides of a street?), colonnade... Each with its specific use, but related and overlapping.

Today I got stuck with another dilemma: if you have a caravanserai, what are the four "wings" around the courtyard called in English? Wing tends to be an added building, with an accessory role to the main building, while these are the original, essential residential parts of any coutyard house.

Ignore if you feel I'm abusing your time. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Khalij (Cairo)

On 30 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khalij (Cairo), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Khalij, an ancient canal in Cairo, was replaced by a boulevard in the 1890s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khalij (Cairo). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Khalij (Cairo)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of cleanup tag

Hi! In Christianity in Africa, I would ask you to reconsider this reversion. A screenshot on an image hosting website is an unacceptable source per WP:UGC, and I put a "better source needed"-tag after the reference. You reverted the addition per WP:EDITWAR, even though no user had removed the tag nor objected to it before your reversion. I suppose there is a misunderstanding? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)