Talk:Gafsa

The disappearing dot

I came to this article hoping to find a map with Gafsa on it and sure enough, there was one at the top of the page, the town in question was shown with a red dot. So I thought I would click on it and see an enlarged version, which I did; when I went to said map, there was an outline of Tunisia, but of Gafsa, there was no sign!

I would therefore ask, what is the point of having a map that does not show the subject of the article?!
This page is not alone, I've come across many others in the same state; why bother to have a map which does not show any detail?

RASAM (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@RASAM: If you're concerned about this as a general problem then I suggest discussing this at the template talk page Template talk:Infobox settlement. If you're interested in finding a map, just click on the coordinates underneath the map, and you'll link to multiple different maps showing the location. Klbrain (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gafsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035422/http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24451&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer to http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24451&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515010916/http://www.asmgafsa.org.tn/historique.htm to http://www.asmgafsa.org.tn/historique.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Capsa (Roman colonia) to Gafsa

Alerting Onel5969 and GermAngle. Capsa seems to be the earlier name for Gafsa, in which case Capsa (Roman colonia) should redirect to a section in Gafsa, such as Gafsa#Ancient history or Gafsa#In Roman times. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - clearly Capsa is one of the historical names for the current Gafsa. It would be one thing if the Gafsa article was long enough to warrant a split as per WP:SPLIT (similar to the "History of" articles we see in many city articles, e.g. History of Phoenix, Arizona), but it's not. Even then, the article's name should be "History of Gafsa", and this material included there. But as of right now, there simply is no rationale for splitting this info from the Gafsa article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep separated and not merge. Same reasons that apply to have two articles on Thysdrus and El Djem -and many others, as pinpointed by another wikipedian- are those that support my opinion. Anyway, I am adding more data to the article Capsa (roman colonia), because during roman times it has had an importance similar to the nearby Thysdrus and as a colony of veterans from central Italy it was a center of romance African language (and, in a minor level, of Christianity).--GermAngle (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - And none of those are valid rationales for keeping 2 separate articles, when the historical article can be merged into the target. Nicely done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support for the merge, given that there is already significant overlap between the articles and both articles accept the historical continuity. The differences between Thysdrus and El Djem is that they are 'nearby' rather than being recognised as in the same location; Gafsa and Capsa are also not of the same importance as Rome and Ancient Rome, so don't thereby need separate pages. Klbrain (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)