This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofItaly on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPortugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct nameThe airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they arenot the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily arenot statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSpain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope of theWikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
Aylan2: you have recently made a number of changes to the article, and when they were reverted, you have reinstated them, instead of discussing them first. Please set out your reasons for making the proposed changes here, and provide the sources that you would use to support them, so that other editors can consider them. Thank you.GirthSummit (blether)14:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:WP:CITEHOW indicatesdate of publication ofthe edition (my emphasis). It then provides information about citing a reprint with the reprint year but only in terms ofwith corrections XXXX or similar (internal quotation marks removed). The edition of CAH2 8 is 1989, not 2006. That is why I changed it to 1989; there is no reason to mislead readers about a source's novelty when there were no actual changes. I ask you therefore to self-revert your revert of my change.Ifly6 (talk)14:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Citing sources states, under "Dates and reprints of older publications", "Editors should be aware that older sources [...] are sometimes reprinted with modern publication dates. When this occurs and the citation style being used requires it, cite both the original publication date, as well as the date of the re-publication ... in the {{citation}} and {{cite book}} templates [...] you use the |orig-date= parameter." This is what the article does. Note that the original publication date now shows immediately after the date of the reprint, so there is no question that it may "mislead readers about a source's novelty".Gog the Mild (talk)15:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say then to including 2006 as a textual note, per the alternative guidance there, and putting the actual date of the edition as the anchor year? My edition of CAH2 8 is from the original print run. I also think the guidance there is inapplicable, as it isn't a historical publication, which is what is being envisioned there; we are discussing identical reprints by the same publisher. There was discussion on this matter ages ago, as it isn't entirely novel,here.Ifly6 (talk)17:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two comments at the discussion you link to both seem to be supporting my approach. The approach I adopt seems to be that universally practised with Harv cites and I am disinclined to add a textual note, which while allowed by the MoS seems rare to the point that I cannot recall ever having seen one. It seems to me that this is a matter which would be better taken up at MoS if you feel that current practise is inappropriate.Gog the Mild (talk)17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think you're misinterpreting what the discussion says. The proposal there was to change the dating policy such that it usesyear that the particular edition became available, which in our case is 1989. It also makes a distinction between reprints and editions: CAH2 8 is a single edition with multiple printing runs that all have the same ISBN. The wording in the comments that follow discusses corrected reprints being treated as separate editions; the reprinting of CAH2 8 in 2006 was not such a reprint. I did request clarification at the time on the MOS talk – most commenters took the view of using the earlier date – and made a proposal to clarify existing policies, atWikipedia talk:Citing sources#Identical reprints.Ifly6 (talk)20:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Also, I'd recommend using{{harvc}} for the many-times repeated chapters inCompanion to the Punic wars. Right now, the tail end of the citation – Wiley,Chichester, West Sussex, and the ISBN are repeated 10 different times. I would also specify that you're using the paperback edition with the|edition= parameter.Ifly6 (talk)22:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current infobox is extremely vague in most parameters, it does not mention the indemnities and restrictions placed on Carthage as part of the consequences of the war - and the commanders section is utterly lacking. It has a few famous commanders from the period, but omits many other significant leaders - like Marcus Marcellus, and Hasdrubal Gisco - who was in charge of defending the Iberian peninsula and then Carthage itself against the initial Roman invasion, and the two Numidian kings who's defections effected a significant change of fortunes towards both sides. I elected to edit the infobox to add many commanders to each side, and would gladly solicit any other opinions on it. My last edit was thepenultimate one, revision 1153985595, for reference.Sormando (talk)22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I appreciate the desire for completeness, but this results in a very long infobox, which isn't super helpful for readers. Usual practice in these cases is to give a few most significant leaders and leave it at that. CompareWorld War II.Furius (talk)Furius (talk)19:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of good work put in there, but it may have been useful to discuss this herebefore doing it. I agree re the overload of information and so have reverted the infobox back to the consensual version from the article's FAC, perWP:FAOWN.Gog the Mild (talk)19:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the current info box is bizarrely vague. It has Cornelius Scipio Jr. listed as the top Roman commander - even though the majority of his illustrious tenure and consulship took place in the middle and later years of the war.
Also, I had posted this discussion in May, about a monthbefore, on your suggestion to discuss it here.
I don't think there's any requirement for commanders to be listed in chronological order (again, cf.World War II, where Stalin is listed before Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek, even though they were at war before he was). Scipio is well know for having won the war; it makes sense that he's named first.Furius (talk)21:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not listed in chronological order, necessarily. But the box is simply largely empty. Whether one general won the war or not is ambiguous in a war like this. In the WW2 infobox you have Churchill because Churchill was one of the leaders of the conflict, whereas Scipio Africanus was, for a long time, in the backwater before taking the forefront at the final stages of the war.
