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  scope_creep Talk  11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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?


 * - Not yet.
 * - No idea what this is about.
 * - Done
 * - Done
 * - Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 ? 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)
 * ✅ 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.  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)
 * 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)
 * 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) ,
 * The Igawawen flag has been done and checked off.    scope_creep Talk  09:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ ok this is me not worrying about it then Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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: 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)


 * 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? might know how the procedures work, or  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 Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ 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)

doneElinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 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.✅ checked and agree Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * btw Elin what do you think about these two banners. ? 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)

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 . 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)
 * 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)
 * OK so this is a link to the current image, which has been matched up to the original, it looks like:
 * 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.

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. 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)
 * Is that image on 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 . Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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: (Middle right)(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 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)

✅ 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. 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)


 * 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) 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 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 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  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_creep eTalk  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. 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)
 * 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. do you have an opinion about this? Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ 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 to fill in the vacated space. R Prazeres (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 '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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) 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)


 * ✅ 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
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.
 * 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?
 * 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:
 * I need more information; do not see the problem here Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * this is the part I need more information about. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * not understanding this one either Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it has been moved. Ignore this.   scope_creep Talk  15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ happy to ignore this Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) ✅ 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, 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
*

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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * What images from Sotheby?   scope_creep Talk  16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * did you ever ask ? I am also of the opinion that we can assume that a holding of the British Museum is attested to. Just not sure about seaside pirate museums and the like. And I also think that the article has too many pictures of sea battles, but likes naval battles, and it is certainly true that this is a significant theme in the history. In other words it is not really the case that we desperately need the two paintings attributed to schools, and as far as I am concerned this is academic and I just want to know how many images I am trying to fix the layout for in the section. They are both in a multiimage template so it is not a showstopper. Elinruby (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at the time. Nour left a message saying you were doing the images. I would assume if they come from the British Museum they are good. If the image is taken by a private individual at a auction for example, the source attribution is valid and there is a valid PD tag, then it will be good to use. If the source attribution is missing or damaged, and can't be traced back then I'd say remove remove it. There are looking for completeness and correctness of process as well as suitability of the image within the paragraph context. I've seen images taken out in the past, because the subject is only tangenitally linked. It may be a case that the image is what you would consider perfect, but for various reasons, new folk reading the text, they want something different, so its hard to tell. On the naval battles, if the context mentions it, then it may be suitable, but certainly if there is too many of them, it will get some of them pulled, certainly. Its not a naval battle article. Only if the battle was particularly special, i.e. a turning point in history, a major figured ransomed, a change in government or leader, major economic, military or political change would you want to see them. Certainly a 1 to several at the beginning of the article, even a series, because it was pirate civilization. There is dozens to hundreds of naval battles not mentioned so that is the core context, but not overkill. Balance is needed.   scope_creep Talk  17:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * not sure what he meant by "doing" the images". The part that I just now said was done was trying to get to a reasonable layout from the last image shuffle One issue *I* have is that I would like the image of a man on a horse in the tribal aristocracy section to be about 50% bigger.
 * You did not answer the question about whether your issue with the legend of the map his fixed Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 18 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 Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Found additional sources on arts and crafts :
 * : Art Antique et Art Musulman en Algérie par A. BERQUE
 * : L'art en Algérie de Georges Marçais Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

hey if we we are going to cover the De Comères family at all I think there was a batch of images in the architecture section taken on a Wiki Loves Manuments photowalk from one of their private homes. A museum now? But it would be worth having a little bio stub to link to. There are also several French writers just after the occupation. What should we write? I think at least two of them were semi-famous, no? Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ok so this is the reference for the German book? Elinruby (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby you speak of the Divan members image ? this is the link for commons where you can find the ref for the german book. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * extensive article at Louis Bro the grandfather, a military official, many linked articles at French Wikipedia. It defies summary really Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * also: Georges Marçais certainly seems like a notable artist. Elinruby (talk)
 * Berque source also good, contains discussion of water supply systems with for Roman baths. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Final copyedit
I have an in use template on the page and will do a big push on this tonight. This will take a while given the new source verification problems. I hasten to add that none of these problems seem to be substantive or affect meaning, and that they all revolve around the distinctions between a paraphrase, an indirect quote and a direct quote.

