Talk:Trebizond Eyalet

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]

Trebizond Eyalet → Eyalet of Trebizond – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME[reply]

-- Takabeg (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 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 ("Trebizond Province" is more common than either of names discussed here), there is no reason to be inconsistent. (Also cf. Trebizond Vilayet, Trabzon Province) — AjaxSmack 11:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could find only one sample of Trebizond Eyalet. Takabeg (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Google? Raw search engine data is a weak and lazy way of determining article titles. (Read the latter parts of this discussion for the limits of slavishing following Ghits.) In the case of this topic, "eyalet" is really just a descriptive rather than an official title (note lowercase usage in most sources) so having consistent word order in Wikipedia should be fine. — AjaxSmack 12:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We means everyone. Everyone who search with google books. Takabeg (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't, so I am afforded the luxury of independent analysis. 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. Google Books or not, I just don't see any compelling reason why this individual case is different. — AjaxSmack 14:33, 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]