Talk:Bosnia Eyalet

Capitals
Someone needs to decide which information about the Bosnia province's capital cities is true, because there are two different sets of information shown. The first list of capital cities is in the upper-right corner box and the information there (the years in which the cities were capitals) is completely different from the list of capital cities in the text itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.2.118 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no longer contradictory. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1463-1580
This time period of Bosnian history is not covered at all. Please discuss in Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1463–1878). Mukadderat (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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. I'm simply adding this to the multi-move request at Talk:Mosul Eyalet. - GTBacchus(talk) 12:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia Eyalet → Eyalet of Bosnia – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC) – per WP:COMMONNAME


 * "Bosnia Eyalet" -Llc 3
 * "Eyalet of Bosnia" -Llc 64

-- Takabeg (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - it certainly seems more natural English to me. In fact I used the latter form in another article the other day and wondered how come it was a red link :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:17, 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?  —  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 No original research. Takabeg (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the numbers for anything with "eyalet" are low. "Bosnia 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 (notice the predominantly lowercase usage of "eyalet").  As such, keeping the current title for consistency is a good enough reason.  Oppose a move.  —  AjaxSmack   12:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot chose Bosnia Province, because the term Bosnia Province used for sanjak, vilayet and eyalet. Takabeg (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So keep the current title. Also, 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.  A miniscule number of Google hits aside, I just don't see any compelling reason why these individual cases are different.  —  AjaxSmack   14:16, 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 13:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1520
What exactly happened in 1520 that something called Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire uses it as the date of founding of the eyalet, but this can't be verified in local sources? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosnia 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/20100830004624/http://www.camo.ch/bojpodbl.htm to http://www.camo.ch/bojpodbl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)