I will take the template off if I go to bed before I finish. I will also compose a short tutorial on the use of quotation marks sometime soon. I have seen this problem in other articles originally written by speakers of scripted languages, but the goal there was not to get the article to featured status. Nour, I really apologize for explicitly calling this out, but the problems have persisted despite gentle hints. You really need to learn what is a quote and ask any questions that you may have. Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PS If anyone who is not a native English speaker notices a problem or sees me making a mistake, please say so on the talk page. I promise to respond and take action as soon as I see the post. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

regarding the infobox
Has anyone taken a good look at it lately? I have not gone through it much at all, but I just noticed that Baba Mohammed, Uthman wth the long long cannon (see image), is not listed there. We do devote a lot of space to him in the article, so that seems surprising. I am not especially versed in infobox requirements and really don't want to study them, but does the infobox reflect the body of the article, I ask cautiously?

Even more cautiously I ask if the matter of the legend size of the map in the infobox was ever settled.

peux tu, comme on dit, verifier the stuff going on in the infobox? I was sort of struck by the fact that Titteri is mentioned there also, but not all that much as I recall in the body. I am definitely not going to be working in there anytime tonight or tomorrow if you want to tackle that, Nour, plus there is no question that you have a better overall grasp of the chronology. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the last I heard on this was no, and that Scope said it should be about 75% of its current size. The matter of the label for the Sahara Desert is resolved, however, yes? Btw, I have afaik deleted or had deleted all of versions of the map that had more than one label.

I do understand that there is a border dispute between Morocco and the Western Sahara. Is uncertainty about that the issue here? Would it alleviate anyone's concerns if we cropped the left-hand side of the map to to remove the Atlantic coastline? Then we don't have to parse bioregions or look up conflict status either, as a bonus, and we can let the people who are arguing about the Western Sahara do so in ... whatever. LMk.


 * The other possibility that just occurred to me -- let me start by stressing that the proposal is to make a copy as many versions back as possible then do the following edits, leaving the current version untouched -- but I was thinking, if the problem is the aspect ratio once you start cropping, you could also move the legend into the caption, couldn't you? Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby I might reply to you tomorrow, I’m at work Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * no rush. I just want to know if/when it can be called done Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

re the lede
We also fail to mention Baba Uthman Mohammed in the lede. Does any have an objection to making the part about the wars a compound sentence along with the long period of prosperity? Please nobody rewrite anything in the lede. But taking wording suggestions here.

Lede is done except for just one question
Per the above I added Baba Mohammed to the infobox and lede. I made some other minor changes also. The question relates to holy war. The question is whether "European powers" should be rewritten to say "European nations and other powers such as the Vatican and Knights of Malta"? Do we talk enough about the Knights of Malta Elinruby (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So thats where Knights Hospitaller ended up. Read a book about this castle designer who spent I think 40 years fortyfying their castle on Rhodes. The ingenuity of the man for killing was unbelievable. The Vatican is a nation and during that period was extremely powerful, like now and was present. I wouldn't seperate it out.    scope_creep Talk  17:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Ok but the Knights of Malta were not, and there is actually a whole theme about holy war that used to be overemphasized and now seems to be gone altogether. I think that the point that Algiers was not the only entity that felts that there was holy war to be waged is kind of important. I think may be a short sentence should go in there, or another clause in the sentence about holy war. Apart from maybe that, are we missing anything else important thought? The constitution maybe? Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we did a bit of comparison between the Maltese knights and Algiers in the political status section. Do you want an emphasis on how both entities understood and implemented the concept of Holy war ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am overestimating the extent to which the idea of holy war is shocking to an English speaker. I simply think that if the lede is going to discuss holy war it should do so in a balanced way, and there were multiple military forces waging holy war at the time, no? On the other hand, it *is* the lede and the main place we get into that in the article is with the knights of Malta, right? So I was thinking about half a sentence, maybe saying that the Regency joyfully participated in the international religious wars of the period, that would do it. Open to suggestions.
 * Also: shouldn't Ali Bitchin be in the lede maybe? Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

With respect to layout
I think I have gotten away from the problem we had in a couple of places of a multiimage template at the bottom of e section being right on top of a multiimage template at the top of the next section. Does anyone have any issues with the current image layout? I am not asking about particular images right now, or alts or captions, oe anything but whether there are problems with images overlapping or whatever anywhere in the article.

