Former countries: Ottoman Empire Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Military history: Ottoman Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Ottoman military history task force

I'm wondering what is Wikipedia's policy for the naming of cities. Seeing Nedim Ardoğa's last editing, I can't help noticing that we don't agree... Anyway, I won't modify it myself because of Nedim Ardoğa's numerous and worthy contributions. So here is the problem: should cities be named according to their name at the time of the capture, or according to their modern name, or according to their most widely-known name? Logically speaking, for instance, it's a nonsense to speak about the capture of New York during the Second Dutch War. That's why it's known as the capture of New Amsterdam, even though less people know about the name New Amsterdam. It's the same with Lutetia/Paris - the Romans didn't fight near Paris, did they? Lutetia is the Gaul town, Paris is the French capital city.

So, I agree that "Bursa" is a name that everbody knows, and "Prusa" isn't. But speaking about an Ottoman "capture of Bursa" is a nonsense: Bursa is a Turkish town; Prusa is the Byzantine town that the Ottomans conquered.

For Nicomedia/İzmit, and Nicaea/İznik, I don't know whether those ancient names are known or not. I guess they are.

And about Constantinople/İstanbul, I don't get it... Everybody knows about both those names. The logic should prevail, definitely.

What's your opinion? I know that this problem must have been raised billions of times, that's why I count on you old wikipedians to teach me how to proceed.

Falep (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to explain. While we try to do our best, Wikipedia is not a classical encyclopedia . Most of the contributers are not acedemist (well at least I am not.) Wikipedia is intended to enlighten the laymen. Thus the text must simple. Constantinople may be a well known name. But what about the others ? I don't think most readers of Wikipedia have an idea where Bursa is. But on any encyclopaedia and medium scale map one can easily find Bursa. On the other hand, the chances to find Prussa is exceedingly low. The same goes for Nicomedia and Nicaea. (I know Nicaea was an important religious center. Nevertheless, on maps you can't find Nicaea.) Let's look for the other names. I don't think the names Furstad , Chach and Nándorfehérvár mean much to the readers. Actually these names refer to three modern capitals (respectively Cairo, Tashkent and Belgrade) That's why I always prefer to use the modern names. (By the way, I know about New Amsterdam not because it is a common knowledge, but because I happened to know a Dutch family when I was a kid.)Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nedim Ardoğa. You convinced me at Furstad/Cairo. Templates are not only a link between articles of a same theme, they are like "teasers" too, and they have to convey the weight of events more than pure, correct information that could hide it. So, from that point of view, templates should contain mostly-known names like Bursa, instead of unknown but more logical ones, like Prusa. Though, I think that main articles should contain the name of the town at the time of the siege, and, compulsorily, a link to the modern city. It is done currently that way most of the time. That's what I did on Siege of Prusa and I will undo my changes in templates asap. Falep (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]