Talk:Regency of Algiers

PRG entries

How are we getting on with processing PRG list. I've checked a whole bundle of that have been done. The following needs done still

• The last two entries in the craft bullet list needs refs.
• The Igawawen flag entry. Has that been checked?
• Administraive changes after Baba Abdi. Has been done?
• The inflation template entries need to be done.
• Were the tribute values yearly or paid over the years? Specify as such?

scope_creepTalk 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

- Not yet.

- No idea what this is about.

- Done

- Done

- Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Inflation templates are in then I'm not sure how they work. scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had to type FR in the index as most of these values are in French franc, i added the original dates of those values then converted the current day value from French franc to USD. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find it, so couldn't verify it. Thats done. Also, I've sent a clarification message to Matrisvan about that flag entry. I don't know what it is either. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

First point done. Btw i found this 16th century map of the regency. do you think we should include it in the article ? [1] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed the flags per [[MOS:FLAG]] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any of that, but I want to check the craft section anyway so I will sign up for the first bullet point Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just saw Nour saying he did it. I am not against the map but where do you want to put it? My main thought about that map is that i don't want to write alts if you are still replacing images, is all. But I don't have to do that right now and yeah, it's a very high-resolution image. Attractive. Would you crop it? Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I donnno how to crop it, and i'm thinking about adding it in the beylerbeylik period or Algerian expansion sections Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah i won't replace anything lol Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can crop it if you want it cropped. I wouldn't go in too close but I could produce an image that was cut to just the white background for example. Elinruby (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Great ! please do it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just saw this but I could to that right now, actually. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Y It is cropped and in the section. I don't know if you want it to be to the right like that, but you know what to do from here, right?

Nothing back from Matarisvan yet about the flag thing. I think its the only thing thats outstanding. Is it near a GA entry now. scope_creep^Talk 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the rest that has not been marked as done yet is also fixed. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no other responses in PRG. I don't know if we will get anything more, although something might appear on Sunday. @Elinruby: How are you getting on with the copyedit to the history article. Matarisvan has been in all day and not commented to my talk page message. I guess ignore it for the moment. It might come up at GA. How close are we to submitting it then. scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Hows the new map getting on. It needs to be in a placed with alt tags before submission. I can reduce if need back or speak to my map guy if help is needed. I sound as though I'm champing at the bit. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The infobox map? Looks well, you just need to mark the Sahara Desert so readers don't confused why the regency never expanded south. Matarisvan (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: That comment was for Nourerrahmane. Must have made a mistake on the ping. I left a talk page message regarding the PRG comment "The Igawawen flag on the article and here are very different, consider using the former? There was some confusio on it. What was that about, exactly? scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Igawawen flag used in the infobox and the one on their article was different. However Nourerrahmane has removed the flags so it's not an issue now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you or Elin can crop it that would be great ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

we're talking about cropping the map, right? I was not able to easily find a source for the Igawawen flag, if that's the other thing going on. I would be sort of surprised if it was real but I am not completely ruling it out. Going to go crop the image if it isn't already cropped. On how are we doing? We are submitting both articles together, right? I could use some help with photo alts. I am finding little bits of stray French in the rewrites. As far as I can tell it might as well...well wait, I thought the listing was suspended? Are they asking about it? I think that if it were reviewed right now they would find at least those problems, but it does such a fine job of pulling so many threads together that I dunno, I would send back a list of fixes rather than fail it. But I am not exactly unbiased at this point. Nourrerahmane certainly carries the day on sourcing, though.Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I will check the alts on the history article today. No I don't think so. When its submitted for the GA the next time it won't fail, I can assure you. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) ,

@Elinruby: The Igawawen flag has been done and checked off. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Y ok this is me not worrying about it then Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: There is missing images alts on this article. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Arabic name of the Regency of Algiers

Hi @M.Bitton, i have found that this name "نيابة الجزائر" is widespread in these Arab RS: [2] It's referred explicitly as the official name of the Regency and i think it falls in the WP:COMMONNAME. Do you beleive it should be put in the infobox ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: correct me if I'm wrong, but the common name is simply "الجزائر" (that's the name that should be in the infobox if a change is needed). M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is, but Algiers alone could be confusing as it doesn't emphasize the political aspect of Algiers, especially that we had socks here that claimed that Algeria was not a state literally...But since this is no longer a matter of debate. I beleive we can add something more formal. Just like for people's democratic republic of Algeria. I honestly think this is by far the best Arabic name for the regency, a state or a kingdom ruled by a formal representative of the Sultan. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I hate to be That Editor but what do the sources call it? Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby Arabic sources agree on “نيابة الجزائر" (Arabic: Nyabat Al-Djazair) literally Regency of Algiers. This name sets Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli apart from other ottoman EyaletsHowever this is not a wildly known name among regular or even confirmed Algerian or Arab readers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that commonname is supposed to over-ride sources, if that is what you are saying. I am also emphatically not qualified to opine on what the name is for things in Arabic. But I think COMMONNAME is the common name *in the sources* Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what i meant by bringing COMMONNAME in here, but i believe this has to go through a consensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it would be good to do that although I don't think it is a requirement. But if you are getting grief from people who learned another version of history, probably wise. But we are talking about Arabic sources, right? You might be able to get a couple of well-considered opinions at the Reference desk on the Community Page. Otherwise you probably know better than I do how to find Arabic speakers, no? Do you have a list of places where it is used? That would probably help. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

PS we didn't have this referenced? I haven't looked at the infobox much but why not just source Regency and leave it at that? In any event I bow to the better topic knowledge of Arabic speakers. Buut..RfC? Why though, if it is sourced? M.Bitton might know how the procedures work, or R Prazeres Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Slight wording strangeness, checking

About electing leaders in the Dey section: absolute equality by unanimous vote

• should that say universal vote? Unanimous means that not one person disagrees, but don't you mean that everyone gets to vote? Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah everyone should agree among the senior officers (Bulukbasi) of the armed forces so that the Dey is elected. (They have a sort of Veto) Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No universal and unanimous are not the same. scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I answered this. I understand the distinction and you are right, then, the change should not be made. I am just thinking about the wording, since "absolute equality" isn't exactly right then is it? As of right now I have changed nothing, mind you. It's just a little bit of a readability porthole.

