User talk:R Prazeres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Hello again. I'm not really sure whether the following should be on the Turkish baths (Disambiguation) page, or here on your page, so I've copied it to both, I'm afraid. It's my belated reply to your note on the former:

It's very unusual for me to take ten days to reply to something, but in this case I've had to think through my problem carefully and learn a bit more about Wikipedia, and I've finally realised that I asked the wrong question before. So let me start over by stating the problem.

   Anyone familiar with hammams will tend to look up hammam(s) in any dictionary or encyclopaedia, so they have no problem.
   Similarly, anyone familiar with Victorian Turkish baths will also have no problem.
   The ones with problems are those unfamiliar with these terms who wish to find out about one or other of them. Currently, if a searcher enters Turkish bath(s) s/he is willy-nilly redirected to Hammam. Fine if that is what is wanted, but not if it's Vtb that's wanted because s/he is still directed only to Hammam, without even a 'See also:' reference. But what is needed is a reference to both options so either one (or even both) can be chosen.
   You write " If someone is searching Turkish baths, it will currently lead them to Hammam, the assumed primary topic…" But while this might be so for the Islamic world, it is not necessarily so for those in the so-called Western world. Most of those wanting information about hammams will easily find it, those searching for the western or Victorian type will get nowhere. There is not even a 'See also:' reference to it at the end of the Hammam page, only a Main article link reached after reading more than half the Hammam page. (There is one to Hammam at the bottom of the VTb page!)
   Given the comprehensive revision of the VTb page, I see only two choices, not a primary one alone. Otherwise there seems little point in providing a VTb page which few are directed to. This seems to be borne out by a wiki guidance note which says "If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."
   So to conclude (you will be pleased to see!) I suggest that the redirect from Turkish bath(s) to Hammam be removed and replaced by (the guidance note's second option), a redirect page straight to "a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated", ie, to Turkish bath (Disambiguation). This should enable searchers easily to make a choice of either of the two main general articles (plus all the smaller more specific ones) or both.
   Hammam (disambiguation) seems to serve its purpose perfectly. However, I wonder whether it might be clearer if one changed:
   "A hammam, or Turkish bath, is a type of steam bath…"
   into:
   "A hammam (often known in the West as a Turkish bath) is a type of steam bath…"
   though if I wasn't afraid of pushing my beginner's luck, I'd much prefer:
   "A hammam (often inaccurately known in the West as a Turkish bath) is a type of steam bath…"
   All the bestIshpoloni (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I've replied at

ping me in the future if you need my attention; I get notifications from potentially hundreds of articles, and sometimes I only have time to focus on a few, so it's not uncommon for me to miss new messages. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the open-ended neutral wording of your redirect notice. That is much appreciated. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R Prazeres, Help! I'm submerged! I've just seen [[8]] and don't understand anything apart from the first three red sidelined paras. Do I need to do anything in response, ie, with regard to the 'good-faith creator' bit? I've realized that this is the page now reached on searching for 'Turkish bath' in place of 'Hammam', but searching for the plural 'Turkish baths' still redirects to 'Hammam'. Is this correct? Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R Prazeres!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My revision deleted the following misleading (sourced) text: "Christians and Jews still continued to produce great theological thinkers within their communities, but as time wore on, many of the intellectuals converted to Islam, leading to a lack of great thinkers in the non-Muslim communities."^[1]

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

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

Please read

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've opened a discussion for both of you on the talk page. In the future, try opening a discussion as soon as it's clear an editor is continuing to push a change you disagree with. Ideally, the reverted editor will open the discussion themselves, per

WP:BRD, but even if they don't, then you're still expected to do this in order to avoid edit-warring. Give a warning on the user talk page (use Template:Uw-ew) if their edit-warring continues. If they still refuse to discuss and to stop edit-warring after you've made these good-faith attempts to resolve the issue, then you can indeed write a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (make sure you follow the requirements of a report that are explained there). If the edit-warring stops but the discussion is still unresolved, there are dispute resolution options either of you can use. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi R Prazeres! Btw, if you were planning to make any changes to architecture part, can you wait until June? I entered Turkey into Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! I have drafted two architecture paragraphs (one on the Seljuk period, one on the Ottoman period), but just haven't had time to trim them and figure out how to integrate them into the existing content; so I'm in no hurry. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@

3RR), just report them. They have no excuse left now. R Prazeres (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I don't see a justification for placing the single-image montage without a community consensus to do so. Yes, you can look into

third opinion. If you're not willing to accept a third opinion or you want something more comprehensive, then Request for comments (RfC) would seem like the logical step. Either option requires that you write a brief, neutral summary of the issue; you can use the existing summary question I wrote at Talk:Marrakesh#Question for all editors (minus the last sentence), or something similar, if it is satisfactory to you. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @Arminden, sorry for missing this earlier. I generally follow the example set by the sources, but in my experience authors do indeed seem to differ on their preferences. When it comes to the roofed side areas of a courtyard, for example, I've seen authors use "gallery", "porch", "portico", "arcade", "peristyle", and maybe others... all referring to essentially the same feature. As I understand, in Arabic the term is usually riwaq ([9]). I'm guessing that there are practical reasons why the terminology isn't completely consistent (e.g. different traditions in different fields, there aren't always sufficiently precise terms in English, some terms overlap in meaning, etc). I've tried to use terms that are general enough to be understood by most interested English readers but still accurate in context. I probably don't always succeed, so feedback is welcome.

For some of your other specific questions: I understand "

"true" arches (like lintels or corbelled arches, as you mentioned), so it seems a little flexible. Likewise, I've seen "wing" used very flexibly, including in the way you mentioned; whereas the Wing (building) article refers to a more narrow meaning. "Peristyle", to my knowledge, is applicable to any era, it's just more traditionally associated with historical/ancient Mediterranean architecture. Technically, in the context of Riad (architecture), there are also examples where the courtyard is only flanked by galleries on two sides instead of four, so "peristyle" is arguably too narrow for what I did here

. Something like "arcaded galleries" or just "portico" might still be preferred.

I think in most cases, many of these terms are clear enough for general purposes. It depends really on the desired balance between precision vs conciseness/readability. The inclusion of photos helps too, of course. R Prazeres (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RP. I truly appreciate your detailed answer, thank you very much! I'm neither a native English speaker, nor an architect, so questions like this do suddenly come up: when I'm speaking, I do it by instinct and it's fine, but in written it's a different story. Thanks again, and have a great day! Arminden (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi! In

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I reverted to the wrong version; I meant to revert the addition that you quite reasonably objected to. (I meant to go to the 1 April version by Internet archive bot but I guess I clicked on the 3 April version by Citation bot instead.) I've just fixed it by removing it manually ([10]). Sorry for the confusion. R Prazeres (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your immense help and going the extra mile at Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I noticed that you recently made this reversion at the article on Abu Muslim. Judging by your edit summary, I get the impression that you intended to reverse everything the IP user had edited and not merely his last small edit (where he changed "Abumuslim" to "Abu Muslim". Is that correct?

Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, yes, thank you for spotting that. I forgot the IP was slightly different across the edits, so "rollback" only undid one of them. Fixed it now. R Prazeres (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]