Talk:History of Tunisia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


History of Carthage merge[edit]

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, now reduce...[edit]

I have restored the article to the condition it was in before being split into several articles. The size is too large to read or navigate easily, so needs to be reduced. I will work on this over the next few days, and any help would be appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds or thousands of routine punctuation corrections are needed in this article.[edit]

Right: 1942–1980
Wrong: 1942-1980
We settled this in 2005. I thought we'd nearly fixed the problem by about a year later. But it seems it will be here in force forever. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Much other editing needs to be done; we could use some help with this. Carlstak (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"at" to refer to page numbers?[edit]

Now that my attention has been drawn by the recent dash conversions to page numbers in the references, I've noticed that instead of the usual "p" or "pp" preceding page numbers, there is instead the word "at". I've seen this peculiarity in only a handful of other WP articles, and never in any book or any scholarly (or otherwise) article. Is this acceptable WP format? I wonder if there's some sort of tool that would convert all these peculiar "at"s to proper "p"s and "pp"s? It would be great if there were such a tool (but I doubt it) as there are just too many of them to change manually. Akhooha (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I noticed the same thing. The magic tool is hard work and using simple scripts. How come the complainers never help? Carlstak (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you! Hard work is not something I shirk, but "simple scripts" are not simple for me. How do you go about developing these "simple scripts"? Are you using a particular common programming language or something specific to WP? Thanks again. The refs don't look so odd now. Akhooha (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Akhooha, yes there are a number of helper scripts see Wikipedia:User scripts (Editing section in this case). A lot of people use Advisor - trouble is they can also make it easy to introduce errors as they are not very context aware, but they do help a lot as long as your careful. Also Carlstak regarding "How come the complainers never help?" - probably because they don't know how to hence why Akhooha asked if there was a tool and not complaining. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting together a list of tools that Akhooha could use and got caught up in editing. It really gets me that after I've fixed hundreds of long-standing errors of all kinds in the article, KylieTastic ignores all the work I've done, and can only focus on what's wrong. Please lay off with the scare quotes "editor 'correcting' text" summaries, KylieTastic. What a diplomat you are! No comment about all the valid corrections I made, eh? Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Carlstak, firstly let me apologies for the offence I caused - it was honestly not meant. Guess I've let myself become jaded at just a few of the other editors that just enable a helper script and regularly break wiki-links, images etc. However it's no excuse, and your right that every person should be treated as a individual and always WP:AGF applied (as most edits are in good faith which is why this project works). I also wasn't ignoring the good work you had done, and have been doing for years, I just didn't mention it as I would not expect people to mention mine when they point out my errors... sorry again just different ways of communicating. That edit summary is just one of several template responses as I fix thousands of such errors a month and need to keep it simple to keep it quick, again no offence meant. Lastly, I'm sure Akhooha would appreciate a more focused list of tools as that would be more helpful than just the Wikipedia:User scripts link I could provide as I've not used many. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, KylieTastic, it does make me feel better. I'm a high-strung person and get all "shook up" about such things. I should have previewed the machine edits to look for the sort of errors you caught, and I thank you for that. Also, I didn't mean to sound snarky myself to Akhooha, whose question is perfectly valid. I wanted to tell him that I'm not a coder and don't write any scripts, but have used some of those user scripts. As you say, they can be useful (I couldn't imagine changing every single one of hundreds of hyphens to en dashes manually), but their edits should be previewed to fix just such errors as you caught, which I neglected to do in those last edits, but spent a good bit of time last night looking for them in my previous edits.
For users who have a Google account, a lot of otherwise soul-deadening mass edits can be automated this way: copy the wikitext of the article's editing page and paste it into a new document in Google Docs, hit control+f to summon the search box to search for hyphens ("-"s) or whatever, then click on the three dots icon for the enhanced search function. You can do a lot with "find" and "replace with", especially if you take account of spaces. Be sure to preview the edited text when you paste it back into the WP editing page, to look for the sort of errors KylieTastic is talking about. Carlstak (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in Tunisia[edit]

This section probably need updating as it cites figures which are a decade or more old. However I'm not even sure if ts section is really necessary Oman article abt the history of Tunisia - perhaps it belongs in the main 'Tunisia' article? Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What "Oman article" are you talking about?Akhooha (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I'm working on an iPad and my autocorrect has totally mangled my sentence. I should have reread it before posting. Here's what I meant to say: 'This section probably needs updating as it cites figures which are a decade or more old. However I'm not even sure if this section is really necessary in an article about the history of Tunisia - perhaps it belongs in the main 'Tunisia' article?' Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of Altaic Languages[edit]

The section in the article on the Muradid beys includes a map showing the distribution of Altaic languages. This has some tangential relevance to the spread of Turkish rule in Tunisia, but only very tangential. As the map shows, Tunisia does not fall within the distribution area of Altaic languages. I suggest this map should be removed. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Tunisia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Tunisia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2022 (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) 09:22, 22 May 2022 (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) 10:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues[edit]

Hello, I haven't really engaged much with Wikipedia editing in the past, so I'm sorry in advance if I commit some kind of faux pas. However, in reading this article, some of it does not appear to me to fully abide by Wikipedia's policy of presenting information from a neutral POV. For example, this is from the section on the Constitution of Carthage: "[Hannibal's] political opponents cravenly went to Rome and charged Hannibal with conspiracy" (emphasis mine).

This is maybe a slightly separate issue, but the paragraph after that starts with the following, which sounds more like an essay than something I would expect to find on Wikipedia: "The above description of the constitution basically follows Warmington. Largely it is taken from descriptions by Greek foreigners who likely would see in Carthage reflections of their own institutions. How strong was the Hellenizing influence within Carthage?" and it goes on in this vein. I'm putting it here because I think this style of writing could be said to be persuasive writing, which would also not count as neutral.

I don't really know anything about this subject (hence why I'm reading the Wikipedia article about it), but thought this was worth highlighting for anyone who is more qualified to work on it. Toprat (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Tunisia&oldid=1194305949"