Another one, and let me stress that these are both very minor quibbles: Pasha; a regent with the title of beylerbey. (from Hayreddin's consolidation) <-- this still needs an answer Nourerrahmane Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Wasn't pasha a title? If not it should not be capitalized. I think this should be read in the sense of the emperor's representative, no? Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and lowercase pasha. Other text remains unchanged Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

doneElinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

PR

Hi @Elinruby: If your still aboot, the WP:PR has been updated with another comment by Matarisvan. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m ok with an expansion of the lead Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't (around) but am now. I will look.Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have gone through the references in this article and added the missing trans-titles, for this article only. I saw a couple of things I didn't like, but wanted to make sure I got all the way through without getting distracted. All references used in this article that are not in English now at least have an trans-title. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• twarted is no longer in the article. Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Blida is now linked. I think it was linked earlier in the article before the split Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)h
• I have gone through all the references in this article; all that are not in English now have language templates Elinruby (talk)
• "country's country's" is now fixed Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes and nowiki entry

@Nourerrahmane: Your introducing spelling mistakes and why did you put {{Interlanguage link|Mustapha Pasha|lt=|fr|Mustapha Pacha}} links around this? scope_creep^Talk 06:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for that but I found it like that, thought I fixed it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Coolio. Both ill and Interlanguage link are the same thing. Ill is shorthand. scope_creep^Talk 07:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That was me that introduced the mistake. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Images

Added two more images about 17th century naval battle and a coastal battle. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Its mos:sandwitched that section with those two new images. Possibly a multi image block would fix but is a clear fail at the mo. scope_creep^Talk 07:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Shall i put them in gallery ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a better solution. One of each of gallery level. Will still need to address the latest WP:PR comment. I've not looked at except to read it. We can do this weekend. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I recognized some of them as things I had already fixed. The untranslated titles were really discouraging since this was at one point done. Can we please process that adding new foreign language sources require not just an entry but also a trans-title? Also, Nour, I have begged you to accept help getting a spell-checker installed. I am not available for infinite rounds of copy-editing. I am trying to quit Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add it. Sorry for that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby what additions are you referring to just so I can check if I may ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, I want to move to other related articles like the Odjak and the corsairs, and I want to learn how to take care of ce myself, what you did was really great and I don’t want to bother you with this in the future especially that you’re interested in this period of history :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Recentered images, hopefully this is now fixed.

I will refrain from adding anything more to this article to avoid any misunderstanding or deletion of previous work.

same thing with the History article. I will now move to the Odjak article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long answer and deleted it. If you are saying that you do not understand some changes and would like to, please feel free to ask questions. Some of what I am doing in the name of readability is quite subtle and could be backed out if it introduces errors because I have forgotten something I learned while doing this. Should be backed out. So do not be afraid to ask questions. But I have noticed that you are no longer writing bombardement for example, and thank you for that. However if you had spell-check installed we could eliminate about 75% of this sort of stuff at the point where you are writing it, which would be a lot less nerve-wracking for the copy editor.

Can we talk about that? I get a red line under words the spell-check doesn't recognize. It does this with your user name and mine of course, but I know those are ok, and it can at times be wrong about other things, but it does really well at picking out typing mistakes, which is the problem that *I* have. Maybe this is just a setting you have to enable. It would probably catch about 75% of the problems that distract from the value of your work, which I, again, consider significant.

Ok, it's not a setting in preferences. Maybe it is browser based. But I am pretty sure there must be a way to turn this on for you.Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference urls

Some new references were added without urls. I have a sudden RL deadline and will probably be gone until at least tonight Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

untangle me these Hasans please

Aided by the corsairs, the pasha murdered Hasan, but was in turn murdered by the janissaries.[180] The instability prompted Suleiman the Magnificent to send back Hasan Pasha,[181] who relied heavily on native troops like other beylerbeys.[182]

Seems like either there are two Hasans or the sentences are out of order. Noting here because I don't have time right now to examine the sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Done.Y checked and agree Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

btw Elin what do you think about these two banners. [3][4] ? would you like them to replace the banner of the dey since they are in higher quality ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

To replace the orange banner? I am back btw. About to edit the Agriculture section as per the list i posted somewhere Elinruby (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw I have improved images of the palaces, mainly color correction to make them less orange . Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

