User talk:R Prazeres

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Algerian Style

Hello Prazers, i found some edits from you in some articles; can i ask you why? Those structures have algerian style which is a comnination of heritage from ancient times and islamic influence; i don't think is right to define it like a nationalistic matter as this is frequently used in wikis like italian, french, spanish, moroccan style ectera. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you're asking about the reverts like this. "Algerian" is not a style and your edits do not conform to what is commonly described in reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is based on. The article you have been linking, Architecture of Algeria, is about the history of architecture in Algeria, covering multiple styles and periods, and not about a single "Algerian style". "Italian", "French", and "Moroccan" are not usually defined as styles either, unless it's a context where it refers to a local subvariety or subcategory of wider style (e.g. French Gothic architecture). Many of the articles you edited already define the specific styles or periods of architecture that are relevant to the monument. I hope that clarifies the issue. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not repeat edits after they have been reverted, as you did here. This violates Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Edit warring). You can use an article's talk page to further discuss the issue and look for a consensus. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but there are many examples of those "not national styles" which were used under styles architecture and i didn't saw any notes of those not being ok so i didn't think that was a violation or anything wrong as for the other ones was permitted. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page merger we talked about

I might have some time toward the end of this week to do the merge between the Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba pages, myself. I'll notify you and the other users when I start. Are you ok with that? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I didn't do it already, it has been a stressful week and, ironically, my weekend was partly occupied with performing a WP:SPLIT at another article. I'm sure I can find time to do it later this week too (and if so I'll also notify you both at the talk page), but do feel free to go ahead and do it anytime you're ready. Thank you for your attention on this! R Prazeres (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably get to it tommorow. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the page, but I haven't finished merging all the content onto it yet because there are some citation errors popping up. So far, I've unadded the sections where the citation errors have popped up. I asked this on the Merging talk page, but I thought I should ask you too. Is it ok to leave the citation errors up? And, could I have help dealing with them? I'm not sure exactly what I need to do. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And once those sections are up, I'll move on to the next steps of the merge. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It looks like the citation errors went away? Or you just avoided the problematic content for now? From a quick look at one of your previous edits, I think the errors are due to the same "refnames" in the source code being used in both the Caliphate and Emirate articles. These are shorthand names used in the source code for citations that appear more than once (so you don't have to write out the full citation each time). They are often created automatically when people add new citations to an article, which is why for example ":03" (an automatically generated number) will be assigned to one thing in one article and then to another thing in another article. So if you copy the source code directly from one article to another, the article doesn't know what to do when the refnames is used more than once for different sources.

I believe one way this can be avoided is by using purely the visual editor for copy-pasting; i.e. go into the visual editor mode at the Emirate article, copy (ctrl+c) the content there, then go into the visual editor mode at the Caliphate/merged article, and paste (ctrl+v) the content there. From my experience, I believe the visual editor will automatically (behind-the-scenes) create new refnames for the new citations, even if they were copied from elsewhere. Let me know if that works. (I can think of another error that could occur after this but it would be an easy fix if so.)

I may not have much more time to help today, but if problems persist I can look over it this weekend. Thanks again, R Prazeres (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the older versions of the edits so they didn't clog up the page. I'll just add them back in then that way! And if any still come up, I'll inform you! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solitaire Wanderer Hmm, I tried it myself in a test (without publishing it) and it didn't seem to solve it like I thought it would. Let me try something else: in the Emirate article, I'll manually rename the refnames in the architecture section (which I think is where the trouble was?). Then hopefully when you try to copy the content again, the issue won't come up because the refnames won't be the same. If you hold off a few minutes on copying that section, this shouldn't affect anything else you're doing right now. I'll confirm here when it's done. R Prazeres (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say Visual Editing works a lot better, because it gets rid of most of the glitchy references. I just added the architecture section, and I only see one, where I saw 10 before. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 2, still it works better. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I've fixed the remaining errors ([1]), and I see that you edited right after this with no further errors. Let me know if this recurs with other sections. I redid the refnames for the Culture section too at Emirate of Cordoba ([2]), so hopefully that will avoid any similar problem there. R Prazeres (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it pretty much worked. However, at the very bottom of the Umayyad state of Córdoba page there is still a notice about citation issues. I think this ties back to the two notes that are present on the Emirate of Córdoba page. When I copy-pasted the architecture section, they must've not transported properly. One of them appears to even have a few citations. I'll try recopying the architecture section over to see if the issue is fixed. If possiible, I'd want to move the notes over too. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, all I needed to do was add a notelist template to the page. That fixed the issue. So, you don't need to do anything now. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I saw that too, forgot to mention it. Often it's best to copy everything over (templates and all) at the same time or to copy all the bottom stuff (references and related templates like that) first, for this reason. In this case, it's the refnames that threw us for a loop anyways, otherwise this would have been a fairly simple merge. Thanks again, R Prazeres (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done moving over information. Tommorow, I'm going to nominate Emirate of Córdoba for speedy deletion, but I wanted to give time in case you thought anything else should be done. I have the templates ready for that. I copy-pasted the old discussions from the Emirate page with a note. I was unable to find the proper template to label them, if one such existed. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we don't want to delete; like Caliphate of Córdoba it should be blanked and redirected to the new merged article. In fact this is important, because any existing links to Emirate of Córdoba will automatically direct to the merged article, thus preserving the existing connections between topics. It also preserves the edit history of the former article, which is important for attribution and for anything we might have accidentally missed during merge. You can open Emirate of Córdoba in "edit source", and replace literally everything with the following text:

