This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trebizond vilayet article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
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
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 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.
The common name is Trabzon. Please see the parallel between Peking and Beijing. We use the common name in English (Beijing and Trabzon) even some other name was also used in the past.
Ordtoy (
talk)
01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Evidence can be found in that Wikipedia uses
Trabzon for the name of the city. Trebizond is no longer used in English, long ago having been supplanted by Trabzon. If we chhange to Trebizond here then
Trabzon should also surely change. As I indicated above, Beijing/Peking is the parallel. In the past, Peking was the English name, but the current English name has supplanted it and Beijing is used throughout Wikipedia for references to both the modern and the historical city. The change to Trebizond is part of what I believe to be a very misguided belief that these names should have 'Engnlish' spellings. See Gumushkhane-Gümüşhane and Kersun-Giresun in this very article. Gumushkhane is a rarely used alternative and Kersun is outright incorrect. The result is that we have two names throughout Wikipedia for each of these locations: a Turkish spelling and an antiquated spelling and this helps no one when it comes to using this resource.
Ordtoy (
talk)
12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I also meant to add that if you search Google books for "Trabzon Vilayeti" you get many English results (185 although some are in fact in Turkish). Moreover, "Trabzon province" (since vilayet means province) returns many results about the Ottoman province when you include the Ottoman keyword. Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations.
Ordtoy (
talk)
12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. First of all, please stop moving this page, both of you. Any more page moves, and I'm going to have the page move-protected. When there's a conflict, we mustn't move-war over it; it fills the page history with back-and-forth junk. The correct thing to do now is to get more input from more editors, and then move the page once and for all.
I'm going to leave notes at some relevant WikiProjects, and we'll see what others have to say. Until then, please leave the page where it is. That means that even if the other guy moves it don't move it back. We need to leave it alone until we arrive at a consensus, which is clearly not going to happen between the two of you. Okay? -
GTBacchus(
talk)17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: We do not have to have absolutely consistent naming between different historical & geographical articles, because names change over time. Obviously, that' the problem here; the place has been called "trebizond" or "trabzon" to varying extents at different times so there is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. Specifically, the title of an article on a historic subject should reflect the names used in sources about that historical subject, not sources about a different-but-related subject in the present day. So, what name do sources use for the vilayet itself? I believe Trebizond is more common, after a quick search of historical journals...
bobrayner (
talk)
18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think that Bobrayner is right here. There is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. There are lot of administrative districts of the Ottoman Empire which do not have the same name as current day city (i.e.
Sanjak of Scutari and
Shkodër,
Janina Vilayet and
Ioannina..).--
Antidiskriminator (
talk)
20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I entirely agree that certain places deserve to have changed names due to historical changes: Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is an excellent example as the names reflect actual historical changes. It also makes sense for the examples of Scutari and Shkodër since the place name actually changed from Ottoman to Albanian. However, I don't see the rationale in this case. I haven't seen much elsewhere on Wikipedia where an archaic English spelling for a place (especially one which is not particularly well-known in English) is preferred over the modern form of the same name. It raises questions: at which exact date do all Wikipedia articles need to switch from Trebizond to the new English spelling? Do all references to the city prior to this date in all articles need to change to Trebizond? What do we benefit by maintaining two separate names for instances such as this and will this advantage mitigate the lack of consistency across articles which are referring to the same place? Why isn't using archaic spellings practiced for other geographic regions in Wikipedia? Peking->Beijing is my earlier example, but there are more: do we need to switch between Muslim to Moslem? Kurdistan and Koordistan? Tbilisi (278 hits for 19th-century books) and Tiflis (119,000 hits for 19th-century books)? Tokyo and Tokio (almost twice as common in the 19th century)? Beirut and Beirout (four times as common)? I'm sure that people who are familiar with other areas would be able to find many more such examples, but in each of these cases the modern English usage is used throughout Wikipedia, often with notes about alternate forms of the name. Modern academics and other modern writers have the same choice when writing about Ottoman Trabzon, and Trabzon is the preferred choice when referring to the Ottoman city and province. If we were talking about a major, well-known place in English which underwent a name change, I could understand the argument, but as I said, I see no benefit in this and other cases. In fact, in some cases it seems that there is an effort to track down obscure old spellings of obscure places: for example how will people know that Kersun is actually Giresun? It seems like a bad idea in each instance.
Ordtoy (
talk)
01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"Trabzon Vilayet" and the "vilayet of Trabzon" were/are used for modern
Trabzon Province during
early republican period of
Turkey. Not only in English but also in Turkish, Trabzon vilâyeti was the name of modern
Trabzon Province, for example "Trabzon
1925 yılında Trabzon vilâyeti Merkez kaza, Vakf-ı kebir, Akçaabad, Maçka, Sürmene ve Of kazalarından oluşmaktaydı." (Nedim İpek, Mübadele ve Samsun, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2000,
p. 72.) --
Takabeg (
talk)
02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The nineteenth century spelling of
Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see
WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the
Treaty of Nanking.