On the banner of the dey: I like the current image very much but it is very dark. I have tried brightening it but unfortunately the pixels just aren't there. At least, it is beyond me and my two photoshop classes. By the time it you bring the gold thread out the colors are wonky in other places. I like the first of your images better esthetically, but it is still pretty pastel, and we don't know whose banner it is, apparently. Of those two, I therefore prefer the second. I am assuming that the maritime museum in Algiers is a respectable source and we can believe them if they say that's Barbarossa's flag? I hope that is not an insulting question. I ask because in the United States there are tourist traps that say they are museums but are mostly about the gift shop. Elinruby (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha you're actually giving them credit, they should expand that museum since at its current state, it does not do justice to a once maritime state such as Algiers . Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: OK then are you sure that is actually Barbarossa's flag? On the basis of esthetics I prefer the other one but we don't know whose banner it is. And I would like to look at whether it is possible to brighten it a little if we use it. Or, I have several versions of the current image -- would you like to look at the others? Maybe I just didn't pick the best one. And you didn't answer my question about the palace images. If you are busy I am pretty sure they are an improvement over the current image, so do you want me to just upload them? Also let's agree to tell each other significant changes from here on out, because we are almost done. I just added content from that source I asked you about, but to the section on the deyerlik period. Pretty sure it's uncontroversial, as it just says that there was prosperity under Baba Mohammed, but I did just add some textElinruby (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden is really good at improving images to FA standard. Should we ping him. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do Scope creep. Do you know the image we are talking about or should I put it here also? Also he schould probably start with the original not the one that is in the article. That one is better than the original but... he will know why I am saying this. Just makes sure he knows there is an original Elinruby (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those additions Elin, and yes i will sure add here everything i might add, though i don't think i'll add anything on my own. So regarding the Flag; it's indeed Barbarossa's flag, it's pretty well sourced. The other is "North african but taken after the siege of Vienna" so not sure this is Algerian. I'd chose the green one. and i haven't looked at the question about the palace images that g |you wanted to add, can't find it.

Right now i'm trying to find some sources about your suggestion regarding wheat production and Christian naval labor Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourrerahmane: ok then. Let's see what Adam can do and if not I would say the green one. If we need to have a banner. Do we? What do you think, Scope? On wheat production, I don't think we ever used the really excellent-looking source M.Bitton gave us about wheat being part of the dispute with the Americans. That would be in the archives. Also what about the source for the Jewish merchant that was assassinated? Supposedly he caused a famine with his wheat monopoly, so it probably talks more about him than just that or I would have complained before now about passing mentions. As for slave labour, as one point in the slavery section is says that skilled shipwrights could not be ransomed at any price, what source did we use for that? Just thinking out loud Elinruby (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What one in particular. Can you post a url link to it here. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You want the link to the commons image? hang on. I can do that. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Merouche and Garrot for the rescue ! I made some additions based on these two RS. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, in what sections please?Elinruby (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Manufacture and trade. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks. on it next. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep OK so this is a link to the current image, which has been matched up to the original, it looks like: [5]

@Nourerrahmane: I messed up your username above but there are some questions there for you. The palace images I was talking about are these. I will upload the proposed replacements and put them here.

Courtyard of the Diwân of Algiers, later the Palace of the Dey, known by the French as the "Pavilion of the Fan"

Janissary headquarters, Henri Klein (1910)

File:Pavillon coup d'évantail CasbahA.jpg

About the above images: I think the edit to the Palace of the Dey image is a clear improvement, but you guys tell me. I might be able to get the edited Henri Klein image to be a little less blue, but I don't think I will be able to make it any less faded than I have, just using contrast and colors, etc. Filters seem to pixelate it, but I am only semi-smart when it comes to image editing. Scope creep do you think your mate would have a go? PS I saw the comment about going straight to featured and am all for it, if people think it will pass. One last big push. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby:@Nourerrahmane: Is that image on [6] that you want improved? scope_creep^Talk 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot get the modified palace of the dey image to display. It is however at Commons under that file name. I made a post at the help desk. Probably I made a mistake along the way, but right this instant I can't see it to save my soul. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

they got back to me, fixed now Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about these images, a bit brain-dead since its very late here. Its been a week since I looked at the article. Is it top one in [7] that seen to? or the original one in the permissions field? scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

the one at the bottom is the original. The one at the top is one of several edited versions I made, and the one I picked as the best of these. I am not really happy with it though; it's a little over-edited and I am not sure I have time to play with it some more. But yes, any further editing should start with the original. Consider mine a proof of concept, and look, there is that forked symbol thaat is on the Barbarosa banner. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes if possible yes, also Elin, i think the two images are good and fit for the article Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: not sure what you are agreeing with here. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby i agreed on adding the modified pictures of the courtyard and the janissaty headquarters to the article. and i did a small additions about why the Algerians were against the bastion of France in this article and the history one. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The paragraphs in lede, manufacture (Christian labor) and trade (regarding wheat) are done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby The addition you added is really good, i have displaced it to the trade section, i have recently made additions there based on your suggestions, with this added, i think we have a little trade overview, especially that trade covers important aspects of the Regency history, it deserves a comprehensive section like the current one. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Expanded the trade section with a view on jewish monopoly in foreign Algerian trade. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: added a couple of words about the role of pastoralists in trade. Probably should make it "summer pastures in the Tell" instead of just "summer pastures", to make it clearer Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: how do you feel about the statement in the lede about piracy spreading across the Atlantic? We don't get into that in the article body and while the linked article does briefly mention North Africa, it's really about the West African slace trade mostly. I am not against keeping if it's true (and important) but I think these two trends overlap very little really. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC

Replaced pirates with Barbary corsairs and added the Spanish Empire as the target of the corsair attacks in the 17th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed the link to that article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All this sounds exactly on point. checking now if new copyedit needed. Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Banner image

