Talk:French protectorate of Tunisia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French protectorate of Tunisia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tunisia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

French Protectorate of Tunisia

NO TO PREEMPTIVE TITLE CHANGE.

A definite and strong objection to the title change is made. Given the fact that the change was apparently executed without adequate prior notice, e.g., without a sufficient request for prior discussion or input from prior contributors, the title change to the article appears to be a drastic step. A more moderate and accomodating approach would acknowledge at least pro forma the pre-existing merits of the status quo ante, and seek to come to some prior understanding of purpose and intent before taking such a step.

Also there now exists the suggestion to merge the French-era article with another article of a name nearly identical to the "new title" so executed (F p of T and F P of T). The addition of this double nature makes the title change more problematic. Of course, it also makes the title change very confusing. The long-term pre-existing title of History of French era Tunisia is clearly better in this regard.

Thus, the title change as executed should be reversed. Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this over from the Discussion at the challenged article History of French era Tunisia. Elfelix (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO TO SUGGESTED MERGER.

The article French Protectorate of Tunisia has a different perspective. This article has been written within the last several months and, although only quickly appraised for this discussion here, it appears to be well done. But it takes a different look at Tunisia than that employed, and to be employed, in the French era Tunisia article. Hence, both articles should exist side by side, each to complement the other handsomely. Numerous interior linkages and a "See also" reference should be made. Perhaps also, a "Main Article" flag might be inserted someplace in the French-era Tunisia article, pointing the reader to the French Protectorate of Tunisia article.

Please note: much preparatory work and research for filling out outline of the History of French-era Tunisia has been made, underway for some months. It will begin to be presented in November. Until that time, any such merger will be preemptive, over-reaching, and premature.

As is well known, across the board in Wikipedia with regard to a particular historical subject, there exists several articles which present different views of more or less similar topics. Here as well. Perhaps in the distant future, maybe a little as ten or twenty years down the road, there will naturally emerge a marriage of heterogeneous articles about similar topics. On the other hand, many mature editors may come to realize that in many cases forcing a merger will work only a detrimental result to the merits inherent to different articles on similar topics. Instead, thorough and adequat cross-referencing may prove to be the better solution than an artificial merger. Such decisions will likely be made on a case by case basis. Yet to try to snuff out an neighboring article in midst of demonstrated planning, off-site drafts, and research, is premature.

Such efforts in embryo should be given adequate time to grow, especially when of two articles each expresses a legitimate yet different point of view, of such a depth and subtlety that to merge the two them would be reductionist. A merger would diminish the ability of the reader to view for herself the historical phenomena from multiple perspectives. Merely the fact that the writing of a late-starting article has momentarilly overtaken in length that of an earlier-started one, does not give license for a article "merger". Wikipedia was meant, as I understand it, to look to the long term benefit of everyone and every acceptable view. One of the great benefits of Wikipedia is its rich, textual diversity.

The History of French-era Tunisia is part of a multi-article series on the History of Tunisia. For the period in question it will reference the antecedents. The newer article entitled the French Protectorate of Tunisia is a most welcome addition. It provides an independent and a different (no doubt at points divergent) perspective on the French period in Tunisia. The Wikipedia reader will be enriched and rewarded by having the parallax views available! Wikipedia is a celebration of divergent interests. To attempt a forced harmonization of competing views by some kind of potentially bloody merger, before they at least each enjoy the opportunity to naturally develope, is not advisable.

To such a merger: a definite no! Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this over from the Discussion at the challenged article History of French era Tunisia. Elfelix (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Protectorate of Tunisia → French protectorate of Tunisia — If the term "protectorate of Tunisia" is not a proper noun, as I don't believe it is, then the title should not be capitalised. There are also move requests—just to make sure we've got the best possible titles—at Talk:French occupation of Tunisia#Requested_move and Talk:History of French-era Tunisia#Requested_move. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose. Does appear to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Howso? Most publications do not appear to capitalise (source: GoogleBooks search). What is your source? Srnec (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. I've just done a GBook search and most publications listed do seem to capitalise it! If it was the official name of the territory then it should most certainly be capitalised. That's what needs to be established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8 out of the 10 first hits for me do not capitalise (after searching for "French Protectorate of Tunisia"). I don't see why "French Protectorate of Tunisia" would be its official name. Protectorates aren't usually like that. Srnec (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. But see below for additional comments.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think it's better to merge both articles (French Protectorate of Tunisia and History of French-era Tunisia) into a single article named French protectorate of Tunisia, as these names are two ways to name the same thing. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

REQUEST FOR INFO Could someone more knowledgeable insert info on the 'April 9th 1938 events' also known as the National Martyrs’ Day? I understand this was a nationalist demonstration against French rule, still commemorated.--Martin852 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Carthage merge

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French protectorate of Tunisia → French Protectorate of Tunisia – No obvious reason not to have the capitalise the official name of the territory and the page was moved apparently despite no obvious consensus in 2011. The current format is already in use at French Protectorate in Morocco and can form the basis for a proper future move discussion if desired. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: As the subject of a previous move discussion, this does not qualify as an uncontroversial technical request. Station1 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Morocco article has it capitalised but French protectorate of Cambodia and French protectorate of Laos both match this article. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I said in the RM above. Does appear to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why think that this was the official name? French WP does not treat it that way. There are loads of Google results for "French protectorate over/in Tunisia". The protected state itself was called the Beylik/Beylicate of Tunis(ia). (Not sure if that was an official name either.) Finally, "French Protectorate in Morocco" is obviously not an exact parallel and should perhaps be de-capitalized itself. Srnec (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The French language does not capitalise in quite the same way as English does, so the capitalisation in French Wikipedia is not terribly relevant, and nor is the official name. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without additional evidence that this is indeed a proper name. Google Ngrams (with 'the' prepended to exclude titles) seems to be almost evenly split, as does a quick spot-check of sources. CThomas³ (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my reasoning for opposing without evidence of proper name is MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, whose first sentence (in bold) says do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. CThomas³ (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Best to capitalise. Capitalisation helps to identify this exact subject, and there is no reason not to do so. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per reasons and evidence of Cthomas3. I am not seeing any evidence to support caps, just supposition. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.