This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire → Şeyḫülislām of the Ottoman Empire – The spelling of the title (Sheikh-ul-Islam) is inconsistent with the main article (Shaykh al-Islām) and its not the Ottoman expression. I would not be opposed to retaining the "List of ..." title, but I am not sure the best way to pluralise şeyḫülislām: as şeyḫülislāms or following the Turkish Wikipedia as şeyhülislamları. Srnec (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.Yashovardhan (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Sheikh ul-Islam" is one of the many possible transliterations of the name, and one that is used in English. It is not incorrect by any means, and IMO names with diacritics should be avoided, unless there is no alternative. I have no objection to removing the "List of" part, provided that this article is refactored into a topical article that discusses the office as well. This is not the case right now. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was incorrect, merely that it was arbitrary. It is not the same as our article on the title nor is it the Ottoman Turkish form. The spelling of "sheikh" and "ul-", the use of two hyphens and the form of pluralisation are all the way they are on what basis? What is the argument for this form over any other? Consistency with our article Shaykh al-Islām would be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any transliteration is arbitrary in some way. If consistency is the main concern, then why not move to "Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Empire", given that we treat the title "shaykh al-Islam" as the original/generic form of the title? Otherwise, if you wish to use the Ottoman form Şeyḫülislām or Sheykhülislam or however else one chooses to transliterate it, the "of the Ottoman Empire" part is redundant. On the argument of one form over another, I simply note that "Sheikh ul-Islam" is a form used by some of the most eminent Ottomanists (Colin Imber, or Halil Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar), as well as a form commonly used in English when the Ottoman Empire actually still existed ([1]). The transliterations with diacritics etc. are commonly found in scholarly reference works such as encyclopedias, but that does not mean we have to adopt them wholesale. For experts who know what the diacritics mean, they are useful. For the average reader of a Wikipedia article, they are confusing. That applies in general to scientific transliterations vs. simplified forms: consider if we moved Leonidas to Leōnídhas. Constantine ✍ 08:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, as I wrote above, any move that removes the "List of" part should be done after the page is transformed into something resembling an article, not before. Constantine ✍ 12:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't have a strong opinion, but I'll note that in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire entry (which is in English, not Turkish), "Şeyhülislam" is used, and "Sheikh-ul-Islam" is not, except in parentheses in the entry title as "Shaykhulislam". It is written in italics, though. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support:The correct epithet is şeyhülislam (Şeyhülislamlar is the plural. But I suggest using English plural ending -s) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but "Şeyḫülislām" is a bridge too far with the non-Latin characters for my taste. Looks too much like "Let's rename 'Mandarins of China' to '官 of China' as that is more accurate" type language snobbery. Come on, this is a general-purpose general-readership encyclopedia not an academic paper. English readers cannot read or make sense of Şeyḫülislām. I have no idea how to pronounce that and no don't tell me I need to take Introductory Turkish first.
If "Sheikh-ul-Islams" is not the best or most common translation, let's find the one that is and use that. If "Şeyḫülislām" is untranslatable... I don't buy that for a minute, but it it is, we shouldn't even have the article I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
.svg)
