From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

A watermill on Bozcaada?[edit]

The article now says Köprülü built a watermill here. While we know that there are no permanent running streams on the island. As for the irregular streams are too irregular and small to build a structure, they mostly run on small channels at south-west after rains for a short time. So, howcome? Filanca (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Let's see. It's cited to "Caroline Finkel (2005). The History of the Ottoman Empire: Osman's Dream. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02397-4." Let's track that down.


It says “The most varied of his foundations was that on the island of Bozcaada, recaptured from the Venetians early in his grand vezirate. Here he built two mosques, a school, a caravansaray, a bath-house, a coffee-house, a stable, nine mills, a water-mill, a bakery and 84 shops.”
Why would he have built a watermill on a streamless island? And what the heck is a caravansary? Oh I see. But still, why would a roadside inn designed for camel caravans have been built on Bozcaada? It sounds like he was just going crazy building whatever he knew how to build just to build things. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To make "patria"? --E4024 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the word that E4024 wants here? What would he have established by constructing things, a vocabulary word somewhere at "jurisdiction" or "claim" or "ownership" by the government? Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I don't think Köprülü would be as foolish a person to build random useless buildings, considering his brilliant career as a politician and strategist. You can think of a caravanserai as an Ottoman hotel. They did not only serve camel or horse mounted travellers, but also seafaring ones. Since Bozcaada is so strategically located on an island, right at the exit of the Dardanelles, I am not surprized to hear that it needed a caravanserai. Watermill, however, needs an explanation. The source could not have confused windmills (which were abundant on the island) with watermills, since it says "nine mills, a water-mill". Could it be that it was counting the properties of the foundation of the island, which do not have to be located exactly ON it. Mainland is very close with regular streams for a watermill. An even more likely explanation is that this was not a watermill but a windmill built to lift water from a well on the island. Then this may be somehow transformed to a "watermill" during a translation. Filanca (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply and sorry I never said so earlier. You say it might be a mistranslation in the source. If it is, we might want to change it just to "mill" or find some other solution. Otherwise, sharp-eyed readers like Filanca will notice the apparent contradiction and it will disturb the reader's experience. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ashley reliable source?[edit]

Current article includes four reverences to: Ashley, J.R. (1998). The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1918-0. I've come to the talk page to see if there is any objection to removing the Ashley references, doing a good-faith attempt to check the claims, and if no confirmation is found, removing them. This does not appear to be a reliable source for a few reasons:

  1. The major source for his claims about Tenedos is Curtius whose history of Alexander was analyzed by W.W. Tarn as "a mass of problems", "extraordinary carelessness", and (most damning for its use in this article) "the amateurishness is obvious; he often cares nothing whether or not he gets events in the right order, whether his geography is confused, whether he gives the wrong names...he is going to create a certain impression and he creates it." pg. 91-92 of Alexander the Great vol. II. Ashley's source is then not widely considered reliable.
  2. Ashley's work itself is judged similarly on its amateurishness. The only academic review mentioning the book (which itself should cause pause) that I could find was quite explicit, Professor Waldemar Heckler writes: "nor should students be encouraged to consult the error-ridden and amateurish Macedonian Empire by James R. Ashley"
  3. Neither Curtius nor Ashley are used in the Alexander the Great wiki-page. Curtius is referred to, but only when he is used in secondary reliable sources. Compare that with Arrian or Plutarch who are both used. Normally this doesn't matter, but with the problems above it should cause great hesitance in use.

Ashley then does not seem to be a reliable source for the claims being made (and some of the claims should probably be removed unless they are repeated in other sources that may care about getting geography right). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

