Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 27 August 2013

Template:VA

	Istanbul is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 26, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 8, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 19, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 16, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Population

Here I am listing why I am going to change the used 13 million population from proper to urban. First the provided source from the Statistical Institute itself shows 13.120.596 as population of the city along with other suburb cities (İl/ilçe merkezleri): and as metropolitan (Büyükşehir): , which is not population proper. I tried to found the proper population of the city, but in the Statistical institute I found only urban. Pensionero (talk) (UTC)

Spor

Since the Byzantine and Roman periods, Istanbul is home to many sports activities; host football, basketball, voleyball and various motor races today. The biggest in the league Turkey ; Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray in Istanbul. As well as Anadolu Efes, Galatasaray Medical Park, Fenerbahçe Ülker and Beşiktaş in basketball and Eczacıbaşı, Galatasaray Daikin, Beşiktaş Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Fenerbahçe and Vakıfbank Türk Telekom in voleyball and Beşiktaş in handball and in wheelchair basketball Beşiktaş RMK Marine and Galatasaray teams like the city's major clubs.

Ali Sami Yen Spor Kompleksi Türk Telekom Arena, Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı and Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı are in the UEFA five-star stadiums ve Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı, hosted the 2005 UEFA Champions League Finals. Likewise Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı hosted 2009 UEFA Cup Final.

Which is the most important Veliefendi Hippodrome racecourse is home to the city's major races.

2012-2013 Season Club, in which the leagues, stadiums and sport halls

Football

Süper Lig

First League

Second League

Third League

Basketbol

Beko Basketbol Ligi

TKBL

TTSB

Voleybol

Acıbadem Bayanlar Voleybol 1. Ligi

Acıbadem Erkekler Voleybol 1. Ligi

Hentbol

Türkiye Erkekler Hentbol Süper Ligi

Türkiye Kadınlar Hentbol Süper Ligi

|}

Istanbul Infobox Image

Should the current infobox image be changed with ? There are several issues with the current infobox image: (1) It shows non-notable pictures such as a picture of a tram and a picture of a few regular buildings in Maslak, whereas there are many better alternatives; (2) Infobox pictures showing larger areas and cityscapes seem better compared to pictures showing a limited area or a single building (unless iconic) (eg: New York City infobox collage, which includes several pictures that show the cityscape). Suggested newer collage adds another cityscape picture, and also adds Maiden's tower, which is one of the symbols of the city. Cavann (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing the RfC tag. There was an RfC on this matter just five months ago, and now you're just abusing the RfC process. RfC is not meant to be used to push through agendas that have already been shot down or have barely seen any discussion. Sorry, no. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous RFC about infobox image was in September 2012. Cavann (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the RfC template again. No, it was launched on November 11 and closed on December 20. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not participate in it, so it is not an abuse of RFC process. 5 month RFC cannot shut all the current and future discussion. Anyway, this issue is now in dispute resolution. Cavann (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The current image had broad consensus just a few months back, and shows a variety of locations in the city. The infobox shouldn't just show the downtown or tourist areas, and even New York City features the Unisphere in Flushing Meddows. What I would suggest, if folks do wish to include File:Istanbul panorama and skyline.jpg, is that it could replace the panorama currently in the top spot in the collage, since the both feature Sultanahmet.-- Patrick, _oѺ 21:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually built upon the previous infobox. 2 images from the previous collage are maintained. 2 panaromas are somewhat different though. One shows the Golden Horn, the other is entrance to Bosphorus, so I think both should be there. Cavann (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq. The RFC process cannot be misused. Moreover, this article reached with the removed collage FA status. I think that before starting a new discussion, the article should be displayed on the main page. Alex2006 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, uninvolved editor here. I think removing the RfC was inapropriate regardless of the feelings of those involved. The rules for ending an RfC are listed as: the question may be withdrawn by the poster, the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum - If you disagree with the RfC you should oppose it or ask an uninvolved admin to close it but you should not simply remove it yourself. I would support the original proposer adding it back in but I have no opinion on the content of the RfC itself. Cabe6403 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems dead. Note that I intend to restart the RFC if we cannot reach a consensus. The current infobox image is unacceptable, because it does not include one of city's symbols (Maiden's Tower), and it includes a picture of a partially burned down building. If Haydarpaşa Terminal is gonna be included, this should be done after that building is fully restored (see older version of the building before fire with the roof fully intact). I cannot understand how a burnt down bulding was included in the collage. Cavann (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion are below:

Cavann (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No idea what happened to the comment I wrote yesterday, but apparently it didn't get saved.