Left a message on Adam Cuerdens talk page. Hopefully he will get back. He does have regular requests for work. I mentioned we are going for FA, so it might cajole him a bit to act scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's no longer displayed in the museum website unfortunately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Spoke to Adam. That banner image hasn't got a valid source so can't currently be used. It would knacker FA and GA review I think. We should probably remove it at the moment. I plan to do a search for it. I think Adam is going to look for it as well. It should be documented as Hugo was quite famous by that point, but at the mo its duff, unfortunately. scope_creep^Talk

But it's still mentionned, sad they replaced it with another picture. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby and scope, I found this Maghrebi flag however [8]. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: It was taken in 1958 so won't be public domain. It has a non-commercial licence, typical museum response. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, in that case i won't mind adding the flag of the Barbarossa if we have to remove the poorly sourced flag of the dey. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If we need a flag I guess that is the one that we've got. Not against it. Not excited about it either. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

[9] might be a couple degrees off true. Or maybe the uneven upper edge just needs to be cropped back. I can check into this at some point, or someone else can. Easy fix if so, noting in passing Elinruby (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• What about that bloody Jolly Roger? Are we sure that's legit? It's somebody's great-grandfather's captured flag from Flickr. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please check this out: [10][11][12](Middle right)[13](Bottom left) Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby I don't think the picture of the city of Tunis is needed either, seems unfit for the section. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• so I should remove the orange "Banner of the dey" image, am I understanding this correctly? Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's now poorly sourced since the image was removed from the museum website. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• New sea battle image is visually appealing but poorly sourced. We already have about eight sea battle images, enough is enough. Elinruby (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)<-File:Becchirhoggia vs Malta.jpg Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I will rm it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's gone. I am deleting all changes to image templates. I have added alts to some of those images at least half a dozen times. If you must move images around, don't use visual editor to do it and at this point don't do it at all. Peer review said center multiple images and align single images to the right. I just spent a couple of hours doing all that AGAIN. If there is a problem with an image placement we talk. No move moving images in the visual editor, Nourerrahmane. That is the last time I am going to fix that Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, i'm good with this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help not using visual editor. I don't mean to be mean but I can only do some things so many times before I lose my mind. In fact I need a break, h=back in a few minutes. Elinruby (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pashalik period: minor wording doubts

There are a couple of places where the wording is ambiguous and I need clarification that would take me a long time to look up. I think @Nourerrahmane: possibly can clear these up with a short answer off the top of his head:

• In 1596, Khider Pasha [fr] led a revolt on Algiers: should either be "an attack on" or "a revolt in". What I need to know is if the revolt started in Algiers.

• either could refuse orders from the sultan or even send back appointed pashas. "could" is ambiguous here. Does it mean that they had this formal power or that they might at any point do it anyway, ie that this was possible? Put another way, this could be translated to French as "risquaient de" or "pouvaient"? Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ils "pouvaient", they were allowed to do that, especially the janissaries, they removed any pasha they didn't like, this was done early in the regency period starting with Hasan Pasha son of Barbarossa and Uluj Ali i think, Muhammad Kurdogli, the one that came after Hasan Corso was executed by the janissaries. In the pashalik period this was done so frequently that the pashas were regarded as mere figureheads and the Diwan of the janissaries was the real authority in Algiers, that's why it was called a republic even before the Agha revolution period, when the janissaries had enough of these appointed pashas and wanted to formally rule the country. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

ok I will change "could" to "had the power to" and maybe add that they did on several occasions based on your text above. Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

actually I will just say that they did, since clearly if they did, they were able to. What about Khider Pasha? Did he revolt in Algiers or mount an attack on it from elsewhere? This is just a small idiomatic issue, no need to rewrite. Just need to know which one to correct it to. Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the source. He fomented a revolt against the janissaries using the coulouglis and the inhabitants of Algiers, this failed however. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I or someone else has changed this to "in". Which is fine with me, but I wish someone would tell me that it is accurate. Otherwise, the idiomatic problem of "revolt in" vs "attack on" is resolved in that someone has picked one or the other. I know this is excrutiating, but is that right? <=Second fact check request, probably routine

Do not rewrite the section. It is fine, just needs a couple of touches. I will come back to this.Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the sentence about "risquaient de" needed a mild copyedit. I don't think I introduced any errors, but feel free to check. Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the copy edit, there are some IPs and editors who do some changes from time to time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I know. I got a bit frustrated with the alts last night is all. Minor idiom issues are to be expected but we are trying to get rid of them for a run at featured, right? OK so. Per the above if "in" is correct then this is DONE no more rewriting without discussion please. Rewrites are usually improvements but usually require new copyedits is what I was ranting about. And please lose visual editor, not for me, but to keep other people from yelling at you about the same things. Visual editor is only really good for allowing people to make small corrections without learning the coding syntax. I am currently explaining this to someone else as well so it isn't a 'you' problem, it's a 'Wikipedia sets new editors up to fail' problem. Try not to be part of that, is my emphatic advice Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Y as far as I am concerned this is resolved unless someone has a problem with what I did there Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Sahara is now labelled on the map

Please verify that the labels do not need to be moved. This is easily done if so. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea since it departs from the source it's based on (I don't know if you remember, this this map has been the subject of various edit wars). If other important labels are needed, then they need to be based on the published map. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't overwrite the original, and peer review suggested it. But if it is determined to be a problem I can back the edit out rather easily. I do remember what you are talking about. @Scope Creep, Nourerrahmane, R Prazeres, and Mathglot: I do not have the user name of the reviewer at the top of my tongue but will come back to ping them unless someone else does it first. What I was wondering though was how factual that leftmost label is, in other words I am hazy about the western edge of the Sahara Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If the only change is adding the label "Sahara", that seems innocuous enough to me. My only stylistic suggestion would be: instead of three small "Sahara" labels interspersed, just add one "Sahara"/"Sahara desert" in the lower middle; that should be sufficient to get the point across, and maybe reduce the temptation to make any POV claims regarding Western Sahara, if there is any. If M.Bitton and/or others still object to it, I'm fine with the original as well; this map doesn't aim to show any topography, climate, etc, so it's reasonable to let readers look this up anywhere elsewhere. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep, Matarisvan, and M.Bitton:

