Talk:Damascus 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)

---

Damascus Eyalet → Eyalet of Damascus – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME

• "Damascus Eyalet" -Llc 3
• "Eyalet of Damascus" -Llc 47
• "Sham Eyalet" -Llc 2
• "Eyalet of Sham" -Llc 6

-- Takabeg (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• 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) —  AjaxSmack  11:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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. —  AjaxSmack  11:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note a couple of examples of similar cases here at Wikipedia:

1. 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.
2. 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. —  AjaxSmack  14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Administrative divisions: at least one wrong redirect

"Administrative divisions

Sanjaks of Damascus Eyalet in the 17th century:

• Khass sanjaks (i.e. yielded a land revenue):

...

- Sanjak of Jerusalem"

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)

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. Zero^talk 12:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Please follow or contribute at Talk:Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem#What was the admin. unit called between 1516 and 1872? The redirect "Sanjak of J." to "Mutasarrifate of J." is plain wrong & misleading., I think that's the better venue for the topic. Arminden (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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)