#REDIRECT [[Umayyad state of Córdoba]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from move}} }}

And then you're done! R Prazeres (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. That'll also help for double checking stuff later in case I missed anything when moving stuff over. Thank you so much! I'll do that in a second! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This is also explained at WP:MERGETEXT.) R Prazeres (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused by the article about speedy deletion. So Thanks again! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R Prazeres (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something I noticed

Going through the Ummayad rulers of Iberia, I noticed that Abd al-Rahman III and Abdullah of Córdoba have the same month and day of death, which makes me suspicious that at least one is inaccurate. I haven't found any answers for the dates of thier deaths yet, so I wanted to clue you in to see if you had an answer. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've checked both articles and made some fixes. The dates at Abdullah of Córdoba (apart from the years) weren't supported by the cited source as far as I could see, so I simply removed them. The source cited for the death date of Abd al-Rahman III is unfortunately not accessible (the link in the citation is no longer valid and this is as close as I got on Google Books), so I can't confirm either way at the moment. Like so many details on Wikipedia, I have my doubts and wouldn't be surprised if someone added these arbitrarily at some point. Thanks for looking into this kind of thing. If you find details like this that are not supported by a citation somewhere in the article (or whose citation doesn't appear to verify the information), feel free to remove them and to say so in the edit summary. R Prazeres (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit

Bloody hell mate really? Zaid is Prophet’s FORMER adopted son. His name before the adoption verse was Zayd ibn Muhammad. After it his name got restored to Zayd ibn Harithah. His marriage to Zaynab was really to change a tradition. Here, a few links to prove my comment in the edit. A detailed article from Yaqeen Institute.

Another one, saying the same thing.

Mine wasn’t a thought but a sourced thing.

Read them all, all say the same thing. Now, i would like you to restore me word, or i will. Wakelogger (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since this is potentially relevant to other editors working on that article, I've left a response at Talk:Zayd ibn Haritha al-Kalbi instead. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note: please be sure to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Online forums and blogs, like some of the links above, are not an appropriate source of information; find professional historians and academics instead to cite. Note also that edits like this, where you stated what you believe is correct without citing a source, are very likely to be reverted by other editors. Make sure you form a habit of citing reliable sources any time you change or add content on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hello Mr. Prazeres, I know it has been a while since our last conversation, and I wanted to show you something interesting. Recently, while editing most parts of the Hammadid/Zirid era, I discovered a lack of maps covering the 11th century, even though the Maghreb experienced a major event during that time, the Hilalian invasion. So I decided, with the help of a mapper, to create a map depicting the region right after the "Hilalian invasion."

I, of course, used most of the sources I could find on the internet and heavily based my research on the work by H.R. Idriss in his book The Sanhadja State, which, luckily enough, was fully available online. Initially, I want to include this map in the Hammadid dynasty article, as the existing map isn't specific or detailed enough as this one. This new map also depicts the Hammadids at their largest extent, similar to other articles about neighboring dynasties like the Almoravids or Zirids, which show them at their greatest extent as well.

I would appreciate your feedback on this, and the mapper I worked with is ready to create a variant of the map based on a different year. If you have any suggestions for what we could represent, I’d love to hear them. One last thing: I’m not sure how to send the image to you, so I’ll wait for your instructions on how best to do that. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Prazeres,

Since I haven't received a response, I'm hesitant about whether I should upload it or not. It would be disappointing to upload it without getting your point of view. I know you have enough knowledge about the subject to take a look at the map, and if there are any errors, I can correct them before having to re-upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Your assistance would be really helpful, and I hope to get a response soon so we can discuss this further.

Cheers! Tayeb188 (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tayeb188! Sorry for not responding earlier, I've been absorbed in other matters and forgot to reply to this. I'd be happy to look at the map whenever I have time. In terms of using it on Wikipedia, I'm hesitant to say whether any map created from scratch by editors is necessarily conforming to WP:OR, but since the current map at Hammadid dynasty (and some other articles) is also another editor's creation anyways, I think there's certainly no harm in giving us a new option. Wiki Commons itself also has no restrictions on uploading maps like that, so there's no harm in uploading it and then further discussing changes on the file's talk page. (And we can also discuss on the article's talk page which map editors prefer to use in the article, if needed.) By the way, I wasn't able to find The Sanhadja State by H.R. Idriss; is that its original title?

It is possible to send me the map image through email (see Wikipedia:Emailing users; just note that this reveals your email address to me, in case you prefer to keep that private). But, as mentioned, you could upload it on Commons and we can still discuss and make changes to it there. It's up to you. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, mate! Thank you for agreeing to take a look at the map. I've put considerable time and effort into it, and it's something that I was really keen on. I’ll email you soon so we can discuss it further. I believe it’s the best way to proceed before I publish and properly source the map.

Regarding the book I mentioned earlier, the full title is "The Book of the Sanhaja Dynasty: The History of Ifriqiya during the Reign of the Zirids" by Dr. Hady Roger Idris. The only issue is that from my research, I’ve only found Arabic and French versions online. I haven’t come across an English version, and I doubt one exists, but I’ll send you an email with more details soon.

Thanks again for your help!

Best regards! Tayeb188 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And no hurry, but if you have the French version of the book, that would be great. (My Arabic skills are not up to the task of a long read, but French is as good as English to me.) R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YEMEN

Salam! I thought you might be interested in joining WP:Wikiproject Yemen Abo Yemen ✉ 17:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation! R Prazeres (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numidian Cavalry

Hello, I was wondering if you could reinstall the edits on Numidian Cavalry so that I could continue working on the article, It will temporarily be under work so I hope to massively improve it as soon as possible. Thank you. Clausewitez (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may edit or add material (including material that was previously reverted) if you provide clear and precise citations to reliable sources which directly support that material (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Make sure you also take the warning on copyright violation (which another editor left on your talk page) very seriously. I will not reinstate your previous edits as they were, since they were uncited, but if you include reliable sources next time and follow the relevant guidelines, then you can re-add the material yourself and of course continue with further editing. So in short: you should add the citations at the same time as you add content, to avoid being reverted in the future. Promising to add citations later is not a good approach. If you have any more specific questions about Wikipedia policies, feel free to ask.

A small tip: if you're planning on making large or complex additions and you're new to Wikipedia, then consider using your sandbox as a draft space where you can write up some of your material beforehand, figure out the citations and any other problems there, then copy that into the article itself when you're comfortable. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you very much these are some really good tips, I am happy if you could provide me with more tips like these in the future. as a new member to wikipedia this is a new approach how to do things and I will certainly do as you advised. I am taking baby steps into adding information and sometimes I am worried to over-source information.

sincerely, Clausewitez (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that was helpful. Indeed, if there is one thing I emphasize to new editors, it's to make sure you follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (these are the overall guidelines about sources and how they relate to Wikipedia content). Other editors can help you with improving details like grammar, formatting, etc, but they can rarely do anything for you if the sources are missing or unclear; so get those right first, and then the rest can be fixed later if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Yemeni barnstar for you!

		The Yemen Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your contributions on Architecture of Yemen! Abo Yemen ✉ 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! R Prazeres (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chawia

Please : Chawia is arab name not berber and thats what the sources in same paragraph say. You can chek this source or translate it .

Chawiya is of Arabic origin from the word shah, which means sheep. Ibn Khaldun says:The chawiya are also the people who take care of sheep and cows, as their livelihood is. (Source here) ال سباع (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've checked again and made an edit to fix the problem for now. I've provided an explanation at Talk:Chaouia (Morocco). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabat

If you say so, however i see more lamps and street than wall. Even quality is ... --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows you the wall and its bastions at intervals, plus some of its environment, which immediately gives you a sense of its form, scale, and urban setting, which is what we'd want for a lead image in this case. The quality is fine. Your beautiful new photos are much appreciated, but the primary purpose of images on Wikipedia itself is informativeness, so this takes precedence inside an article. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good words, but check again, different pic. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer the old pic to be honest because it shows more of the wall and its historic towers, rather than the more modern gateways near the west end today, but it's not a big problem either way. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]