The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when surrounded at the Battle of Oroscopa Carthaginian troops killed their horses and burnt their wooden shields to cook them?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
It is requested that a map or maps, showing the battle location in the infobox, be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Tunisia may be able to help!
B class review
B class. I added this battle to the Third Punic War infobox. Djmaschek (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Punic wars template
Why not add this template to the article? Hanberke (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because in my opinion it doesn't belong there. This battle was not a part of any of the Punic Wars, taking place in 151 BC, 50 years after the end of the Second, and 2 before the start of the Third. As it is often considered the spark which caused the start of the Third Punic War, I can just about see the logic for including it there. Grudgingly. But if we include the template for the whole series of wars we would, IMO, be stretching too far, and setting a bad precedent. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: In general, a navbox should be included in every article which it links to, and this navbox does include this battle. —Compassionate727(T·C) 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I have boldly removed Battle of Oroscopa from the template. It is no part of any of the Punic Wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the ludicrously late response. I was going to drop the issue at first, but I find that I still disagree with you about excluding this. I don't find the argument about it occurring two years before the first battle involving Rome particularly compelling; based on my reading of this article, Rome began preparing to invade shortly after this incident occurred, and the fact that it took several years for the invasion force to be ready is not particularly significant, especially given the era. (Of course, you are the one who read all the historians; if you disagree with that understanding of the events, I'll defer to you.) More significantly, though, navboxes exist to enable readers to easily find other articles that interest them, and I think it is safe to assume that regardless of whether or not this battle is actually part of the war (which I do think is debatable), people interested in this battle are likely to be interested in the war's other battles, and therefore the navbox is appropriate. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Compassionate727 and thanks for the input. It has always seemed to me that it does not matter what you nor I nor any other editor believe or consider to be logical, what matters is what the sources say. Without doing a detailed check I can remember no source which states that Oroscopa was part of the Third Punic War. If you have RSs which state differently I am entirely open to being persuaded. It seems to me that telling readers something via a template should meet the same basic criterion as anything else we communicate to them. I don't see that templates not having to be formally cited excuses us from this, and I would go as far as to suggest that how the template was before was positively misleading to readers. All of that said, the content of templates is not something I feel terribly strongly about, I am just trying to explain my view, as queried at the head of this thread - why?
On a not completely unrelated note, I do like having my views and preconceptions challenged, so if you would like to make any input into my latest featured article candidate it would be most welcome. It is Second Punic War. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: That's a good argument. However, I'm not convinced that including the Battle of Oroscopa in the Punic Wars navbox would be saying that it was part of the Third Punic War, either, just that it was related to it (which undoubtedly is). That said, I understand why you are concerned about it. Would you like me to start an RfC?
As for the FAC, I've never reviewed one before and don't believe I have the writing skills necessary to be qualified. But if you really want me to, I can take a look at it. —Compassionate727(T·C) 13:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compassionate727, I also see your point. Let's try to avoid going binary over this. How would you feel about introducing a new line between 2PW and 3PW reading "Interbellum: Numidian clashes • Oroscopa" or similar? Note that I did something similar in Punic Wars when I rewrote it for GAN. Pinging Hanberke, who raised the initial query.
Re the FAC. I am also a FAC coordinator and I try to encourage editors who can read an article critically but sympathetically to contribute to the process there. Which has a reasonable supply of reviewers who can check an article for prose and MoS adherence, but is less blessed with those who can poke at such things as internal consistency, accuracy, adherence to sources, over or under stress of certain areas etc. Note that comments can be as brief and as focused as you wish, do not need to address all of the FAC criteria and do not necessarily need to result in a support or oppose. Go on - stick a toe in the water ! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
