Talk:Temeşvar Eyalet

message: This province is called "Elayet Eyalet of Timişvar" in Paul Robert Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Central Europe. I have also seen Timeşvar & Temişvar used on the internet. Does anyone have a preference for what the article's name should be? Olessi 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyalet is the the correct word- Elayet is a misspelling which has been duplicated in WP. Olessi 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than the first issue is settled. I can't change the name though, who can? --Quinlan Vos 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it without a problem. I'll check for double redirects tomorrow. Olessi 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support. I think that is an appropriate change for the unity of Wikipedia but I guess the name should be "Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire" since it is the original name in Turkish. --Quinlan Vos 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *Support See above. LuiKhuntek 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on Eyalet of Temeşvar → Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire

message: This vote was badly performed. If I know that first version of the name would be addopted I would support the second option. I change my last vote into support for Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire. PANONIAN (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing my vote

message: There must be some mistake with info that sanjaks of Segedin, Syrmia and Smederevo were part of the Eyalet of Temesvar. Firstly, Sanjak of Segedin was located in the region of Bačka and this entire region was ceded to Habsburg Monarchy in 1699, so Sanjak of Segedin could not be part of the Eyalet of Temesvar 1700-1701. Also, according to my sources, Sanjak of Syrmia was abolished after 1699 (since much of that sanjak was also ceded to Habsburg Monarchy) and its remaining territory was included into the Sanjak of Smederevo. It is not impossible that Sanjak of Smederevo was part of the Eyalet of Temesvar, but I did not saw any other source that claiming this. Takabeg, can you please check your sources again? Is it possible that Ottoman Empire only nominally claimed that these sanjaks that were ceded to Habsburg Monarchy are still Ottoman territory? PANONIAN 09:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just transfered information from sources. We must ask Orhan Kılıç :) And we can search and confirm with using other sources on same issue. Takabeg (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if it is not big problem to you, can you write here exact quotations from your source (in Turkish), i.e. these sentences that are speaking about these 3 sanjaks? I am able to understand Turkish due to google translate web site, so it would be helpful that I can compare this with my sources. PANONIAN 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing: entire territory of the Sanjak of Segedin (or entire Bačka region) was transfered to Habsburg Monarchy in 1699, so does your source mention where exactly Sanjak of Segedin was located in 1700-1701? Perhaps some new sanjak with this name was formed in Banat after 1699? PANONIAN 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I might understand now what exactly is the problem here. According to one of the sources that I have, Sanjak of Segedin (which was mainly located in Bačka) also included small north-western part of Banat which remained under Ottoman administration after 1699. Therefore, Sanjak of Segedin which is mentioned in 1700-1701 is probably only this small part of original Sanjak of Segedin. So, list of the sanjaks, thus, seems accurate, but I might later include some additional data from my sources. PANONIAN 18:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: *"Temeşvar Eyalet" -Llc ?
*"Eyalet of Temeşvar" -Llc 12 -
*Ottoman + "Province of Temeşvar" -Llc 18 -
-- Takabeg (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not say that you want to revert title back to "Province of Temeşvar". I am fine with both words but people all the time changing title from "province" to "eyalet" and otherwise and that is not very nice. We should find some stable version of the name and we should not rename this article all the time. PANONIAN 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Underlying lk, please stop including fictional and inaccurate map to this article. There was no such thing as "Ottoman Hungary" in Ottoman administrative system and Wikipedia is no place for such POV. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Temeşvar 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/20040308073040/http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/6het/map.jpg to http://www.sulinet.hu/eletmod/hogyantovabb/tovabbtanulas/elokeszito/tortenelem/6het/map.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127213612/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hu/0/05/Torokvilag.jpg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hu/0/05/Torokvilag.jpg
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) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified