This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIslam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
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:
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 ofSokullu 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 (thetreaty of Karlowitz.) . See the discussion page ofProject Ottoman Empire. I'll call the editor.Nedim Ardoğa (talk)05:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 fromOttoman Empire,{{History of the Ottoman Empire}} and{{Grand Viziers of Ottoman Empire}}, 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)[reply]
The new form is quite detailed. I liked it. But I don't agree with the period labelledSlowdown 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 ofCrete after a record breaking siege period. TheBarbary States refused to be ruled by the Ottoman governors and the once famous navy lost control in theMediterranean Sea. The most important thing is thatAnatolia, the core of the empire was in a never ending chaos namedJelali revolts. The palace was unable to pay the sallaries. etc etc. The only reason why the empire continued to live was probably the30 Years War inEurope. 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 thedecline (including the Tulip sub period).Nedim Ardoğa (talk)11:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
template became to be too complicated withthis 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg)
