Template talk:Sultans of the Ottoman Empire

message: == Re: Flag ==
I think that, rather than the late Ottoman flag (which is the modern Turkish one), which was in use for only 70 years or so, the following flag (which was in use for almost 400 years) might be more appropriate for this template:
—Saposcat 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and insert this flag into the template. —Saposcat 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I reorganized the template, the critical dates being 1299,1453,1606,1699,1808,1922. Of course the reigning dates of the sultans don't exactly match. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nedim's changes, the periods were indeed a bit arbitrarily chosen. However, this necessitates a change across all Ottoman historical articles and templates, starting from Ottoman Empire,  and , for the previous division has been well-established in WP for very long. Also, a few sources (preferably English, i.e. international ones) should be provided for the termini nof the various periods, so that we don't have a dispute arising out of this in the future... Constantine   ✍  16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The new form is quite detailed. I liked it. But I don't agree with the period labelled Slowdown of the Territorial Growth of the Ottoman Empire (1579–1683) This label gives the impression of Growth albeit with a slower pace. But it is not true. The only conquest in this period was the conquest of Crete after a record breaking siege period. The Barbary States refused to be ruled by the Ottoman governors and the once famous navy lost control in the Mediterranean Sea. The most important thing is that Anatolia, the core of the empire  was in a never ending chaos named Jelali revolts. The palace was unable to pay the sallaries. etc etc. The only reason why the empire continued to live was probably the 30 Years War in Europe. I think the period between 1579 and 1688 is stagnation (I prefer 1606 as a better end date for the growth . But anyway 1579 is also OK.) After 1683 (or 1699) it is the decline (including the Tulip sub period).  Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the grouping of sultans into sub-periods is both unnecessary and controversial since past experience shows that there is disagreement regarding the cutoff dates for each sub-period. I thus put all the sultans in one big list. This makes the template simpler and easier to read. --BomBom (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Needless to say, I am of the same view. We can either keep the present simplified form or revert to the old five-period scheme. Having a scheme with almost as many periods as sultans is ridiculous and contrary to the very purpose of navboxes. Constantine   ✍  23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I think that, rather than the late Ottoman flag (which is the modern Turkish one), which was in use for only 70 years or so, the following flag (which was in use for almost 400 years) might be more appropriate for this template:
—Saposcat 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and insert this flag into the template. —Saposcat 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Flag 

message: In this template growth era is between 1453 and 1683. I don't know if this categorization is sourced. According Turkish sources, the growth era ends by the end of the 16th century. Some historians prefer 1579 (death of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha) and some prefer 1606 (treaty of Zsitvatorok). In both cases, 17th century is the era of stagnation rather than the growth and the decline begins by 1699 (the treaty of Karlowitz.) . See the discussion page of Project Ottoman Empire. I'll call the editor.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorganized the template, the critical dates being 1299,1453,1606,1699,1808,1922. Of course the reigning dates of the sultans don't exactly match. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nedim's changes, the periods were indeed a bit arbitrarily chosen. However, this necessitates a change across all Ottoman historical articles and templates, starting from Ottoman Empire,  and , for the previous division has been well-established in WP for very long. Also, a few sources (preferably English, i.e. international ones) should be provided for the termini nof the various periods, so that we don't have a dispute arising out of this in the future... Constantine   ✍  16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagnation 

message: I changed the layout of the template from this to this. All comments are welcome. --BomBom (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The new form is quite detailed. I liked it. But I don't agree with the period labelled Slowdown of the Territorial Growth of the Ottoman Empire (1579–1683) This label gives the impression of Growth albeit with a slower pace. But it is not true. The only conquest in this period was the conquest of Crete after a record breaking siege period. The Barbary States refused to be ruled by the Ottoman governors and the once famous navy lost control in the Mediterranean Sea. The most important thing is that Anatolia, the core of the empire  was in a never ending chaos named Jelali revolts. The palace was unable to pay the sallaries. etc etc. The only reason why the empire continued to live was probably the 30 Years War in Europe. I think the period between 1579 and 1688 is stagnation (I prefer 1606 as a better end date for the growth . But anyway 1579 is also OK.) After 1683 (or 1699) it is the decline (including the Tulip sub period).  Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the grouping of sultans into sub-periods is both unnecessary and controversial since past experience shows that there is disagreement regarding the cutoff dates for each sub-period. I thus put all the sultans in one big list. This makes the template simpler and easier to read. --BomBom (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I cleared out two names; Süleyman Shah and Kutalmısh. Both are more or less legendary names. besides Süleyman Shah becomes father at the age of 150 ! Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  150 yr. old father 

message: *template became to be too complicated with this edit. And the periodizations are variable according to scholars. So I support simplified version of this template. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Needless to say, I am of the same view. We can either keep the present simplified form or revert to the old five-period scheme. Having a scheme with almost as many periods as sultans is ridiculous and contrary to the very purpose of navboxes. Constantine   ✍  23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified