Jump to content

Talk:Djamaa el Djazaïr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tallest building in Africa?[edit]

While this 2015 CTBUH article states that the new mosque would become the tallest building in Africa, currently it is listed as a minaret under construction (at 264 metre high) and is not included on their list of the tallest buildings in Africa. Although the entire mosque complex is over 50% usable space, there is no indication that the minaret is an occupied tower. As the CTBUH does not include minarets in its criteria for tallest buildings, this article should not list it as such either. Loopy30 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djamaa el Djazaïr

(
)
The Great Mosque of Algiers
The Great Mosque of Algiers

5x expanded by Jupitus Smart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • CGTN is RS for non-controversial assertions and the claim is inline cited. Five-times expanded and QPQ done. Image released as own work. NPOV and no obvious copyvio. Looks good. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

third largest mosque?[edit]

" third-largest mosque in the world after the Great Mosque of Mecca and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi of Medina in Saudi Arabia."

However, according to List of largest mosques, it is tenth by capacity and sixth by area. The mentioned Saudi Arabian mosques are #1 and #2 by capacity, and #4 and #3 by area. Largest by area and third by capacity is Imam Reza shrine (constructed nearly 1300 years ago), and is at least 5 times bigger in every aspect but the minaret. 193.210.201.116 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, the minaret part is true, but the third largest part was bogus. It is fixed + linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list you're referring to in full of nonsense. In case, you're wondering: this mosque covers an area of almost 28 hectares. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That list has square meters and that equals 280 000 m², which would get this already on spot #5. And, that list at least has most of it sourced. (There are two figures marked with [citation needed], and two sources marked with [better source needed]) 193.210.204.125 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Effort for Djamaa El Djazair[edit]

I'm trying to make this English version match up with the French counterpart article, which has more details on the "Architecture", "Geology", and "Management and Administration" sections. Jim856796 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jim856796
I have contributed to the French version, and I will take the time to expand the article here. It may take about a week for me to complete it. Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih Good to see somebody answering my call, because I hate seeing article-translation requests go unanswered for years. Is there anything you can see in this mosque's Arabic counterpart article that you can't see in the French counterpart? I translated the "Access" section of that French counterpart today, although I was not able to bring some icons for the Algiers Tramway and Metro that were being used on that French version onto the English version. Jim856796 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

@Jim856796: the French wikipedia is not an example to follow. Most of their articles contain random "stuff" (usually, as a result of the silly games between the neighbours' kiddies) that would never make it into ours. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton I thought we are supposed to expand this article section-by-section from the French counterpart article to improve its chances of getting Good Article (or even Featured Article) status. It is clear that your continued removal of that section, especially after the same two sources from that French version were added, is only going to undermine those efforts. I've already asked Riad Salih and Sizito to assist me in this effort, but neither of them have been willing to do it so far. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get that kind of assistance for these expansion-translation jobs? Jim856796 (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you thought that, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a bad idea (per the reasons that I cited above as well as the fact that we have enough sources to cover what we want without resorting to another wiki project). For instance, since you're interested in the structure of the Mosque and its ability to withstand an earthquake, then you're much better off reading reliable sources such as these,[1][2] than some cheap gossip that is reported by a journalist. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
M.BittonExpansion-translation efforts are not that bad of an idea. If you're active at the French Wikipedia as well, then why not alert their editors about that "nonsense"/"gossip" in the French counterpart article, and ask them why it's even accepted without problems on such foreign-language counterparts? If you're not going to aid me in this expansion-translation effort, you're better off leaving this article alone. Why do you keep removing that section as quickly as you did? I might as well insert a "Please do not revert this again" warning at this point, and/or seek a third opinion. This isn't the first time I ran into problems with an expansion-translation effort from the French Wikipedia (a similar effort for the article for Grand Palais in Paris has been stalled for literally years right now).Jim856796 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you're better off leaving this article alone I'm done wasting my time with you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim856796: this edit was reverted for a reason: as I explained in the edit summary, it's unsourced and badly written. Frankly, it's bordering on unintelligible. Reinstating it (while mentioning something else) and edit warring over it is very disruptive. When added to what you said above, the I'm not going to ask you again threats in you edit summaries and the fact that you're now also edit warring on someone's talk page, the whole thing amounts to what is way beyond what's acceptable. Please stop. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the French language article and agree it has some significant weight issues, particularly with the extended justification on the seismic design that reads like a PR piece meant to reassure the reader the structure is sound. A section-by-section transfer from the French article to here should not be performed. Please bear in mind that English language sources are preferred per WP:NONENG, as well. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this means this article will just never attain GA status (or anything beyond B class status. Also, WP:NONENG means exclusively English-language sources are going to be used in any expansion-translation efforts. For example, if a verifiable fact has several foreign-language sources but no English ones, that fact is going to be removed in a heartbeat, and could potentially be edit-warred over. If you're right, then I may have to stop this expansion-translation effort for good.:( Jim856796 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article modeled on its French-language cousin would not be of GA quality in this case, and obviously most GAs are not translations. That's not what WP:NONENG says nor is it what I said. This is a collaborative encyclopedia; resorting to melodramatic mischaracterizations isn't helpful. Just because something is a "verifiable fact" does not mean it belongs in the article; see WP:VNOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should This Expansion-Translation Effort Stop Altogether?[edit]

To any Wikipedia users not named M.Bitton and Skitash: Should we just cease this expansion-translation effort at this point? I feel like I should just give up and concede defeat because of the behavior of M.Bitton and Skitash indicated that their reversions of translated sections will continue, even if those sections come with sources. I really don't want to give up, but I'm just not going to deal with and be overpowered by users who engage with that kind of behavior.

I think the only fair solution at this point would be to just seek a third opinion from somebody else, especially one who'll get around to actually assisting me in this expansion translation effort, unlike you two. I'm not sure where to request such a third opinion, but I'm just deadlocked at this point. Jim856796 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called WP:Third opinion, however that is only applicable when there are exactly two editors involved in a content dispute, and a third is needed. Once there are already three editors involved, as is the case here, WP:3O is no longer an option. You could try enlisting the aid of members of one of the three WikiProjects listed at the top of this page, by means of a neutrally-worded feedback request at those projects' Talk pages. Finally, remember that French Wikipedia (and others) have their own rules, and their standards may not be up to ours (and their articles are often non-compliant even to those weaker standards). Translating from French Wikipedia is translating from a self-published source, therefore does not meet the definition of a reliable source. All translated content must meet the verifiability policy and other content guidelines of English Wikipedia. Put another way: just because something is perfectly acceptable at fr-wiki and follows all the rules there, does not guarantee acceptance of the translated equivalent at en-wiki, and often their articles don't follow their own rules anyway. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Djamaa_el_Djazaïr&oldid=1230120421"