However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more.
This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism.
What about the examples cited above (Tokio/Tokyo; Koordistan/Kurdistan; Tiflis/Tbilisi; Beirout/Beirut)? Wikipedia consistently uses the version which is current today not the earlier spellings.
Ordtoy (
talk)
05:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Hello, I was hoping to have you follow up on
Trebizond Vilayet (and other related articles). The changes are still being made despite your request that we hold back. I'd like to get this resolved because so many articles are affected by the decision which needs to be made about name selection.
Ordtoy (
talk)
14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The article hasn't moved again, and as far as I can tell, there's no consensus to move it at this time. Do you wish to move the article back to "Trabzon"? The other editor, Takabeg, provided some evidence, which may not be the best available, but I haven't seen any concrete evidence for the other name.
You said on that page that "Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations." I agree that raw Google numbers don't mean much, but that means we need to set the bar higher, and produce something more compelling. My common sense doesn't tell me which way the page should be titled, because I'm not familiar with the topic of the article.
If you're familiar enough with the literature to say which spelling is more appropriate and why, then I'll certainly listen, but I'm not going to add another move to the page history simply because other Wikipedia articles spell the name of the modern town that way. How do scholars of the Ottoman Empire spell the name of that historic vilayet? -
GTBacchus(
talk)22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The nineteenth century spelling of
Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see
WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the
Treaty of Nanking.
However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more.
This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi, I missed your reply here, only seeing it just now. I provided several examples of how there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia-wide convention of using historical spellings for one time period and then switching to modern spellings for a modern period. I know I'm repeating myself, but the examples I gave were along the lines of: Beijing/Peking, Tokyo/Tokio, Beirut/Beirout, etc. In all these cases, Wikipedia takes the modern spelling for all historical periods event though the second form was more prevalent or even the only form used in previous eras. I can't find an example of Wikipedia spelling conventions following English historical usages (please correct me if I am wrong). I am also quite sure that such a practice would only hinder people searching for information. Making an English speaker of today know all the historical spellings of geographical entities just to find articles about them seems counter-productive. As for your question about modern academic (emphasis on those two terms!) scholars of Ottoman history, they almost invariably use Trabzon. The common practice is to use Trebizond for the pre-Ottoman period (this is also true for other places throughout the Ottoman Empire).
Ordtoy (
talk)
06:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There certainly is no uniform practice.
But where it has been discussed, as with the three articles
Byzantium,
Constantinople,
Istanbul, the decision has usually been to use each name for the city in an appropriate period. In principle,
our relevant guideline suggests using the historic name currently used in English for a given period (thus, we do not usually refer to the city on the Bosphorus as New Rome, because English literature generally doesn't); but the most common name for a given place and time is usually the name used at the time.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The idea of using an appropriate name for an appropriate period is reasonable. However, the periods in question appear to be the Greek period, for which forms of Trapezus/Trebizond are used by scholars. Following the Ottoman taking of the city, the name in literature is Trabzon to reflect the Turkish corruption of the original name. This is the division accepted by academia. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (the most respected encyclopaedia for Middle East history), for example, follows this practice. With Istanbul/Constantinople we are dealing with the name change of a major world city so it is not comparable to Trabzon/Trebizond. If they know it at all, virtually all English speakers of today will be familiar with Trabzon, which is the name of the city today and was the name used in Ottoman times. Moreover, I'm still rather insistent on knowing why the practice of adopting archaic English forms is applicable here but not say for Tbilisi/Tiflis?
Ordtoy (
talk)
15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
See, for example, Peace to End All Peace, a history of the 1922/3 settlement of the entire Near and Middle East. It calls the city Trebizond, as of 1916.
Searching on early uses of Trabzon suggests it was created, as a New Turkish name, around 1935; using it about the city or the Vilayet before then would be an anachronism, and would violate the Principle of Least Astonishment for English-speaking readers, whom this Wikipedia is intended to serve. Works of general reference in English dealing with that place and time are always welcome.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Trabzon is the Turkish form of the original Greek name (see the
Trabzon page). It was absolutely not created in the 1930s but had been in use for centuries. It will absolutely make things more difficult for English-speakers to have the name change in Wikipedia articles at an arbitrary date. Moreover, no such principle applies to other geographic entities, so I do not understand why it should apply here.
Ordtoy (
talk)
00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Trebizond Vilayet. 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:
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.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trebizond vilayet article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
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
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 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.
The common name is Trabzon. Please see the parallel between Peking and Beijing. We use the common name in English (Beijing and Trabzon) even some other name was also used in the past.
