Talk:Bajrakli Mosque, Belgrade

Islam: Mosques Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mosques task force.

Serbia: Belgrade Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as low-importance).

SOurce, source, source

You ain't having a good Wiki article, unless you cite. 80 or 273, we really need to know. So cite. Give us the real info, or give us nothing at all. Was it 273 ""islamic religious objects"" or were all of those mosques? Or were some of thoseo bjects not mosques, but turbes? You don't mention turbes (turkish tombs) anywhere, which Belgrade has, several of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.90.50 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque

According to the link provided on this page to the "City of Belgrade - Islamic Community" website, the mosque was built in 1575. Also from this website, the number of mosques and masjids built by Ottomans in Belgrade is 273, not 80. I think some other historical information from this website could be incorporated here as well. --Dijan 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The research attributed to Altay Suroy Recepoğlu, a Turkish-origin writer from Kosova, states that there were 240 mosques, 270 medreses, 10 Turkish baths, 26 fountains built during the Ottoman rule that lasted 346 years (ref in Turkish). In this article it also says he has documented proof for each one of the items. Btw, one of his books is called (ISBN: 9751727669) "Kosova'da Türk Kültürü veya Türkçe Düşünmek", meaning "Turkish Culture or Thinking in Turkish (language) in Kosovo". Maybe some information can be found. --Gokhan 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Since there are now two bluelinks on the dab page the requested move is rendered obsolete, unless it can be argued that one is preferred over the other; I see no evidence (in the discussion or the articles) that this should be the case. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bajrakli Mosque, Belgrade → Bajrakli Mosque – The target is a dab page with three items, of which two are redlinks. Until and unless there are articles on the other mosques, it does not make sense to have a dab page. 90.200.179.189 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support fairly obvious. PatGallacher (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As after someone creates other two, we will have to move it again. And there are definitively more mosques of those name. Oppose. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We don't disambiguate for future creations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only one article currently, so it makes sense to direct the reader to that one by default. The dab page should be moved to Bajrakli Mosque (disambiguation). Jafeluv (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Striking as there are two articles now. Jafeluv (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just created the article on the mosque in Samokov (this is a one-line stub, but I am going to expand it during the evening, there are interwiki links and sources available). Then there is no point in renaming.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- since the name is not unique, evidence is needed that the article is the Primary Topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.