![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Tlemcen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The
Zayyanid dynasty article should probably be merged with this article, or vice-versa. The dynasty is functionally synonymous with this state (you wouldn't find separate entries for them in a scholarly encyclopedia), and aside from the list of rulers (which can easily be moved here), there is nothing in the other article that doesn't directly overlap with this topic, so it looks like an unnecessary
content fork. It's also not common by default for dynasty/states to have separate pages on Wikipedia, unless there's practical reason for it; compare with other historic dynasties/states in the region (e.g.
Almohads,
Ayyubids,
Hafsids, etc) or the many more developed Chinese dynasty articles (
Ming,
Yuan, etc).
I have no strong feelings about which one should be merged into the other, which is why I'd rather let other editors comment first before adding a proposal. I would note, though, that specifying "Zayyanid"/"Abd al-Wadid" in the title would be more
WP:PRECISE, as there were multiple states based in Tlemcen (e.g. there's an
Emirate of Tlemcen article which exhibits the same problems), not to mention that some scholars probably wouldn't use the term "Kingdom" in this context. The
Zayyanid dynasty article is older, if that makes any difference.
R Prazeres (
talk)
19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the source number [1] should be replaced or modified. Also it seems that the map is too exaggerated and needs to be sourced. Simoooix.haddi ( talk) 05:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Skitash please stop edit-warring. Instead, i have initiated a discussion for you where you can express and discuss your disagreements. Simoooix.haddi ( talk) 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Of the two flags that were in the infobox, only one of them has a source: this one, based on this file, which is based on this website. The other ( [1]) has no source so I've removed it. Note that the web source for the first one may not be a proper reliable source, but it does at least state what its primary sources are, so I have no further objection to keeping it. That same source also describes some other flags supposedly used in this period, including this one (citing same source). The primary sources all appear to be European portolans, which I think should be noted in any caption for context. I've suggested putting this and other details in a footnote to preserve brevity inline ( [2]). R Prazeres ( talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Swiãtopôłk, why did you create a separate article about the Flag of Kingdom of Tlemcen? It does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and this information clearly belongs as a section in this article. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Tlemcen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The
Zayyanid dynasty article should probably be merged with this article, or vice-versa. The dynasty is functionally synonymous with this state (you wouldn't find separate entries for them in a scholarly encyclopedia), and aside from the list of rulers (which can easily be moved here), there is nothing in the other article that doesn't directly overlap with this topic, so it looks like an unnecessary
content fork. It's also not common by default for dynasty/states to have separate pages on Wikipedia, unless there's practical reason for it; compare with other historic dynasties/states in the region (e.g.
Almohads,
Ayyubids,
Hafsids, etc) or the many more developed Chinese dynasty articles (
Ming,
Yuan, etc).
I have no strong feelings about which one should be merged into the other, which is why I'd rather let other editors comment first before adding a proposal. I would note, though, that specifying "Zayyanid"/"Abd al-Wadid" in the title would be more
WP:PRECISE, as there were multiple states based in Tlemcen (e.g. there's an
Emirate of Tlemcen article which exhibits the same problems), not to mention that some scholars probably wouldn't use the term "Kingdom" in this context. The
Zayyanid dynasty article is older, if that makes any difference.
R Prazeres (
talk)
19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the source number [1] should be replaced or modified. Also it seems that the map is too exaggerated and needs to be sourced. Simoooix.haddi ( talk) 05:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Skitash please stop edit-warring. Instead, i have initiated a discussion for you where you can express and discuss your disagreements. Simoooix.haddi ( talk) 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Of the two flags that were in the infobox, only one of them has a source: this one, based on this file, which is based on this website. The other ( [1]) has no source so I've removed it. Note that the web source for the first one may not be a proper reliable source, but it does at least state what its primary sources are, so I have no further objection to keeping it. That same source also describes some other flags supposedly used in this period, including this one (citing same source). The primary sources all appear to be European portolans, which I think should be noted in any caption for context. I've suggested putting this and other details in a footnote to preserve brevity inline ( [2]). R Prazeres ( talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Swiãtopôłk, why did you create a separate article about the Flag of Kingdom of Tlemcen? It does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and this information clearly belongs as a section in this article. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)