Happy to do whatever people decide. This is not a difficult task, just a little fiddly. Elinruby (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(pokes thread) @Scope creep, Matarisvan, and M.Bitton:@Scope Creep, Nourerrahmane, R Prazeres, and Mathglot: should I implement the suggestion from R Prazeres? Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Prazeres, one big "Sahara desert" should be enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Elinruby:@Nourerrahmane:@R Prazeres: The labels aren't a problem. One saying Sahara desert or Sahara would fine. The key may be a problem since its taking up almost 20-25% of the image, and its obscuring a land-mass which your never do. Its too big. I would reduce by about 50% and ensure its still readable. The light-green area isn't marked, although I don't know if it matters. I see if marked in the key. Thats fine. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving the key or resizing the key would be difficult a tricky kludge for me with what i have, but if someone like perhaps R Prazeres has a draft with the layers where the key was added it would probably be pretty easy for them. Supposing that's the case: The concern about the Western Sahara sounds like it has life experience behind it,and that was why I was asking. But if the key moved flush left, we could get rid of the leftmost Sahara label and avoid that problem, then center one label between the where the other two are now. Does that make sense? I can easily change the edits I made. I suspect we can figure out who added the key. Elinruby (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense, but it still a leaves huge key that is far too big for that map. It should be about 30% of its current size. That is fine, we will get it sorted. I'll can ask Goren-tek have a look. Morning @Goran tek-en: Are you available? We have got a problem with this map. I think the key is currently too big and needs to be reduced by about 50%-70%, sufficiently so that its still readable and the "Sahara" labels need to be changed to perhaps a single "Sahara desert" or "Sahara" would be ideal. scope_creepe^Talk 08:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)×

I can easily change the labels because I have the layers for that. I am pretty sure the image has already been flattened though, which makes moving the key a fiddly select against a colored back ground that would then have to be matched plus a sizeable transform to do without distorting the font. For anyone, especially if it is unnecessary. @M.Bitton: do you have an unflattened version of this map? Again, there is no plan to overwrite the original. Elinruby (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't present a problem to Goran-tek-en. He's a professional and it will done quickly. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it this map?

@Scope creep You can't write I can do it quickly when I just told you things take time for me right now.

@Elinruby is the uploader and should in first hands do this, if that creater/uploader is fine with it I can edit it if needed. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Sorry, I'm expecting it to be scheduled as normal and didn't expect you could do it immediately. But I've been in this situation before in a previous talk page discussion, where there was is lots of folks with their finger in the pie, where it took more three weeks to resolve who was going to do it, and finally it wasn't done until everybody had left the article, and it finished. I couldn't believe it. I like to get things done in timely manner by those who are able to do it best. Elinruby, who is my core collaborator on Wikipedia says it may difficult, hence the reason I called you. Is she says ok you can crack on, then that fine with me. scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

to whom it may concern: It sounds like R Prazeres has an earlier version of the map that still has all the layers, and he is on this. But in case it comes up again, I am not the author of that map. I merely produced a modified version of it for discussion on the talk page. I have no objection to the version I uploaded being swapped out or even overwritten. In fact, over-writing is preferable from my point of view since Commons admins told me that I can create as many alternate versions as I want of whatever images as long as they have unique file names, but could I please put those that are definitely eliminated up for deletion when we are All Done Discussing. So if somebody wants to overwrite that file name it would save me some work. Other than that, I added it to the article because nobody was answering the question on the talk page about whether I should add it to the article. If it doesn't get over-written please let me know when it has been swapped out so I can nominate it for deletion over at Commons. I am delighted to see that there is a conversation here, please everyone decide what to do. I am absolutely ok with map modifications Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Noting that we haven't heard from the PR editor that wanted the Sahara labelled in the first place. @Matarisvan: do you have an opinion about this? Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: If the idea is simply to add the word Sahara at the bottom, then that can easily be done (I will simply overwrite the original map). M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done you might need to purge your browser's cache to see the change. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks M.Bitton. For the key: I have no objection either way, but in the interest of workload, does it really need to be smaller? The size of the box was inherited from an older file template I used, so it's not a preference on my part, but a larger key does make it easier to read in thumbnail. The other thing is that the key is covering part of the political border for Tripolitania, so if you make it smaller you might have to consult the original source ([14]) to fill in the vacated space. R Prazeres (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: It doesn't have to be smaller and it can be adjusted to whatever size others think is appropriate. I only moved the bottom corner as to avoid touching Tripolitania (the vacated space was empty). To be honest, I'm still not very keen on introducing concepts that aren't mentioned in the RS, especially given the various disputes that occurred over it before achieving consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How about now? I kept the size of the box and made the sahara label slightly smaller. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That new image looks ok to me and also looks like it would take care of the concern about the Western Sahara. I don't have any strong feelings about the map or the labels and am ok with whatever consensus turns out to be. Just trying to check off a peer review item whose purpose was to help explain what the problem was with expansion to the south Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

