User talk:GRprefectures-have-been-dissolved

Administrative divisions of Greece
Hi, I see you've been implementing a lot of changes to articles about administrative divisions of Greece. Before you continue, please join our discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece. Markussep Talk 10:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Corinthia & Corinthia Prefecture
Hello,

I'm sorry but there are different wikis with an article devoted to the Corinthia Prefecture pointing to Corinthia and while this situation remains mine or any other bot will add the same interwikis. To avoid the repetition of this mistake it will be necessari to correct all involved wikis. Best regards. --Loupeter (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hello! What is the purpose of ? We already have a, and in the new navbox you are mixing administrative divisions from two centuries together without distinction: Peripheries, which did not exist before 1987, with provinces, which have been practically abolished for decades now, and prefectures that have frequently changed boundaries all the way to WW2. If you want to make a navbox for the provinces, fine, but please don't mix things up. Choose a specific date and situation, and do not try to show too many things at once. Oh and please use the forms already established in the articles, not "Voiotia" etc. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can read Greek, please go and read the articles on el:Διοικητική διαίρεση της Ελλάδας. You'll see how complex and back-and-forth provincial and prefectural changes were. Don't try to oversimplify two centuries of administrative history in a single template which is structured based on the division of the last twenty years. It is both unscientific and confusing to anyone who doesn't know the history of these divisions. Stick with one clearly defined period. Constantine  ✍  18:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

 * }

Hi there.

