Talk:Punic Wars

Punic Wars is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Punic Wars has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Punic Wars is the main article in the Punic Wars series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 28, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
October 25, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted
December 28, 2022	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 16, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first of the Punic Wars* began in 264 BC, and the third and last ended 118 years later?*
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Military history: Maritime / Classical

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Tunisia Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Top-importance).

Spain High‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Phoenicia High‑importance

	Phoenicia portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of First Punic War was copied or moved into Punic Wars with this edit on 13:46 20 July 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Typo

Hi,

I think in the introduction in "The First Punic War officially came to an END in 241 BC.", END is missing.

Thanks.

Did you know nomination

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) 06:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the first of the Punic Wars began in 264 BC and the third and last ended in 146 BC, 118 years later? Source: Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006). The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-304-36642-2, p. 12.

Reviewed: Battle of Fakhkh

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 22:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Great hook for an important article. Article is new enough (GA promotion 9/28), long enough, and well written with appropriate citations. No copyvio/paraphrasing violations per earwig. Hook short enough, interesting (I would click on it), accurate, and appropriately sourced. Offline book sourcing accepted in good faith (and also confirmed by Britannica here). QPQ complete. Cbl62 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punic = Phoenician

Punic = Phoenician in Latin 185.76.176.222 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, or almost, which is why the article includes "The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of detail on the corvus

See FAC discussion.

I have added detail about the corvus to a couple of the events in which it featured: "The Carthaginians superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped, while the Romans' corvus gave them an edge as the battle degenerated into a shapeless brawl ... It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of them being used again." (The later referring to the storm off Camarina.)

Which means the article includes:

"To counter this, the Romans introduced the corvus, a bridge 1.2 metres (4 feet) wide and 11 metres (36 feet) long, with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck. This allowed Roman legionaries acting as marines to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming ... The Roman adaptation of the corvus was a continuation of this trend and compensated for their initial disadvantage in ship-manoeuvring skills. The added weight in the prow compromised both the ship's manoeuvrability and its seaworthiness, and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless; part way through the First Punic War the Romans ceased using it ... The Romans built a navy to challenge Carthage's,[81] and using the corvus inflicted a major defeat at the battle of Mylae in 260 BC ... The Carthaginians superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped, while the Romans' corvus gave them an edge as the battle degenerated into a shapeless brawl ... It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of them being used again." Plus an image.

This seems balanced and proportional in an article covering all three wars. Actually, I think it may be a little over the top. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect date of signing of peace treaty

Resolved

– Jbellessa87 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the introduction incorrectly states that the official peace treaty was signed April 18th, 2023, which is the day the cited source was retrieved. The correct date, per the source, is February 5th, 1985.

I'm mentioning this here as I do not have permissions to edit the article itself.

For posterity's sake, I'll mention I was brought to the article after seeing https://twitter.com/Trey_Explainer/status/1648177549887799296, which I suspect is what also brought Foxterria (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbellessa87 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbellessa87: Good catch; not sure if the main author, Gog the Mild, intends to keep the sentence at all, but I've corrected the date in case he does. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Thank you! Jbellessa87 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aologies, I have not been watchlisting this. It's not in the article, so shouldn't be in the lead. If it were in the article - which I doubt, as it is trivia - it is still not significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. (Note that it does, just, make the cut in Third Punic War. The article, not the lead.) So I am reverting it and watchlisting for further discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]