PS I do not know if Scope creep's issue with the key is addressed. I will let him speak for himself on that. I am crossing this off the list of things that I personally need to worry about Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've only looked at this map today, for the first time. Its not been really been addressed. The key needs to be smaller, certainly. You can't have 25% of the map being the key. Its a straight obscuration of the map itself. I think its currently an FA fail as the reviewers will ask for the map to be removed and something better found. But there is another factor which may be important. This is major historical article that covers 300 years of Algerian history and is a level-5 vital article, both factors that probably demand a really accurate map and of much higher quality. Not what is currently there, unfortunately. I don't know that is important. But I suspect it probably is, a higher-scale article with certain expectations there. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: it can be reverted to the previous one which has a smaller key. I'm not sure what you mean by higher quality. Are you referring to the quality of the drawing or the quality of the map itself? M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Its map we have to use after looking at p.68. When I looked at it originally I thought it was fairly basic as there is missing details. But it does follow the original map exactly on p.68. The borders are perfect. It needs a map scale bar added and the key reduced. The ocean/sea area could do with being labelled if there is space. scope_creep^Talk 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Other than adding a scale bar and possibly labelling the ocean, is there anything else that needs changing or adjusting in the current map? Also, do you have any idea when the article will be up for review? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: That is all that is needed for the map. A map needs 6 things to be a map, otherwise its a diagram. If the scale and labels were added, that would take it to four, which while not ideal is probably sufficient for illustrative purposes. At least a week before submission I suspect, possibly more. scope_creep^Talk 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

so.... is this done? I ask warily. I am taking it I can MfD the one with three labels, right? Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: No its not done. The key is still too big and its not got map scale bar on and several parts are unlabeled. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep, M.Bitton, and R Prazeres: can we work something out here please? I'd like to emphasize that this does not have to affect "the" map if that is a problem in terms of something like edit wars about something. We can just add some numbers after the filename to make it unique, and if someone has a version of the map from before the current key was added, then we use that to make an alternate version that has a smaller key. It looks, however, like we did have a meeting of the minds on where to but the label "Sahara" so I am going to request deletion of the draft I made for discussion as no longer needed. Meanwhile this issue with the key remains outstanding. Do you guys have what you need for that? Can you do it? I was hearing yes, before. Elinruby (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @Matarisvan: you said something about just a few more changes to images, and I can't find that now. Was it on the peer review page? Elinruby (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. I've uploaded an updated version of the file with a smaller legend. I had to fill in the Tripolitania border a little based on the source atlas (it's rough but these borders are approximations anyways). As for a scale, I don't know how to go about calculating that, but I don't think that's necessary. There are plenty of featured articles, for example, with infobox maps that don't have a scale (e.g. Byzantine Empire, Parthian Empire, Empire of Brazil). R Prazeres (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

404 error on Carr now

Carr 2009, p. 139. Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you much Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

should have articles but don't

• Imad Al-Din Doukkali
• Jenina Palace Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• ben Gana family mentioned in Tribal aristocracy section
• el Zahhar Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

seriously, almost done

• It looks like all current outstanding issues with the text are resolved.
• I am having trouble switching the palace images, probably something to do with the file name. I am aware of the issue and that's next on my list, unless someone wants to tackle this while I am eating lunch.
• Nourerrahmane seems to want to keep the bloody Jolly Roger image. I am not adamantly against it, just skeptical. I will look at his sourcing and we can discuss here.
• Are there any current issues with image placement? There are a couple of places where a single image to the top right of a section is immediately below a multiimage template at the end of the section above. Is this a problem and should those single images instead be invoked at the end of the first paragraph for example? How is sizing?

I am currently on a laptop with a very wide screen, about to switch to a phone to check this. One comment is that the image of the treaty that I said I didn't like before is much more visually interesting when it isn't a tiny thumbnail, but it may be *too* big now, thoughts? I plan to reduce the width setting a little. Not saying that what we have is perfect or can't be discussed, just that moving images in the visual editor seems to be what keeps happening to the alts. At least that is my best guess.

• The Legacy should be moved up as its impact the section header.
• The Tribal aristocracy image needs moved to the right.
• The image with caption "Sultan Charardin of Algeria" should be moved to the right as its impact two section heads, but may be problematic positioning it.

1. Unsure what this means, will go look.

on wide-screen laptop do not see the issue. What needs to be moved up? Which headers are affected? Will get back to this on phone, or e;se please elaborate Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

2. No per MOS:PORTRAIT. Said that before. If something over-rides that lmk

3. Is that the full-length oil portrait? Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

never mind, it's not. it's a right-facing portrait in profile, see above. Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On the history article:

Scope creep I need more information; do not see the problem here Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think the last two images that are on the left, should be moved to the right or into a multi-image template, although MOS:PORTRAIT may overide it. That is probably why those images are still on the left. It may be case they will need moved. When you look at FA article there seems to be few on the left. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Ignore this comment. Images are allowed on the left and MOS:PORTRAIT drives where they site. scope_creep^Talk 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

{aye}} I have no strong feelings about this but that is why I did not move them. Except for those two images, all other single images are now to the right. Elinruby (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• The conquest of Oran seems to be sitting in the wrong place.

@Scope creep: this is the part I need more information about. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: On the "The conquest of Oran". The image has been removed for some reason. I can't locate it. This can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• In "Hayreddin's successors (1534–1580)" there is a multi gallery and then standalone image on right. Can they be amalgamated into a single multi-image gallery. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1. maybe?