With all this explanation does not seem very reliable indeed... --E4024 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The criteria for what is considered a reliable source are listed at WP:RSN. None of the three points raised above have any bearing on those criteria. WW Tarn is himself highly unreliable, and online reviews should be treated with caution. Whether or not a source is used in other WP articles has no bearing on whether it should be considered reliable. My recommendation is that you seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN. Athenean (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
For point 1, actually the preface to the book says "secondary sources form the basis of [his] book" and the author explicitly calls Curtius, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin filled with "exaggerations, inconsistencies and omissions." Plutarch is a primary source to be treated with caution, irrespective of what other WP articles include. I am not able to find much on James R. Ashley (and it doesn't seem like Heckel is particularly notable, but that nobody notable has commented on the book could be a minus); I see other books citing him, those books seem credible, but I don't know what they are citing; you might want to check Wikiproject History or Military History; they are likely more active, and I think this evaluation needs subject expertise. Churn and change (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Responding to all, I'll take this to wherever you all think will decide this appropriately. To correct some problems: 1. I did not use an online review, I used an academic journal review that mentions Ashley's book as amateurish. 2. Heckel is reputable. He's written or translated 10 books on Alexander the Great (through Cambridge and Oxford university presses by the way), including that he wrote the introduction to the main English translation of Curtius. 3. I have Ashley's book in front of me (the 2004 volume), it is great that he says stuff in the Preface about sources used, but if you actually go to the endnotes for his claims about Tenedos they are all to Curtius. Other claims in the book link to other sources, as WP:RS makes clear, it is the context of the claims that matter. 4. Tarn's opinion of Curtius' accuracy is generally held, I just liked Tarn's phrasing: "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (Michael van Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable"), Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History (some phrases: "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead"). 5. Sorry if it wasn't clear how I think Ashley isn't a reputable source. To be clear, Ashley (and his source Curtius for points about Tenedos) appear to have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts" (quote from Questionable Sources on WP:RS). Regardless of all this, I'll take these as objections and of course take it elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Heckel is actually disagreeing with James Romm who seems to have encouraged students to consult Ashley's book. So we have two academics disagreeing on the book here. You are focusing just on Heckel's comments; not on Romm's (actually he is the editor, so the author may be some other academic) which encourages the use of Ashley. I agree Curtius is in general unreliable; I don't see how it is possible to determine whether Ashley used Curtius as is, or did some filtering the way academics normally do, without subject expertise. Hence the need to take this to Wikiproject History or Military History which are active ones with historians contributing. Churn and change (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take it to military history or RSN, no problem. Just one note though, Ashley is not an academic and his book is generally poor on knowledge of the field that would lead us to think he could synthesize it well. As the review of the book in the Classical review makes clear: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2). Just so we understand the question here is that one historian included the work of a popular history text written by a non-historian in a list of additional resources, Heckel says "whoa, this shouldn't even be included in this list" (a harsh criticism). So our question is: Are Ashley's references to Tenedos reputable? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, in that case, I agree this should be taken out. Seemed like academic sources did cite him, but that likely isn't enough, especially considering we have plenty of far more reliable sources in our citations. Churn and change (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article[edit]

