Talk:Aleppo Eyalet

Syria Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	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 supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Low-importance).

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]

Aleppo Eyalet → Eyalet of Aleppo – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME[reply]

-- Takabeg (talk) 09:55, 8 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. Aleppo Vilayet, Aleppo Governorate) — AjaxSmack 11:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Takabeg (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, all of the numbers are very low and "Aleppo 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 11:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot chose Aleppo Province, because Aleppo Province is used for Governorate, Eyalet, Vilayet. Because territories of the eyalet and vilayet were not same, it's very difficult to merge them. Takabeg (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So keep the current title. — AjaxSmack 13:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also 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 this individual case is different. — AjaxSmack 14:27, 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.

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleppo Eyalet. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315181143/http://www.panoramaline.com/aleppo-arab.htm to http://www.panoramaline.com/aleppo-arab.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]