I noticed you have created many articles. Can you please make sure to add at least one reference to your article so it helps in making the article more encyclopedic. Thank you. --Visik (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, will try to do so soon. Thanks. GRprefectures-have-been-dissolved (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Crete
Please stop re-creating Crete Theme by copy-pasting material from Byzantine Crete. Believe me I knew well enough why I did not create a separate article in the first place: the two Byzantine periods are covered together, along with the Arab interlude, by almost any history. Constantine  ✍  19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I really don't see how the "navbox functionality" (whatever that is) is impaired. In both cases, it links to "Byzantine Crete". Second, the criterion about having separate articles on separate topics is not whether it navigates well, but whether they are coherent as a topic. "Byzantine Crete" does not refer to the first period alone, but also the second. Third, can you trust me when I say that the two periods are best treated together? I wrote the damn article, I know this stuff. Fourth, I asked you to discuss first before reverting, so can we please have that discussion instead of revert-warring each other? Constantine  ✍  20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, let's take things one at a time: "You often ask me to do certain things that you do not apply to yourself". Sorry if you think that, I will make my reasoning clear. "Asking me to not mix together different time periods in the prefectures+provinces template - but exactly that you did in the prefecture template." The prefecture navbox is merely that: a list of all prefecture that have existed in Greece. It does not present any organized structure based on any one time frame. Your navbox on the other hand groups the very same prefectures according to an arbitrary and modern territorial division, viz. the peripheries. Someone with no knowledge of Greece's administrative history might easily assume that Phthiotis and Phocis Prefecture were part of Central Greece Periphery. Where is "navbox functionality" there? If you want a relatively problem-free navbox, I'd suggest switching to the regions of Greece, not the peripheries, since the regions are fairly clear and are not subject to administrative change (the equivalent Greek WP template does this BTW). "Now you ask me to first discuss - but did you first discuss when moving the eyalet and viyalet around? No, you didn't." No, I didn't, but the reason is that it is weird to have two different articles on what is essentially the same topic: "Ottoman Crete". This is the established norm BTW, as in Roman Britain. The reason is that changes in administrative titles are secondary in history: they don't change the basic nature of a particular region. In Crete's case, the only thing that 1864 marks is a change in title, nothing more. "When the footer navbox links to the same title twice, one does not see which link one clicked last. The infobox navigation is broken too." One has to assume that our readers can tell one section from the other. And when the navbox says "first period", they will understand that this corresponds to the header "first period", and likewise with the second. "That Byzantine Crete refers to both periods can one assume, so the task would be to find a better title for the first period." I am sorry, but as I said above, navbox convenience is no compelling reason. When I wrote the article, I initially wanted to make two separate articles, but in every source I have read, Greek, English or German, the distinction is played down. Both periods are similar in terms of culture, language, religion, etc. The fact that some administrative arrangements changed, or the Arab interlude, are not a reason to separate them (just as for instance the Byzantine Empire itself experienced a rupture in continuity in 1204-1261, but remained the same entity, and is covered in the same article). Sorry for the long reply, and apologies if you feel offended in any way. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, before making accusations about "breaking the infobox", you should try and see where some of the other eyalet links lead: Egypt Eyalet or Tunis Eyalet, for instance. Wherever a distinct territorial entity exists that survives more or less the same despite nomenclatyre changes, that is the preferred form. Your "problem" is that you put administrative labels as the chief determining factor, and not the actual nature of the region they describe. Constantine  ✍  20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, the sources do not cover the two Byzantine periods in "one page", but as a single topic, and they usually mention the emirate in passing as a bridge between the two. That is precisely what I have done as well. Per Wikipedia's rules, we follow academic conventions and usage. The emirate has a separate article because it is sufficiently different to warrant it. It was a Muslim state, not a Greek-speaking, Christian, Byzantine-ruled province. The operation of Nikephoros Phokas is termed "reconquest" precisely because it re-established the previous status quo.
 * The comparison with Ditadura Nacional/Estado Novo (Portugal) or Hawaii Territory/State of Hawaii is not really pertinent. Hawaii Territory had an entirely different status and relationship to the US than Hawaii State, and the two eras of the 2nd Portuguese Republic are established as distinct in Portuguese historiography, for their own reasons. The analogy is further imperfect because we are dealing with a medieval province, where such distinctions are rather vague and to a modern viewpoint, irrelevant. Perhaps in a thousand years, after Hawaii has changed hands a few times, its period as a US territory and as a US state will be summarized as "History of American Hawaii", or after most of the information we have on 20th-century Portugal has been lost, only the "2nd Republic" will remain. This is a similar case here. The average reader will look up the theme of Crete because he will be interested to learn about Byzantine Crete in general, so it is best to keep it all in one article.
 * We simply cannot begin creating new articles every time a change in titelature comes about, unless that change translates into an important difference in status (e.g. a duchy becomes a kingdom, or a US territory becomes a full state). Comments to that effect have also been made in regards to the prefecture and municipality articles on the Kallikratis reforms, and not just by me. As long as the subject is clearly the same entity, it stays in one article. Crete becoming a theme from an archontate is scarcely important enough to warrant new articles, it is still a Byzantine province, it belongs in the same continuity. BTW, according to a minority view among scholars, Crete may have been a theme already back in the 760s, since a strategos of Crete is attested then. How would you deal with that? Is that not a "Theme of Crete" as well? I am as much an enthusiast on creating articles on provinces and administrative divisions as you are, but here I really think that the present form is best.
 * Finally, as a generic comment, you place far too much emphasis on the navboxes and infoboxes. They are strictly auxiliary tools, under no circumstances do they "dictate terms" on what to do with the articles themselves. Articles are made based on their coherence as a subject, and that is all. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Ottoman articles, I have indeed noticed your work. Well done. One point only: Category:Provinces of the Ottoman Empire can easily remain in use, as a central parent cat for all the provinces, including also the semi-autonomous areas which do not exactly fall into the sanjak/eyalet/vilayet categories. Constantine  ✍  18:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I hadn't noticed the subdivisions category. Indeed, it is more generic a term so probably a better choice. PS, I am working on some maps on the historical evolution of the Greek prefectures and provinces, they should be gradually coming up starting in a week or so. I'll notify you if you're interested. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, making categories on the provinces would be a mistake: almost no one knows them or uses them, they too changed boundaries and there were prefectures without provinces, and they did not really play a serious administrative role. The prefectures on the other hand are mostly well-established geographical as well as administrative entities by now (and between us I am not so sure that we won't revert back to them in a decade from now). On geographical categories, I certainly prefer the regions to be the "main" category level since they are permanent, followed by the peripheries (where they differ from the region) and then by the municipalities. The prefectural level can included or left out, it will have to be decided over at WPGR.


