Talk:Punic

This is an article that is desegnated for the decision of merging Punic and Punics into one site.

Personally, I, the author of Punics, am all for the merging of the 2 sites. The site Punic doesn't have much information and merging my site with it might better it's value as a resource. MDCorcoran

Is the subject here Punic colonies in the Western Mediterranean? --Wetman 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons for not merging the two pages, chief among them the fact that "Punics" is not an ethnic name that is used in English. "Phoenicians" refers to the people(s) of Phoenicia and their colonies and "Carthaginians" is reserved for people of Phoenician descent in north Africa, especially in reference to Carthage. "Punic" is often an adjectival synonym for "Carthaginian" or refers to the Phoenician language as it is found in North Africa. In any case, no one would look for information about Phoenicia or the Phoencians under the heading "Punic".

It would be a mistake.

131.123.177.30 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. this merge proposal is a very bad idea for so many reasons one could write a doctoral dissertation describing the reasons! Firstly these are not the same topics. Phoenicia is a people and empire based in the Middle East (e g Lebanon vicinity), whereas Punics are Carthaginians. Granted the Carthaginians came originally from phoenician stock, but Carthage has its own separate culture and heritage. Beyond this the mechanics of such a merge would be a nightmare. Both articles are highly evolved and detailed so that merging would be very cumbersome. Besides that, both articles are huge in scope and have much further to evolve. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]