Talk:Rûm Eyalet

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Rüm Province → Rum Province, Ottoman Empire – need for standard Ottoman subdivsion title format. See WP:RM page for similar requests. Sample: Bosnia Province, Ottoman Empire. See Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire for details of Ottoman subdivisions and Category:Provinces of the Ottoman Empire for list of pages. Also, Rum does not correctly carry a diaeresis (").

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose, except the removal of the diaeresis. Pointless pursuit of an unnecessary uniformity. If this disambiguated, it might be worth doing; but there is no need for a long name, which will usually require piping or redirection. Septentrionalis 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support both for adding "Ottoman Empire" and removing the diaeresis. --Quinlan Vos 11:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - stating Ottoman Empire places the province in time. LuiKhuntek 07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

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 at this time. This is a procedural close, because I'm combining this request with 9 substantially identical ones at Talk:Mosul Eyalet. See below for an automated link which should appear to that discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 12:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Rûm Eyalet → Eyalet of Rum – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME

• "Eyalet of Sivas" -Llc 19 (1923-2011, minimum) 7
• "Eyalet of Rum" -Llc 11 (1923-2011, minimum) 5, we must exclude eyalet of Rum-Ili, Rum-eli etc.
• "Rum Eyalet" -Llc 3 (-1)
• "Sivas Eyalet" -Llc 3 (-1)
• Ottoman + "Province of Rum" -Llc
• Ottoman "Rum Province" -Llc 7

I think that "Province of Rum" is also acceptable, because there was not "Vilayet of Rum". What do you think ?

-- Takabeg (talk) 09:10, 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. — why not Province of Rum?), what's wrong with consistency in this case? Is there any reason this Ottoman subdivision should be treated differently? —  AjaxSmack  11:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Because, in this case, "eyalet of XXX" is overwhelming "XXX eyalet". We sometimes cannot find samples of "XXX eyalet". This approach reduces the risk of Wikipedia:No original research. Rûm Eyalet is probably original research. Takabeg (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Rum Province"/"Province of Rum" are far more common than either the current or proposed title. If those aren't on the table than I oppose a move. Terms such as "eyalet" or "province" are used haphazardly in sources and are, in the cases of these type articles, more descriptives than titles. Since the numbers for both are so low, keeping the current title for consistency is a good enough reason. —  AjaxSmack  11:41, 10 September 2011]

Anyway Rûm Eyalet is original research. I don't understand why you prefer original research. Takabeg (talk) 12:05, 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 Rum", it's not OR to create an article on that eyalet called "Rum 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  12:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you find any samples for Rûm Eyalet ? Takabeg (talk) 12:43, 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  14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mosul Eyalet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)