In the article it says it is an island of Turkey but the article's name is Tenedos. That does not make sense. The article name must be Bozcaada. Do we use Turkish names of the Greek islands on their article names? Thanks. Aditdigo (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This has long been a contentious issue, however odd that may seem (see talk page above and archives, as well as various past requested moves). The basic logic has been "Google Books gets more hits for Tenedos than Bozcaada, therefore it's the more common name". A couple of editors make a noise about that and the page is stuck at its current name. WP rules do indeed require us to use the common name rather than the "official" name – but they do not say "simply count raw Google numbers" and of course the only reason Tenedos gets more hits is because of references to the island's past in the huge number of books about ancient Greek myths and medieval history. WP rules and common sense also suggest we should use the modern, common name, which is undoubtedly Bozcaada, as every atlas and every serious piece of writing about the modern island calls it. Most such sources, as well as simply using Bozcaada, even explicitly state that it is the modern name, which has displaced the previous one. However, all that will cut no ice so long as one or two people claim the right to effectively veto any change and hence any passing admin says "no consensus" to move to the standard, obvious modern name for this Turkish island. N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Point of order, Bozcaada is not only an island. It is an official district of Turkey. All Turkish districts (about 900) have articles in WP with the exception of Bozcaada just because of google counts. That's ridiculus and a kind of censorship. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. However, there is no point in opening up a new move request until the reason for the failures of the last bunch is fixed. N-NH points out that WP:COMMONNAME needs to spell out what to do between the time when a name of a place changes and when Google Books counts and such have yet to catch up. It should say to use the name that appears on the appropriate maps, that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously googlebooks isn't the only argument, but one of many. One of the was that the island was officially supposed to be under a special autonomous status due its Greek character, under this name, but due to various reasons this changed dramatically. In general I can name several examples where the article name doesn't coincide with the language of the state. After all this is the English wiki not the Turkish.Alexikoua (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you name another article where the title differs from what all the appropriate maps call it? By "appropriate" I mean all current English-language maps published by companies such as National Geographic or Rand McNally and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, for example, Gönyeli in wiki, is Kioneli in National Geographic. Looking at the article's talk page Gönyeli is preferred due to google results. In Tenedos on the other hand the arguments are stronger gbooks and gscholar are not the only arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way N. Georgaphic uses both names (Bozc/Ten.) for the island.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of stream fact checking. National Geographic does not use both names for the island in their atlases: See Atlas of the Middle East, Visual Atlas of the World, Family Reference Atlas of the World. For the last decade at least, if National Geographic makes an atlas about the current world, the island is only called Bozcaada. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Tenedos is a historical name and when the sources refer to its history, the name Tenedos is rightfully used. But for the last 550 years, the official name is Bozcaada and Tenedos is something like New Amsterdam for New York City. When we refer to the present settlement, the name is Bozcaada. Keeping the name Tenedos for the Bozcaada maybe romantic but is absolutelly unencyclopaedic. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And the Google Books argument was pretty much the only argument and evidence deployed in favour of Tenedos, against a plethora of arguments and evidence in favour of Bozcaada. Debates about provisions for special status in a 100 year-old treaty were rarely raised and have nothing to do with WP naming rules anyway. And Alexikoua is raising total red herrings with mention of places in Cyprus and by suggesting that this is about using the "Turkish" name. The argument for Bozcaada is not that it is the name in the Turkish language but that it is the name used for the modern island in the vast majority of English-language publications, even if one or two might use both or even just Tenedos. It is. There is, simply, no way round that for anyone with eyes to see, just as there is no way round the fact that the name of this page should follow that, as the WP:NAME policy and the WP:PLACE guideline both require. This is an incredibly simple naming issue, compared to many. The only problem is the veto that has been consistently wielded. N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet time and time again it fails. Until we figure out where things go wrong, we shouldn't put in a move request. We need a simple rule that when the maps agree, go with that. Other than spelling out exactly what we mean by "maps" that's it. Also we have to explain the reason behind the rule: timely response when the name of a place changes. When the name of a place changes, it takes a long time for the Google searches to reach 50%, so just check the appropriate modern maps and if they all agree we are to go with that. Simple. I argued this at some length and was told to accept the ipse dixit argument that averages of books and papers should still be checked and weighed against universal cartographic agreement, but that's absurd because why bother when all the maps agree?
Also there are problems with closing instructions for administrators. As it stands, they are to step in, look for consensus within the debate, and, finding none, they are to close, which by default keeps the article where it is. They are not instructed to do a good job, or given outlines of what doing a good job would be, of understanding what the people are talking about, and have allowed move closes to stand that were closed with edit summaries blatantly betraying fundamental misunderstandings of the undisputed facts of the case.
It's not an important place, but it's an important case because of what it means for guidelines and policy. Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue that this kind of thing is pretty clearly covered now at WP:MODERNPLACENAME. But equally, as you say, with people seemingly closing their eyes to that provision, maybe something more explicit is needed. Ultimately though, I fear people who wish to ignore or bend the rules and the evidence, for no obvious objective benefit, will simply continue to do so and to claim a veto. All the rules in the world can't make human beings see sense if they don't wish to, especially if they can hide behind computer screens. And, as noted, the problem with the WP process is that this then means "no consensus" in the eyes of anyone asked to adjudicate the bid to sort the problem out. N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you are right. But I would hope you'd agree that there still needs to be somewhere WP:CALLITWHATMAPSDO that says "If all the (appropriate) maps agree, use that name." It maybe should be incorporated into that or other guidelines. And second, please agree that closing procedures need to be revised to explain what "consensus" means; it means "in accord with consensus guidelines". Third, WP:BEFORECLOSING should describe how, and actually also why, a discussion should be closed. You have to go in asking questions that all end with the explicit or implied clause "is that correct"? As in "Ok, you're saying "blah, blah, blah" is that correct? Do you dispute such and such fact, upon which his argument depends? Why wouldn't edit X be in violation of guideline Y? And that if an administrator does not have the motivation or wherewithall to conduct such an investigation, he/she should not close. And WP:UNDOCLOSING should explain that all closings not accompanied by evidence of proper investigation or edit summaries that blatently mis-characterize the knowable facts and competing positions should be undone immediately.
Until these, actually-more-important-than-the-name-of-this-island, things are done, I don't see the point in opening another move request. Chrisrus (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the wrong name?[edit]