Can't find a section called "conquest of oran." There was one though, what year Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: not understanding this one either Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think it has been moved. Ignore this. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Y happy to ignore this Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Y probably Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved this image. This is done. Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Nourerrahmane trade section looks pretty good. Want to add in the source M.Bitton gave us a while ago. I added a couple of words about pastoralists and would like to expand trade routes and date plantations just a little. Question Holfsinger talks a lot about the Mizab (Mzab). Are they representative or is this just the source I happened to find?
• Also where is that mention of an onion? I never checked that for idiomatic English.
• Anything else? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  About your recent deletion in lede, i think we should add something in it place, like, Europeans launched naval attacks against Algiers in order to obtain favorable peace treaties that could guarantee the safety of their merchant ships and Algiers took advantage of their rivalries to limit their threat and maximise profit from privateering. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

deletion in lede: I answered this and did not get an answer back. Just making sure -- did you put the stuff back in that you were saying should not be deleted? I am not really finding much wrong in the lede so the question is whether this is the way you want it or you think it needs another sentence or so about maritime strength. Pretty sure you were saying that at one point, so did you put it back in or do you think the version I am looking at needs more see battles? I do agree with what you said above. Oh I know what, this is the sentence that said "strong maritime attacks" or something like that. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede is good for me, I just want to add this in place of European powers negotiated directly with Algiers and took military action against it. with European powers combined direct negotiations with strong maritime attacks against Algiers, which met little success but still secured peace for their merchant ships. I think it's much more faithful to the storyline and more precise. and makes up a good cause for the change in foreign policy of Algiers in the 18th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh I remember this now. I probably should have moved it to the talk page. Probably meant to. The problem I have with that sentence is that I don't know what it means. "Strong maritime attack" for one thing is a really unusual formulation. I know from reading the rest of the article that we are talking about bombardments, right? That's actually a strange work in English also, a little, but if the French is bombardement then that is how I would translate it also. But you know how in French "je t'aime" and "je t'aime beaucoup" are not at all the same thing? It's like that. The strange adjective totally dilutes it. How about "pounded Algiers withe their cannons"? there are also too many things happening after "combined" Also "met with little success" sort of clashes with "but still secured peace". So this is saying that the "strong maritime attacks" secured the peace? I have no object to you saying any of what I think you are trying to say, but I got stuck on how to fix it, actually. Elinruby (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I see, and yes European powers launched bombing campaings against Algerian coastal cities, mainly Algiers and Bejaia, and although this didn't make Algiers submit, it convinced Algiers to accept tribute rather than hunting merchant ships of these states from the get go. So they launched bombing campaings against Algerian coastal cities, which met little success but still secured peace for their mechant ships. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I expanded trade, hopefully this is what you're looking for. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks a lot more interesting. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry I got distracted by something. Expanding trade is a good idea. I noticed the rewrite on the lede and I like it. Making some tiny idiom tweaks that have to do with the word "the" and when to use it. Bottom line, it is good, I like it a lot and I am polishing it. After the lede is there anything special you want me to look at?

Trade, right. I wanted to add in maybe a sentence more about the caravans. I had a question though, sorry if you already answered this: the source I added, is it good for the topic? I realize it is French and basically starts after 1830, but it is still an interesting discussion of trade as the French found it. The question is though, is that he is writing based on M'zab (sp?) records and I wanted you to tell me if they were typical in their trade relations with Algiers and what you thought of the using of that one French journalist in 1839 at the time. Or essayist or whatever he was. And ok, Nourerrahmane I am not sure what deletion you are talking about, however so far I like the lede. Is the change you are talking about already in it? I am not against anything about the above statement you want to put in except that doesn't it already say that? I probably was thinking repetitive if I took out something that said that, because I agree that it is an important point. If what you are saying is that that is why it gets an extra sentence, hehe fine, if you don't think the lede gives due weight to maritime warfare then you conceivably could have a point. But there is some stuff we should talk about there. Bottom line, ok with me as long as sufficiently specific. Has any one taken a good hard pencil to the Crafts section yet? Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

the Italienischer Meister von 1580 001 image, does that display well for everybody? It's very long but I like it. That's the fill length portrait of Hayreddin in a gold surcoat. Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The source you added (Holsinger) is great. Intrestingly it correlates with my recent additions in the trade section, especially the mizabi links with Tumbuktu, the Mizabs also sent tribute to Algiers as shown in muhammad ben othman section, and they were represented there as shown also in the society section. Thanks for this additions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede looks goot to me btw. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh good you like the part about the M'zab! that is the part I want to write a little more about. Maybe a sentence. I will figure out the date plantation thing. I know I saw it in a discussion of some tribal leader setting up vast date plantations, I'll find it. I doubt the water systems connect. The distances between oases are pretty big, right? Did they dig wells? Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unused ref

*<!--Everett-->{{Cite book |last=Everett |first=Jenkins Jr |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TxAkCQAAQBAJ |title=The Muslim Diaspora: A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas |date=2010 |publisher=McFarland |location=Jefferson, North Carolina|isbn=978-0-7864-4689-6 |volume=2, 1500-1799 |oclc=1058038670}}