Besides this topic of leaders, the infobox is missing a huge amount of information in regards to participants, and it has Syphax on the Carthaginian side of the conflict, even though he was allied to the Romans for the majority of the war.Sormando (talk)14:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're trying to say, but the fact that you've had to express it as a plain contradiction should perhaps be telling. In short, I disagree. Editors have historically made infoboxes into their personal research spreadsheets. I'm not saying what you want amounts to that, but consider the general audience and how utility is best weighted for them, distinct from for you and I.Remsense ‥ 论16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the Wiki article on the Peninsular War today, and it is unfortunate that a war much smaller in scope than the 2nd Punic War enjoys a significantly larger infobox, containing accurate information unlike this one, which not only omits several significant factions from the conflict, but erroneously includes some prominent people who switched belligerents during the conflict, I re-raise the topic of expanding the information box to include the information, similar to others from other major conflicts. The current one is, in my opinion, miserable and misleading.Sormando (talk)23:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiSormando, the unfortunate thing is that the Peninsular War article has a bloated, inaccessible and non-MoS compliant infobox. The fact that it is a B class article, three steps on Wikipedia's quality scale below this one, which as a featured article "exemplif[ies] Wikipedia's very best work", perhaps partially explains it.Gog the Mild (talk)23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unfortunate descriptor and classification for that article, as I had found it significantly more informative than this one. There are probably imperfections with Wikipedia's 'quality' scales.Sormando (talk)18:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on...............the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
Only last year this article went through FAC, where itwas thoroughly reviewed and a consensus formed that it was "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." It would take quite a lot to create a stronger consensus for significant change.Gog the Mild (talk)10:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have been reviewed in general, but I think no-one reviewed it in terms of the consistency with MOS:LEAD, and it's certainly not in a "nutshell" and delves into the details unneccesarily.Rjdeadly (talk)14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section is completely devoid of important events of this period particularly around Locri, and also Kroton, which is why I proposed some text.Rjdeadly (talk)14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are reasons for that. But I am not opposed to some additional material on the area and period, nor to working with you to get something into shape. Anything proposed as a starting point would need to be fully sourced - obviously. As this is a featured article any proposed source would need to be "high quality" as well as "reliable", in particular this rules out the use of primary sources. If you would like to put a proposed sourced summary here, we could then discuss it. Cheers.Gog the Mild (talk)17:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that thesematters should be covered, I agree with Gog that they should be covered judiciously with reference to reputable, reliable, andmodern sources. The archaeology of second and third century BC Italy has advanced dramatically through the 20th century AD; some book on the matter from 1849 will obviously not include discussion of any such archaeology. If you really want to cite the ancient sources, I would encourage citing them in parallelonly when cited by a modern source and in modern format without Roman numerals; see egChicago Manual of Style (17th ed) §§ 9.67, 14.242ff.Ifly6 (talk)02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should add something about the peace negotiations; they evidently dragged (or the ratification thereof did) into 201 BC. The article abruptly ends with Zama right now.Ifly6 (talk)02:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the first paragraph of Roman victory it seems to have an appropriate level of detail for an article covering the whole war. What are you proposing be added?Gog the Mild (talk)14:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any information on the negotiations themselves. By analogy, the last battle of WWI's western front was on 11 November 1918 but the peace treaty itself had to be written, ratified, etc which dragged long into 1919.Ifly6 (talk)01:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both points understood. There isn't much more in the records to pass on. Do you have a HQ RS which covers this aspect in particular detail and which you would like paraphrased/summarised into the article? Or have - however rough and ready - your own suggested draft form of words to serve as the starting point for discussion?Gog the Mild (talk)18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the two or three paragraphs in Briscoe's chapter in CAH2 (1989) pp 64ff discussing the aftermath of the battle and specifically attempts by the consul at Rome to oppose it before Scipio's supporters secured tribunician intervention. The specifics, as they are, are at Polyb 15.19; Liv 30.37.7–12, 30.40.7–16, 30.42.11–43.4. Further secondary material is in the same Briscoe chapter at pp 73–74 in the section titled "War and politics at Rome"; DrogulaCommanders and command (2015) pp 298–99, especially n 4; a longer digression at Rosenstein "Sorting out the lot in republican Rome" inAm J Philol vol 116 (1995) p 52 n 32 (giving the story in Livy with some analysis).Ifly6 (talk)02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if it always shows up messed up but on my screen rome only control a bit in the north east of italy and carthage only controls some territory in spain, neither control their capital city? also some of the text is moved? i do not know how to fix this but the map does not work.Joanofarc565 (talk)23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