 * BTW, I see we keep disagreeing on Crete Theme, and the fact that you don't bother discussing any more and instead go on reverting is extremely irritating as well as against Wikipedia policy. I've offered you my reasons, and whatever you think, "navbox functionality" is nowhere among Wikipedia's guidelines. It is certainly not enough a reason to justify massacring a coherent article and leaving it cut in half and metaphorically bleeding. "Byzantine Crete", just like "Ottoman Crete", concerns a very definite topic, regardless of administrative titelature. The theme of Crete belongs to it just like the archontate etc, because they are the same thing. Period. That is all the more the case when "Crete Theme" can refer to three different periods, 760s-820s (possibly), 842-843, and again after 961 to 1204. And since "theme" means little more than "Byzantine province of the 7th-12th centuries", having an article Crete Theme duplicating content from Byzantine Crete, let alone without any more information or any context whatsoever, is absurd. You have three choices: stop, convince me that your POV has merit, or initiate a WP:RFC or WP:RFM and prepare to bring your arguments there. Constantine   ✍  19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want a history lesson, on your head be it ;). In the middle Byzantine period (late 7th to 12th centuries), there were a number of types of provinces: the first and most ubiquitous was the theme or thema, governed by a strategos ("general") originally, then after the mid-10th century either by a civil praetor or by a dux. Then there were the kleisourai, which were analogous to the W. European marches. They were distinct frontier commands, split off from themes or created on conquered territory and headed by military commanders (kleisourarchai). Eventually most of them were raised to themes as well. Then there were the "archontates" (archontia in Greek), run by a civilian archon. These were two kinds: outlying Byzantine provinces, usually of a more or less coastal or maritime character, or some of the semi-autonomous Slavic tribal groupings (Sclaviniae) under Byzantine control. Both kinds were usually elevated to full themes eventually. In other words, the theme was the more prestigious type of province, and the other kinds became themes as they developed. Generally, an archontate or a kleisoura was elevated into a theme when it received more troops and it ceased being an outpost and became a centre of expansion itself. Of course, there were always cases where themes were created from scratch or from splitting up older themes. Another criterion might be how solid Byzantine control was perceived to be, especially in conquered areas. You could compare the archontate or a kleisoura to the oblasts and krais of Russia, with the themes being the gubernias (i.e. the core, solidly "Russian(ized)" provinces). That however applies up until ca. 960. From then on, all new territories became themes (and "theme" effectively came simply to mean "province"). In Crete's case, as a quiet backwater it did not warrant the attentions of a full strategos and was thus ruled by an archon until the Arab invasion in the 820s (probably, there's still that disputed 767 reference), but after 961 it was re-constituted immediately as a theme. is a good idea, I'll get onto it after I've finished some other stuff I'm working on. Constantine   ✍  20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire
You forked both pashaluk and eyalet into stubs, away from Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire. One was apparently redundant. If you don't have any actual new content to add there other than a dictionary meaning, they have no point, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Moldavia is north of the Ottoman Empire. ;-) --illythr (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Herzegovina Eyalet
At the time the Ottomans occupied Herzegovina and indeed when it was named as such, the region was long independent of Croatia, or Serbia. Perhaps you're confused because of Bosanska Krajina. The thing is, Bosanska Krajina was not part of Bosnia but of Croatia at the time of the Ottoman conquest. Herzegovina on the other hand traces its roots to Zachlumia, which was already separate (to some extent at least). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the current border line between the regions of Dalmatia and Herzegovina was *formed* by the Ottoman-Venetian conflict. IOW modern-day Herzegovina is defined as the part that was never re-taken by the Venetians. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tripoli Eyalet


A tag has been placed on Tripoli Eyalet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Boolyme   Chat!! 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Tripoli Eyalet
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Tripoli Eyalet, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Tripoli Eyalet. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Tripoli Eyalet. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I've removed the request for deletion for you, since does not seem to apply. In future, please just follow the advice in the message from the bot, and place hangon on the page, which will alert the reviewing administrator that the deletion is contested (to ensure the the page is fairly reviewed, the creator should not remove the tag: that way there is an impartial review by a user who did not request deletion and did not create the page). Thanks for your creation, all the best :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of infoboxes
Hi GRprefectures, can you please look into this discussion here? Ordtoy says that since the infobox for that vilayet article is "half-complete", it should be deleted. I can't see the logic of that, normally if I come across something that can be improved I think of expanding it, not deleting it.--LK 12:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine themes
Regarding your suggestion to rename theme (Byzantine district) to Themes of the Byzantine Empire, I rather disagree. The article treats both the theme as a structure and its evolution, as well as containing a list of the themes (that is, hopefully one day I'll have the time to fill it up). It is also unlike the "Provinces of XXX" format since many countries have provinces, states, prefectures etc, but the theme was a purely Byzantine institution. This is also the case for similar articles concerning concrete administrative terms, e.g. krai, Imperial Circle, U.S. state etc. Per WP:COMMONAME, the article on the themes as an institution should be at "theme", and since a disambiguation is needed, it is provided. If one day the list of themes is complete (and it will run to several dozen entries), I'd might be a good idea splitting it and it alone off to a Themes of the Byzantine Empire, but this is IMO thus far not necessary... In general however, unless it overburdens the article to a significant extent, I prefer to keep such lists within it, if only for the added context and the ease of checking things up in the main text. For instance, I want to mark out the naval themes and the "Armenian" themes in the list. If the list is split off, then I will have to repeat the explanation there, and essentially duplicate parts from the "theme" article and force the reader to go back and forth for more context on each issue. Constantine  ✍  17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ottoman period in Syria has been nominated for discussion
Category:Ottoman period in Syria, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)