This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Palmyra#Ottoman and later periods|Tadmur]] The anchor (#Ottoman and later periods) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
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)reply
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.
Damascus Governorate) —
AjaxSmack11:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Frankly, all of the numbers are very low and "Damascus Province" is more common than any choices listed above. 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. —
AjaxSmack11:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Please note a couple of examples of similar cases here at Wikipedia:
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.
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 these individual cases are different. —
AjaxSmack14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
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.
But "Sanjak of Jerusalem" is redirected to "
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem" (1872–1917), so final 19th and early 20th century, nothing to do with "the 17th century". That redirect is clearly misleading the user. Where is the data on the 17th-century district containing Jerusalem? I have checked the other listed sanjaks, and this one is the only clearly wrong one.
Arminden (
talk)
12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It isn't a wrong redirect. The problem is that the article it points to needs more history of the period before the 1872 change of status.
Onceinawhile can probably help.
Zerotalk12:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Exactly. We have
Jerusalem,
History of Jerusalem, and
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem; none offers useful information about the Ottoman administrative units containing Jerusalem between 1516 and 1872. It was apparently ruled from Damascus most if not all of the time, but there must have been some lower-level administrative unit run by a Jerusalem-based official. It probably was a sanjak, but name, territory and maybe even the capital probably changed repeatedly during the 3.5 missing centuries.
Al Ameer son might know more. Britannica doesn't seem concerned either, everybody only focuses on the more dynamic late 19th century.
Arminden (
talk)
13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I have commented there. For what it is worth, I don't believe there was ever a sanjak of Jerusalem; that was simply an alternate name for the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Palmyra#Ottoman and later periods|Tadmur]] The anchor (#Ottoman and later periods) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
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)reply
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.
Damascus Governorate) —
AjaxSmack11:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Frankly, all of the numbers are very low and "Damascus Province" is more common than any choices listed above. 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. —
AjaxSmack11:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Please note a couple of examples of similar cases here at Wikipedia:
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.
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 these individual cases are different. —
AjaxSmack14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)reply
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.
But "Sanjak of Jerusalem" is redirected to "
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem" (1872–1917), so final 19th and early 20th century, nothing to do with "the 17th century". That redirect is clearly misleading the user. Where is the data on the 17th-century district containing Jerusalem? I have checked the other listed sanjaks, and this one is the only clearly wrong one.
Arminden (
talk)
12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It isn't a wrong redirect. The problem is that the article it points to needs more history of the period before the 1872 change of status.
Onceinawhile can probably help.
Zerotalk12:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Exactly. We have
Jerusalem,
History of Jerusalem, and
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem; none offers useful information about the Ottoman administrative units containing Jerusalem between 1516 and 1872. It was apparently ruled from Damascus most if not all of the time, but there must have been some lower-level administrative unit run by a Jerusalem-based official. It probably was a sanjak, but name, territory and maybe even the capital probably changed repeatedly during the 3.5 missing centuries.
Al Ameer son might know more. Britannica doesn't seem concerned either, everybody only focuses on the more dynamic late 19th century.
Arminden (
talk)
13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I have commented there. For what it is worth, I don't believe there was ever a sanjak of Jerusalem; that was simply an alternate name for the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply