Talk:Nicaea

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicaea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Turkey

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Name

As the one who put an end to actual chauvinism (if it wasn't simply an error) in this article by moving it from Nicaea to Iznik (see edit history), I add my support to having the former Greek name (from which the Turkish name is derived) in the lead sentence. This is not chauvinism, but it is for the reader's advantage, as many readers will be cross-referencing, etc. Giving relevant alternate names in the lead is also the standard in Wikipedia. Alexander 007 18:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, was it necessary to move it to the spelling with the dotted capital I? Even when we call it "Iznik" we just use a regular I in English... Adam Bishop 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - since there seems to be no agreement on the previous move, we should restore it to the previous name.--Aldux 12:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion of it, and furthermore the person who made the move didn't even attempt to fix the category indexing. I'm moving it back. Gene Nygaard 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"İznik" is the correct spelling, and I've fixed the indexing for you, or at least I hope. —Khoi khoi 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Niceae is the correct spelling. But in any case, "correctness" isn't the criterion for Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Best known in English is. On top of that, and your notion of "correctness" hasn't been established in any case.

And no, you completely broke the indexing of the categories.

Nor did you change the double redirects, as you were reminded to do when you made the move.

So I'm moving it back again. Gene Nygaard 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that "Nicaea" is the most common name in English for the ancient city, but the modern city is always called İznik. I have no objections if you split the articles, however (like İzmir and Smyrna). As for the indexing, perahps you could help me out—I tried my best. I've fixed the double redirects as you requested. —Khoi khoi 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough that it really stretches credibility that you can't see what the problem is with the indexing. But I guess you do need help, so start by reading about the sort keys at Wikipedia:Categorization.

This article was originally about the ancient city. If there is any splitting out to do, make your own new article. Gene Nygaard 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Article should be renamed to the original greek name with an additional information abouth the present turkish name. --Epigenes 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is about the city Nicaea. I really do not understand why people do not create a new article about the present-day cities/towns/villages, providing history timelines, administrative, economical etc facts, explain localities and names in both articles but instead they move them. I am involved in an exact same situation in articles Erythrai, Turkey which was moved to Ildırı by User:Cretanforever. - 172.159.2.250 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, why the names of the Turkish-places' articles are spelled using Turkish-language characters? Aren't those supposed to be transliterated to English-language characters, then used within WP in that English form and only provide the Turkish spelling in the lead of the article (maybe providing also IPA pronunciations etc)? -172.159.2.250 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped by again to show off my shiny new account :D I've lurked long enough, I think! The above user - Zippocar 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation Guide?

A pronunciation guide would be helpful. Is it Nih-kee-ah, Nih-see-ah, or...? --216.31.219.19 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Howard Persh, howard.persh.us@member.mensa.org[reply]

Rename to Nicaea

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved to Nicaea, Empire of Nicaea. Consensus was to split. Consensus was to move to Nicaea but there was no discussion on primary topic and moving Nicaea, which is a dab page, was not announced on that page nor discussed here. So I see this move as the first step in making the split happen and allowing the other issues to be resolved. Feel free to split out the portions on İznik correctly noting that the text was from this article. Someone will also need to look at all of the links and make sure that they are pointing to the correct article. Once that is done, feel free to list this as a move if the current name is not acceptable. I'll note that a lot of the inbound links are from Nicaea (city) which appears to be ambiguous but this city could be the primary topic under that name. Bottom line is that there were too many issues to resolve here and now. This discussion has been open too long so get started on the split and we can cleanup after. If some simple admin cleanup is needed, leave a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

İznik → Nicaea – per WP:COMMONNAME. The location draws its fame from its history as a Byzantine city. The article appears to have been renamed to Iznik without discussion some years ago. Nicaea should be moved to Nicaea (disambiguation), similar to Alexandria (disambiguation), Athens (disambiguation), etc...--Rafy talk 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divide Ordinarily I would oppose this, as I would oppose moving Istanbul to Constantinople. But this article (except for the infobox) is not on the modern Turkish city; it's on the Byzantine city. We should have both articles: Iznik, so spelled, like Izmir and Istanbul, and a note on the Turkish İ; and Nicaea. JCScaliger (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and split into two separate articles. We shouldn't use ancient Greek names for modern Turkish places. - Darwinek (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split -- The present place is a town of 15000, which not that of an important place. There is one paragraph on the Turkish city, and some text in the lead. Iznik appears to be an incorrect spelling, but is a probable search term. It should be retained as a redirect. The article should approach history on the basis that ancient Nicaea is an archaeological site at İznik. For Nicaea, this place is clearly Primary. The city name is related to nike - victory, and its reuse elsewhere is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The content of the article is almost exclusively on the ancient city. Creating a new article on the modern town İznik (i.e., a split) is probably a good idea but the edit history of the article under discussion here should remain with Nicaea. — AjaxSmack 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and split, per Peterkingiron. (By the way, in modern Turkey, İznik is not a cipher, but it is known mainly for its ceramics.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 07:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split, with appropriate cross references. --Surfo (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since everybody agrees to split the article, I suggest moving the current page to Nicaea and creating a brand new article for Iznik, this way Nicaea will retain the edit history of this page.--Rafy talk 02:12, 8 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Based on comments on my talk page, this has been moved to Niacea instead. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaea, Empire of Nicaea?

Whose idea was it to move the article to "Nicaea, Empire of Nicaea"? The move request included no disambiguation, and even if it had, the one chosen is completely worthless. The Empire of Nicaea was a temporary successor state of Byzantium after the Fourth Crusade, and certainly not the defining geographical and historical factor about the city. "Nicaea in Bithynia" would have worked far better and be in keeping with placename disambiguation practice. However, Nicaea is certainly far better known the other locations of the name as the location of the Ecumenical Council that produced the Nicene Creed, and a disambiguation is not necessary: a clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A rename per the original move request to simple "Nicaea" is in order here. I have already moved the dab page to Nicaea (disambiguation). Constantine ✍ 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]