Ordtoy (
talk)
01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Evidence can be found in that Wikipedia uses
Trabzon for the name of the city. Trebizond is no longer used in English, long ago having been supplanted by Trabzon. If we chhange to Trebizond here then
Trabzon should also surely change. As I indicated above, Beijing/Peking is the parallel. In the past, Peking was the English name, but the current English name has supplanted it and Beijing is used throughout Wikipedia for references to both the modern and the historical city. The change to Trebizond is part of what I believe to be a very misguided belief that these names should have 'Engnlish' spellings. See Gumushkhane-Gümüşhane and Kersun-Giresun in this very article. Gumushkhane is a rarely used alternative and Kersun is outright incorrect. The result is that we have two names throughout Wikipedia for each of these locations: a Turkish spelling and an antiquated spelling and this helps no one when it comes to using this resource.
Ordtoy (
talk)
12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I also meant to add that if you search Google books for "Trabzon Vilayeti" you get many English results (185 although some are in fact in Turkish). Moreover, "Trabzon province" (since vilayet means province) returns many results about the Ottoman province when you include the Ottoman keyword. Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations.
Ordtoy (
talk)
12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. First of all, please stop moving this page, both of you. Any more page moves, and I'm going to have the page move-protected. When there's a conflict, we mustn't move-war over it; it fills the page history with back-and-forth junk. The correct thing to do now is to get more input from more editors, and then move the page once and for all.
I'm going to leave notes at some relevant WikiProjects, and we'll see what others have to say. Until then, please leave the page where it is. That means that even if the other guy moves it don't move it back. We need to leave it alone until we arrive at a consensus, which is clearly not going to happen between the two of you. Okay? -
GTBacchus(
talk)17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: We do not have to have absolutely consistent naming between different historical & geographical articles, because names change over time. Obviously, that' the problem here; the place has been called "trebizond" or "trabzon" to varying extents at different times so there is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. Specifically, the title of an article on a historic subject should reflect the names used in sources about that historical subject, not sources about a different-but-related subject in the present day. So, what name do sources use for the vilayet itself? I believe Trebizond is more common, after a quick search of historical journals...
bobrayner (
talk)
18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think that Bobrayner is right here. There is no reason why an article about a historic district must be given a name which exactly matches that of a current-day city. There are lot of administrative districts of the Ottoman Empire which do not have the same name as current day city (i.e.
Sanjak of Scutari and
Shkodër,
Janina Vilayet and
Ioannina..).--
Antidiskriminator (
talk)
20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I entirely agree that certain places deserve to have changed names due to historical changes: Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is an excellent example as the names reflect actual historical changes. It also makes sense for the examples of Scutari and Shkodër since the place name actually changed from Ottoman to Albanian. However, I don't see the rationale in this case. I haven't seen much elsewhere on Wikipedia where an archaic English spelling for a place (especially one which is not particularly well-known in English) is preferred over the modern form of the same name. It raises questions: at which exact date do all Wikipedia articles need to switch from Trebizond to the new English spelling? Do all references to the city prior to this date in all articles need to change to Trebizond? What do we benefit by maintaining two separate names for instances such as this and will this advantage mitigate the lack of consistency across articles which are referring to the same place? Why isn't using archaic spellings practiced for other geographic regions in Wikipedia? Peking->Beijing is my earlier example, but there are more: do we need to switch between Muslim to Moslem? Kurdistan and Koordistan? Tbilisi (278 hits for 19th-century books) and Tiflis (119,000 hits for 19th-century books)? Tokyo and Tokio (almost twice as common in the 19th century)? Beirut and Beirout (four times as common)? I'm sure that people who are familiar with other areas would be able to find many more such examples, but in each of these cases the modern English usage is used throughout Wikipedia, often with notes about alternate forms of the name. Modern academics and other modern writers have the same choice when writing about Ottoman Trabzon, and Trabzon is the preferred choice when referring to the Ottoman city and province. If we were talking about a major, well-known place in English which underwent a name change, I could understand the argument, but as I said, I see no benefit in this and other cases. In fact, in some cases it seems that there is an effort to track down obscure old spellings of obscure places: for example how will people know that Kersun is actually Giresun? It seems like a bad idea in each instance.
Ordtoy (
talk)
01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"Trabzon Vilayet" and the "vilayet of Trabzon" were/are used for modern
Trabzon Province during
early republican period of
Turkey. Not only in English but also in Turkish, Trabzon vilâyeti was the name of modern
Trabzon Province, for example "Trabzon
1925 yılında Trabzon vilâyeti Merkez kaza, Vakf-ı kebir, Akçaabad, Maçka, Sürmene ve Of kazalarından oluşmaktaydı." (Nedim İpek, Mübadele ve Samsun, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2000,
p. 72.) --
Takabeg (
talk)
02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The nineteenth century spelling of
Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see
WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the
Treaty of Nanking.
