Talk:Mosul Eyalet

Merge

Is it not better to merge this with Mosul Vilayet?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears Vilayet covers a period of 1879–1920, and Eyalet period of 1515-1517–1864. See for instance Ankara Eyalet vs. Ankara Vilayet. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no decision made yet. I'm only closing this request because I'm reopening it immediately below as a multi-move request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 12:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Mosul Eyalet → Eyalet of Mosul – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME

• "Mosul Eyalet" -Llc 2, but "Mosul, eyalet of"
• "Eyalet of Mosul" -Llc 5

-- Takabeg (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why? Typically at Wikipedia, administrative subdivsions are titled XXXX subdivision and not Subdivision of XXXX even though usage in sources might reflect both forms. (e.g., Governorates of Egypt, States of Nigeria, Domains of Japan, Counties of Iran). Even many of the Ottoman eyalet articles currently follow this format (see here). Considering the paucity of references using either of these terms (vs. "province", etc.), what's wrong with consistency in this case? Is there any reason this Ottoman subdivision should be treated differently? (Also cf. Mosul Vilayet) —  AjaxSmack  11:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Because, in most cases, "eyalet of XXX" is overwhelming "XXX eyalet". Although in this case, I cannot concern one of them as the "common name", we sometimes cannot find samples of "XXX eyalet". This approach reduces the risk of Wikipedia:No original research. Takabeg (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, all of the numbers are approaching zero. "Mosul Province" is more common than either. Terms such as "eyalet" or "province" are used haphazardly in sources and are, in the cases of these type articles, more descriptives than titles. As such, keeping the current title for consistency is a good enough reason. Oppose a move. —  AjaxSmack  11:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Most of "Province of Mosul" -Llc (381 results) and "Mosul Province" -Llc (389 results) are used with the meaning of Vilayet. Mosul Eyalet is original research. I don't understand why you prefer original research. Takabeg (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not OR; it's a descriptive. If a source says "There was once an eyalet in the Ottoman Empire called Mosul", it's not OR to create an article on that eyalet called "Mosul eyalet" simply because the two words do not appear adjacent to one another in the text. I think the online sourcing for all of these articles is very weak and slavish Google counting is a poor way to determine titles in such subject areas. The sample size is simply too small and raw Google counts of word order in questionable sources will yield little productive material. —  AjaxSmack  12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mosul Eyalet" in google scholar - 0　However obstinately you insist, it's unfounded. Takabeg (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What about outside of the world of Google? —  AjaxSmack  12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you find any sample for Mosul Eyalet ? Takabeg (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not asking to move the article and my position is not contingent on that argument anyway. To add, please note a couple of examples of similar cases here at Wikipedia:

1. Poland's administrative subdivisions are usually called "provinces" in English. At Wikipedia, however, the term voivodeship is used (for precision and other reasons) and all of the provinces are consistently titled XXXX Voivodeship. Individual Google searches were not used to determine each province's article title.
2. Iraq's administrative subdivisions are usually called "provinces" in English. At Wikipedia, however, the term governorate is used (for precision and other reasons) and all of the provinces are consistently titled XXXX Governorate. Individual Google searches were not used to determine each province's article title.

In these cases and many others, both common English usage and Google hits are subsumed to a rational, systematic approach to naming. I'm not a fan of consistency for consistency's sake but Wikipedia's article title naming criteria list "Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?". The format XXXX eyalet is both convenient for readers who see the placename first and creates fewer alphabetization and sorting problems. A miniscule number of Google hits aside, I just don't see any compelling reason why this individual case is different. —  AjaxSmack  14:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Multi-move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for a move, so articles can stay as they are. There hasn't been a comment on the issue for 17 days, so I doubt any more progress towards a consensus will be made at this time. I will do some redirects so the 'Eyalet of's all point to the appropriate article. fish&karate 09:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• Mosul Eyalet → Eyalet of Mosul
• Damascus Eyalet → Eyalet of Damascus
• Kars Eyalet → Eyalet of Kars
• Karaman Eyalet → Eyalet of Karaman
• Trebizond Eyalet → Eyalet of Trebizond
• Aleppo Eyalet → Eyalet of Aleppo
• Basra Eyalet → Eyalet of Basra
• Baghdad Eyalet → Eyalet of Baghdad
• Rûm Eyalet → Eyalet of Rum
• Anatolia Eyalet → Eyalet of Anatolia
• Bosnia Eyalet → Eyalet of Bosnia

– Please see the discussion immediately above. I am not taking any position regarding this move, but simply combining 11 identical requests into one multi-move request for convenience and consistency. I will also be notifying relevant WikiProjects. GTBacchus^(talk) 12:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• One argument was made in the previously separate discussions that was particular as opposed to general. From Talk:Rûm Eyalet:
  • I prefer moving the article to Eyalet of Sivas, since it was most commonly known by the name of Sivas.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

    I've copied it here now, and there it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Projects notified - I've notified all 5 WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page regarding this discussion: [1][2][3][4][5]. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME. I'm happy to go along with this move if it's in line with the names used by sources. Note that sources may cover different subjects in different ways. bobrayner (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. In English sources, "Eyalet" is used more as a descriptive than a title. Since the Google numbers for both the current forms and the proposed forms are so low, keeping the current title for consistency is a good enough reason not to move the articles. Note a couple of examples of similar cases here at Wikipedia:

1. Poland's administrative subdivisions are consistently titled XXXX Voivodeship. Individual Google searches were not used to determine each province's article title.
2. Iraq's administrative subdivisions are consistently titled XXXX Governorate. Individual Google searches were not used to determine each province's article title.

In these cases and many others, both common English usage and Google hits are subsumed to a rational, systematic approach to naming. I'm not a fan of consistency for consistency's sake but Wikipedia's article title naming criteria list "Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?". The format XXXX eyalet is both convenient for readers who see the placename first and creates fewer alphabetization and sorting problems. A miniscule number of Google hits aside, I just don't see any compelling reason why this individual case is different.

If a source says "There was once an eyalet in the Ottoman Empire called XXXX", Wikipedia has the latitude to create a descriptive article on that eyalet called "XXXX eyalet" even though the two words do not appear adjacent to one another in the text. I think the online sourcing for all of these articles is very weak and slavish Google counting is a poor way to determine titles in such subject areas. The sample size is simply too small and raw Google counts of word order in questionable sources will yield little productive material. (The above comments are copied and redacted from previous discussions.) —  AjaxSmack  14:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support and as stated before I think Rum/Sivas should be moved to "Eyalet of Sivas". It's also worth mentioning that the "eyalet of xyz" form is consistently the most common of the two.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose:Both ways are OK. But since the names of present provinces of Turkey are given as XXX Province and not as Province of XXX, XXX Eyalet seems more in accord with Wikipedia style. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. They are not the administrative units of Turkey, but the Ottoman Empire. The style Eyalet of X has been applied for Sanjak of X (Category:Sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire). Takabeg (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Explanation : The above remark is an example of misunderstanding. I didn't say Ottoman provinces are the administrative units of Turkey. I only wish to follow an established usage in Wikipedia. Unfortunatelly there is none in this respect. In some countries whwre the province and the capital city of the province have different names, the provinces are given by the name only; XXX (like Brazil ) . In some countries, the names of the provinces are presented in Province of XXX fashion (examples Italy and Spain) In some countries there are given just like Ottoman Provinces, ie XXX Province (examples People's Republic of China, Russia and Iran) So there is no established usage and the title of the present Ottoman provinces need not be moved at all. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.