PR

Latest PR work completed. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work scope, for the images i'll let Elin take care of it, she's been working on them for a while now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

update

• Still finding references that fail verification. Mostly, although they are somewhat related to what they are sourcing, they do not say what the sentence in front of them says. Trying to remediate from sources. This is going to take time and probably will not be finished today. In a lot of cases that sentence is also very vague, although I hesitate to delete good sources just because they were erroneously invoked. It may be better to rewrite the sentence to reflect what the sentence actually says. I am working on this and request no more rewrites as copy-editing is most done.
• Since all of the images in the culture section have been found anachronistic, I removed them per PR feedback. I may try to look for others but that is not a priority at the moment.Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I added two pictures in the culture section as a replacement, do you think they fit there ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Elin, sorry for this but your comment made me take a look again at agriculture section, where i added few more informations and removed unsourced claims. Hopefully this section is better now Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, the content is better. Note to myself to explain passive voice one day. I saw the clothing pictures you added but have not examined their sourcing.Someone has moved the Jewish man to the right. I think MOS:PORTRAIT applies there also. It's a fine point. His head is turned as if to look at the viewer but his body stance has him moving off the page. I will delete my crankiness below. Did the water systems in the oases connect with one another/ I am thinking they were set up individually for each date plantation? Also can you provide a quote from the zellij source, please? Pretty sure someone along the way is going to ask for that. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No idea about the Oasis system, as far as i can tell, the Sahara brought animal products, unlike in Tunisia where date cultivation was more proliferent. I'll try to find something regarding the zellij, i wouldn't mind adding a removed picture of the blue tiles used in the palais des rais. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think tiles could go in Crafts, or maybe we should change the title to culture. I was actually thinking about moving the kasbah bath image and the outer tilework of the courtyard in that one image pile-up at the end of architecture. In fact, go to town in the Crafts section as far as I am concerned and to avoid image conflicts I will just make sure I am not in that section until you tell me you are done. We have to re-do the images there anyway. I was thinking of cutting something like -- maybe the embroidery because it wasn't specific to the period (?) But you might be able to find more information. Also apparently tesselation is important? Also that section needs to be re-checked for close paraphrasing. I edited it pretty hard and it still cites the source a lot but it's no longer word for word translation. I think. Check it. The part about the rugs is a good point in that it shows a cultural adaptation, maybe it we could build on that. I really didn't find much about Ottoman ironmongers in Algiers. As far as I can tell your new images on clothing look legit and the named artist has an article on French Wikipedia. He is an army officer who did a lot of mapping just after the French invasion. So maybe put those with the Jewish man? Have fun. I am going to work on the caravan trade. Just a little. Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: we already have at least one source for zellij, in Arabic though. But you were telling me it is the pattern that is important, right? Anyway, the source is transliterated as Laa'ra, or something like that. Just need a quote from why you think the source supports the statement. I should probably do the French ones also. Pretty sure some one will eventually ask. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) hottest op

I added a quote but i also corrected some informations. Square ceramic tiles with floral motifs replaced geometric and polygons decorated tiles. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

trying to wrap my mind around doing the copy-edit all over again. Maybe tomorrow. It has been too hot to move away from the fan all day. We were the hottest place in Canada again but fortunately no spontaneous combustion this year so far. Maybe six months of rain did its job there.Elinruby (talk)

Alright, early morning and temperature is decent. Nourerrahmane let's try ot get through a copy edit with out any rewrites ok? So here is a question I would like you to answer here. I get the part under Foreign relations about jihad conveying internal legitimacy in the Regency but how does it do so internationally while still being considered a est of pirates? I think there might be too much to unpack in that sentence. First question, if I would like to avoid repeating the word 'legitimacy, could "respect" be a good synonym here? ALso, we have an exact quote so it would be better to just attribute it to the author my name, since another author might have said the same thing, but he probably used different words, right? Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Elinruby, I added a small explanation with an RS, hopefully it answers your question. (Respect is a good synonym indeed and i have now replaced 'legitimacy with it) Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Going to look at the Agriculture section now. It was definitely looking better the last time I looked at it so we are not doing all this fpr nothing. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Banner of the Dey image

I nominated the edited version that was in the article for speedy deletion. As far as I can tell, it has been taken out already. Is that right? Because apparently the sourcing doesn't meet FA standards, as I understand it.

Could we please check the sourcing on the images please before any more work goes into cropping them or tweaking them or moving them around any more? Thanks. In particular I was wondering about authors like "School of Antwerp" -- I gather the reliability is from the museum? So anonymity doesn't matter? But something was said about auction sites -- you mean like Sotheby's? Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Don't use any current image that come from an auction site. They are taken on the day for the catalogue, so are current and still under copyright. They are entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. This is the Antwerp school. If its from a museum they are known for ensuring provenance. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OK so I am just saying, at least some of our images come from Sotheby's. This is a high-end auctioneer, yes? Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As for Antwerp School, I have it linked in the caption; I just wanted to confirm that anonymous works are ok if they are on a museum website? Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: What images from Sotheby? scope_creep^Talk 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I see what you mean. That first one I came across is from Bonhams. Definently in the public domain. Each image uploaded is checked for pd by the image team, when the tag says its pd, set when uploaded, so I'm assuming its ok. For anon works I don't know. I would assume its ok if the tag is pd. We could ask MarchJuly? scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just saying that if we have any more problems with sources of images it would be good to find out now, before a whole lot of image editing gets done. Elinruby (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

small detail

Olivier Bro de Comères (1813–1870) should have an article, first of all, and the captions of those two images right next to each other should not contradict one another Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from ce, are there more issues that need to be adressed ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Got this File:Divan members of Algiers.jpg , a chaouch, a private and a grand divan members from a German book. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A description of them was given in this book of Georges Marçais. p 63 [15] Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Found additional sources on arts and crafts :

[16]: Art Antique et Art Musulman en Algérie par A. BERQUE

[17]: L'art en Algérie de Georges Marçais Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)