However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more.
This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism.
What about the examples cited above (Tokio/Tokyo; Koordistan/Kurdistan; Tiflis/Tbilisi; Beirout/Beirut)? Wikipedia consistently uses the version which is current today not the earlier spellings.
Ordtoy (
talk)
05:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Hello, I was hoping to have you follow up on
Trebizond Vilayet (and other related articles). The changes are still being made despite your request that we hold back. I'd like to get this resolved because so many articles are affected by the decision which needs to be made about name selection.
Ordtoy (
talk)
14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The article hasn't moved again, and as far as I can tell, there's no consensus to move it at this time. Do you wish to move the article back to "Trabzon"? The other editor, Takabeg, provided some evidence, which may not be the best available, but I haven't seen any concrete evidence for the other name.
You said on that page that "Google search results are such an imprecise measure, especially when the numbers are so small that common sense must be used in these situations." I agree that raw Google numbers don't mean much, but that means we need to set the bar higher, and produce something more compelling. My common sense doesn't tell me which way the page should be titled, because I'm not familiar with the topic of the article.
If you're familiar enough with the literature to say which spelling is more appropriate and why, then I'll certainly listen, but I'm not going to add another move to the page history simply because other Wikipedia articles spell the name of the modern town that way. How do scholars of the Ottoman Empire spell the name of that historic vilayet? -
GTBacchus(
talk)22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The nineteenth century spelling of
Trabzon in English is and was Trebizond; see
WP:NCGN for a parallel case, the
Treaty of Nanking.
However rough Google ngrams may be, they are indicative when the difference is an order of magnitude or more.
This ngram suggests, accurately, that use of Trabzon before 1950 (and 2000 would be defensible) in English is an anachronism.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi, I missed your reply here, only seeing it just now. I provided several examples of how there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia-wide convention of using historical spellings for one time period and then switching to modern spellings for a modern period. I know I'm repeating myself, but the examples I gave were along the lines of: Beijing/Peking, Tokyo/Tokio, Beirut/Beirout, etc. In all these cases, Wikipedia takes the modern spelling for all historical periods event though the second form was more prevalent or even the only form used in previous eras. I can't find an example of Wikipedia spelling conventions following English historical usages (please correct me if I am wrong). I am also quite sure that such a practice would only hinder people searching for information. Making an English speaker of today know all the historical spellings of geographical entities just to find articles about them seems counter-productive. As for your question about modern academic (emphasis on those two terms!) scholars of Ottoman history, they almost invariably use Trabzon. The common practice is to use Trebizond for the pre-Ottoman period (this is also true for other places throughout the Ottoman Empire).
Ordtoy (
talk)
06:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There certainly is no uniform practice.
But where it has been discussed, as with the three articles
Byzantium,
Constantinople,
Istanbul, the decision has usually been to use each name for the city in an appropriate period. In principle,
our relevant guideline suggests using the historic name currently used in English for a given period (thus, we do not usually refer to the city on the Bosphorus as New Rome, because English literature generally doesn't); but the most common name for a given place and time is usually the name used at the time.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The idea of using an appropriate name for an appropriate period is reasonable. However, the periods in question appear to be the Greek period, for which forms of Trapezus/Trebizond are used by scholars. Following the Ottoman taking of the city, the name in literature is Trabzon to reflect the Turkish corruption of the original name. This is the division accepted by academia. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (the most respected encyclopaedia for Middle East history), for example, follows this practice. With Istanbul/Constantinople we are dealing with the name change of a major world city so it is not comparable to Trabzon/Trebizond. If they know it at all, virtually all English speakers of today will be familiar with Trabzon, which is the name of the city today and was the name used in Ottoman times. Moreover, I'm still rather insistent on knowing why the practice of adopting archaic English forms is applicable here but not say for Tbilisi/Tiflis?
Ordtoy (
talk)
15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
See, for example, Peace to End All Peace, a history of the 1922/3 settlement of the entire Near and Middle East. It calls the city Trebizond, as of 1916.
Searching on early uses of Trabzon suggests it was created, as a New Turkish name, around 1935; using it about the city or the Vilayet before then would be an anachronism, and would violate the Principle of Least Astonishment for English-speaking readers, whom this Wikipedia is intended to serve. Works of general reference in English dealing with that place and time are always welcome.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Trabzon is the Turkish form of the original Greek name (see the
Trabzon page). It was absolutely not created in the 1930s but had been in use for centuries. It will absolutely make things more difficult for English-speakers to have the name change in Wikipedia articles at an arbitrary date. Moreover, no such principle applies to other geographic entities, so I do not understand why it should apply here.
Ordtoy (
talk)
00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Trebizond Vilayet. 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:
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.