I tried to follow the archived discussions and the above gymnastics of logic and language, but my simple mind can not grasp why an island named, officially named, Bozcaada is not the name of the article about the said island. If one were to send a postcard to Tenedos today, it would not reach anywhere. Why is this so complicated? Why can not the old and historic names be covered in the body of the article as it is done with all other similar articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. To answer your question directly:
  1. Because the WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't say "Check the appropriate maps. If they all agree, use that." Instead, it leaves it open to other measures of WP:COMMONNAME, such as Google Books searches and such, and as the island was more often discussed in books by its former name than by its modern one, they say they have good reason to keep it by its former name. So fix that and you'll fix this and any others that there might be. It's the simplest and best answer.
  2. Because previously, when administrators and such replied to the move request, instead of seeing "consensus", they saw and endless argument, and said "I see no consensus", And that meant in effect "there is consensus not to move". It's complicated, I'm sorry I haven't explained it well just now. It's a more complicated and difficult solution, but if it could be fixed it would have wide-ranging benefit to Wikipedia. I think this may have been fixed since the last time in some guidelines to some extent.
  3. Because there are a group of proud Greek patriots and classists and such who love the history of Tenedos and can't accept the fact that the name has changed. To me, I wouldn't be surprised if they still call it Constantinople, that's the impression of them I get of many of them. There is nothing that can be done about that, it should be a given and provided for. We have to have a system that gets around such people. I bet there are Turks that refuse to accept that the names of other places have changed from Turkish to something else by now. It's not about being Greek, it's a thing you'll find all around the world. See WP:SEVEN.
  4. Because as long as someone refuses to back down, the admins feel, that means there is no consensus, in their eyes. They are asked to stay "uninvolved", which they understand to mean "don't ask questions and try to get to the bottom of things. Stay neutral means not deciding someone is right and the other wrong." or some such. It seems they are trained to look for compromise, not right and wrong. That's my impression. To fix this would involve detailing what "uninvolved" is supposed to mean, because in order to understand something, it's necessary to get involved. The term should be maybe change to "disinterested" so they don't think it means they can close without proper investigation so they understand which facts are undisputed and what the arguments actually are and aren't, on both sides, and whether they jive with, not only our guidelines and such, but also the basic rules of logic and good rhetoric which ironically are both Greek words.
Until these things have changed, I don't see the point in opening another move request. If you want to open one, I'll try to help, but I think you will find out what I'm saying is true. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have faith that a wider review would actually see through the nonsense that has happened here. Most rational people would be scratching their heads at the objections to moving the page to its usual, modern name and would call them out for the Greek nationalism and classical nostalgia that they represent. N-HH talk/edits 09:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Island Tenedos is well known mainly because it is mentioned in Iliad . OK but the island now is a modern settlement where people live. It is an administrative unit (ilçe or district) and it is named Bozcaada There is absolutely no district (and no mention of any district in any language ) named Tenedos. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are right. What should we do about it? Chrisrus (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if it really is the ideal solution. But under these circumstances (three renaming discussions with even pros and cons ) I think this article (Tenedos) can be dedicated to the history of the island and most of the stuff about the modern Bozcaada can be migrated to the article about modern Bozcaada. (The trouble is that the credits and the history of those edits about modern Bozacaada will be lost) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You could split the article if it naturally seems to want to give birth to a daughter article. You shouldn't make a "point of view fork": split articles just as a compromise to stop people arguing or for there to be two articles expressing two points of view of the same thing, such as for example Greek and Turkish points of view. Chrisrus (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what gave you the idea of nationalistic POV. The split is about the history of the island and the modern district. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is that such a split would be a little OTT for one tiny island. This isn't Istanbul after all. Also, it smacks a little of a Solomon's judgment. And, finally, we should probably correctly call any historical spin-off "History of Bozcaada" rather than "Tenedos" plus we'd have the issue of which of the two "Tenedos" should then be a redirect to. The only other options would be "Tenedos in antiquity/mythology" which would still leave the problem of where all the pre-1900 content would best fit. N-HH talk/edits 11:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: There is a clear definition of how place names are to appear in WP, but we still have problems correcting this absurd situation here? It seems to me there is no need for consensus, for referees, or experts here, all we need is someone of authority to apply the existing rules. This goes to the very heart of the problem with Wiki and why it loses its value for so many as a reliable reference. Nationalists and ideologues and folks with agendas are allowed to run wild with little control, even where there are clear rules. Try mailing a post card to Tenedos and see what happens! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki isn't operating in a totalitarian way. By the way a post-card to Tenedos 'nowadays' goes exactly there.Alexikoua (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it the reason why you connected ″Tenedos″ article to mostly ″Bozcaada″ articles in other Wikis, while we have a Bozcaada (district) article? And did this even in the cases of some foreign Wikis which have separate articles for the island and the district as such or that have accentuated "the district of Bozcaada" in their sole article? Looks like some people are not only incapable of controlling their extreme nationalism but also are not ashamed of lying in public at all for their petty satisfaction. -- (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No, but it doesn't operate under mob rule and veto either. Consensus is meant to be judged in the light of policy and guidelines and real-world sources, which, as noted, are all quite clear in this case. Whether a postcard would or would not get to "Tenedos" as well as Bozcaada doesn't matter so much as what name is usually used in English-language sources to refer to the modern island. And anyone not befogged by prejudice or ignorance can see the answer to that. N-HH talk/edits 11:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Formerly, there had been three or four discussions on moving the title of this article. The pros and cons were equal and the title has not been moved. In most modern maps and atlases, local names are used; but in WP a rather ambigious concept of established-use prevails. Well how can a small Aegean island have an established-use in English ? It can be argued that the name was mentioned in Iliad. But that's a historical-literary usage. Using the historical name instead of the modern name is not much different than, say, calling Ho Chi Minh City "Saigon" or calling Astana “Tselinograd". Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The rules have changed a bit, so it might be time to try again. Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the text of the rules were simply clarified and structured a bit more logically rather than changed as such. The basic principles of common and modern name remain as they were. Either way of course, Bozcaada is obviously the name that should be being used as the primary one here. Hopefully clearer rules will mean a clearer debate and a simpler decision though. N-HH talk/edits 13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say that I don't care what the common modern English-language name of this island is. What matters is the significance of this case with systemic problems with Wikipedia.
What do you think about my four points above? The first point is out of date. It no longer omits maps and such, but it still recommends encyclopedias among the first places to look for the common modern place names. Encyclopedias are not among the place that a good reference librarian would send a common modern place name seeker. There is good reason for this: each encyclopedia mention is just one datum that must be manually checked for usage in context (primacy, commonality, moderness) and then weighed against other usages, while simply looking up a common modern place name on a map or gazetteer or whatnot returns a peer-reviewed conclusion as to the common modern name of a place. So good reference librarians and encyclopedia writing guidelines do not point common modern place name seekers to encyclopedias; they point them to maps and such. So, the presence of encyclopedias among the first-choice places to look in the guidelines impairs determining common modern place names.
As too the second point....what do you think about the other points? How should they be addressed so that these types of things don't happen on Wikipedia in the future? Again, the point is the wider systemic problems brought to the fore, not per se this case. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can we start another move request? It's about time the WP page finally used the nomenclature that the rest of the world uses in modern times for this place. Hopefully we'll get more rational contributions and a more rational conclusion this time. N-HH (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was already settled, although without any discussion, someone created Bozcaada, Çanakkale (also tried to change the interlanguage links), an article supposed to be about the administrative division, but in fact its about the very same island. Before any move request is initiated its obvious that a move to an already existing article doesn't make sense.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged under the correct name: Bozcaada. -- (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There do seem to be unnecessary duplication and WP:FORK issues: one page on the place should be enough. And even if it can be argued that the district per se deserves a separate page, that doesn't negate the fact that island itself is still commonly called Bozcaada these days. Either way there's a problem, as there has been for a long time. N-HH (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but for the sake of the entire project, the systemic problems on Wikipedia with such things as the administrative discussion closure procedures and so on should be first edited, not only so that a new move request will have a chance of success, but also (more importantly), for the greater good of the project, because the repeated failure to move this article since it was first requested so long ago has brought to the fore issues more important for Wikipedia than the name of this tiny waterless island. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't you take up those "issues more important for Wikipedia" in their own talk pages? Keep this talk page on topic, please. (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How can this article be moved to the common modern English place name when administrators consistently close move requests without simple fact-finding? Move requests for this article have failed multiple times. In order to improve this article in this way, the issue of administrative move request closure without fact-finding on the grounds that opposition exists has to be dealt with. Unless you can suggest another way. Chrisrus (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, and you're right, but you probably won't accomplish that on this talk page. With regards to name change requests, the problem of facts being undermined by a "lack of consensus" needs to be raised on the relevant WP policy page. Until then, admins will likely side with the naysayers who use the lack of consensus to work around the empirical evidence pointing to Bozcaada. (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Because we are writing in English, not Turkish; and Tenedos is the established name in English: To Tenedos they come (Troilus and Cressida Prol. 7). Look at the top of the page; this is at least the tenth time we have discussed it, and there is no consensus to move this island from the name we Anglophones have always called it, to one I would not know if it were not for these interminable naming debates; there is no consensus for this proposal.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We also used to call it "Constantinople". The name has changed: don't take it for me, check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
So has English usage, (and the boundaries of the city, for that matter). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The name of this island has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In Turkish, it has. This is, however, the English Wikipedia, not the Turkish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The English language name for this island has changed. Check the maps. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)