Comment? Remember we are being told that single images go to the right and multiimage templates get centered. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

no more complaints about how long this is taking until y'all start answering these y/n "is this done" questions

 * Tonight I am going to try to do something with the images at History of the Regency of Algiers, which are pretty random. If I have time I will try to finish the 17th century in this article Elinruby (talk)


 * Speaking of: Is anyone looking at the infobox?
 * I also noticed that although Titteri is listed the Kingdom of Kuku is not, and wasn't Kuku at least an ally at one point? What's the scope of that list? places that were at some point occupied by Algiers? Dramatis Personae?. Same question applies to the rules and deputies fields. We're definitely not including everything there, can someone check what we are including or not? I know they were going through deys fast at one point, but shouldn't we at least try to get the important ones in. And given the scope of that deputies probably should at most include people like Salah Reis and Simon Danza.


 * Is everyone happy with the map in the infobox Y/N
 * No. Still not keen on it, because of the missing components and labels that actually make it a map. Its missing even the basic map scale bar. The reader can't even how big it is, for example. Take a look at . The minimum is 6 components, generally for a map. Its needs the scale bar added, and the oceans/sea and other countries labelled at the minumum.   scope_creep Talk  15:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Is the concern about insufficient attention to sea power in the lede addressed? Y/N


 * What year was it when an onion was worth more than a slave? Did that get taken out? Y/N
 * Yes but its in the history article I looked at the source. It states, at that point in the time, the onion was more valuable than the slave and no other information provided. It is essentially valid. Ignore this please.   scope_creep Talk  15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Should the Knights of Malta be mentioned in the lede in the context of holy war? Y/N


 * Does our expected audience understand privateers? Y/N
 * Yes, because it is linking privateers in the lede. It can't be clearer. A quick search of privateers turns up the definition at US Naval Institute Naval History Command which links back to the privateer article. Ignore this please.    scope_creep Talk  15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Baba Mohammed has been added to lede and infobox OK? Y/N
 * Yes. He was a Dey and in-charge of the government so perfectly reasonable to be in the infobox.   scope_creep Talk  15:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * mentioning influx to Melilla from Grenada as intro to presidios makes sense Y/N Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - Oh alright, the image changes seemed a bit strange for me in that article
 * - Infobox looks good for me
 * - Lede: Another ce maybe needed there, also we may need to add a word that links the political stabilty of Algiers with the propserity of Algiers under Muhammad ben Osman.
 * - Yes it's been adressed
 * - Not necessarly, this should be adressed in the body.
 * - I beleive yes...I think Panzac's quote in the Foreign relations section makes it clear enough.
 * - Yes
 * - Yes, post-Reconquista period is important to understand the foundation of the Regency
 * Speaking of Kuku, it was Allied with Arouj, enemy with Hayredd in, enemy with Hasan Agha, Allied with Hasan Pasha, Salah Rais, and the rest of the Beylerbeys. Kuku was important during the Barbarossa period and was mentionned during Algerian campaigns against Morocco. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC) the
 * It seems like some items might be missing because I can't quite find the answer about an onion. I agree about Baba Mohammed and will try to make that happen. I am otherwise hearing that is happy with the lede and thinks we should leave Knights of Malta to the body, which was the other outstanding question about the lede. I am a bit confused about the answer about Kuku -- ok, they were allies and enemies at different times, ok. Would this not make them at least as important as Titteri? I have absolutely no dog in this fight, as they say, however. I am just the annoying editor who keeps asking questions. If someone can explain to me in ten words or less why Titteri is in the infobox but kuku is not then I will be delighted to move on. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kuku officially ended in the early 17th century due to an Algerian expedition and internal squabbling among local leaders of Kuku.
 * Titeri is in the infobox because its governor organised a local resistance against the French army after the city of Algiers fell in 1830. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, you explained it. The explanation doesn't make any sense, but I will take that as a request to move on for now. We can come back to the infobox later Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Auction sites
Is this a case in point? File:Bombardement of Algiers 1784.webp

We are also still using the file from Sotheby's Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

might be an anthology
removed but preserving link to famous atlas, may just be a bibilographic mislabelling (see also talk page at history of the regency of Algiers) Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)