Anyway, the gist of it is that there was a lot of gusto toward including the Haydarapasha Terminal because it's on the Asian side of the city. In the months since the August/September 2012 discussion, that enthusiasm has waned as a few editors (two of whom are blocked, I might add) have remembered that the terminal is damaged. But we have yet to find a suitable replacement. Without the image, we have no representation of the Asian side of the city. Maiden's Tower was considered during the aforementioned discussion, but it was ultimately excluded because the tower serves no functional purpose in the city. As for the panoramas... we already have one, and it's useful at the size it needs to be in the infobox. There's no need for a second one. And the second panorama does not work will at the 300-pixel width it'll need to be in the infobox. If you want to include it, it should be down in the Cityscape section (where it currently is now). -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the 2nd collage? Some points:

1) Instead of unremarkable office towers, a bridge should show the modern side (and it includes Rumelihisari and Bosphorus and Asian side)

2) For the Asian side, instead of Haydarpasa, we can use Kuleli Military High School.

3) We can either use Maiden's Tower or Dolmabahce Palace. Maiden's Tower is one of the symbols of the city, so I still think it should be included. Cavann (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Unremarkable office towers? Um, ok. But I would think the city's financial district is somewhat important. I'd hardly call the inclusion of the bridge (hardly visible I might add) a testament to modern Istanbul. (2) Is that high school really that significant? Serious question. (3) Er, ok. I also want to point out your proposal has a lot of water. Even the Venice collage has more pictures without water visible. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

1) Maslak is not even the main financial district. That would be Levent. There is another one under construction in Atasehir. Until there is a quality picture, a bridge is better. Plus it shows Bosphorus and Rumelihisari, as I said.

2) Yes (eg: _

3) We can crop some of the water when we agree to the images.Cavann (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your obsession with Rumelihisari? You seem to like shots that incidentally show it, like the image of just water the ship with it apparently shown in the background that you put in the Economy section. There are several areas of skyscrapers or significant modern buildings in the city. I see no reason why we can't use one of those areas. The Bosphorus Bridges are not exactly appealing landmarks, and they are (the Second Bosphorus Bridge specifically, in fact) already depicted elsewhere twice (thanks to your new image). The objection to the image of Maslak just doesn't make sense to me. The city is more than old buildings and water and your collage suggestions don't show that. -- tariqabjotu 07:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your obsession with nondescript office towers that can be anywhere on Earth from Latin America to China? A Bosphorus bridge and Rumelihisari are quintessentially Istanbul, whereas office towers are not. What is your obsession with partially burned down building when there are alternatives on the Asian side? Cavann (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq. Anyway, if in order to take a new shot we wait for the restoration of Haydarapasha, we can wait a long time (and actually, knowing how things are proceeding here, one can rather bet on a second, more definitive "accidental" fire :-)), so why don`t we use the first picture? Anyway, personally I am not disturbed about the burnt roof, since burned buildings (as many writers like de Amicis and Pamuk remember) definitively belong to the real image of this city as much as gecekondu and skyscrapers. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Italian cities have plenty of run down neighborhoods too, I don't see them in any infobox's. I also note that de Amicis is so very old. Please update yourself, this is 2013. Cavann (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Cavann, sorry, but here you missed totally the point: if you want to add some pictures of run down or illegal Italian buildings, you have my 100% wholehearted support. What I don't like about this article (and, in general, about all[REDACTED] articles about cities) is this "schönwetter" image that it give, and that is partial (for Istanbul as well as for Rome, my birth city). Istanbul has giant problems (since is a giant city), and I think that this article should also describe them, not only Ayasofya and Dolmabahce. The same is valid for Rome, whose problems are smaller only because the city is smaller. About burnt buildings, which are a constant of the city, since wood was the preferred building material, you could go to Ortaköy, and see the ruins of the school, once one of the most beautiful edifices of the city, burnt only 10 years ago by the Kurdish mafia, because the director refused to allow them to park illegally the cars in the schoolyard. As you can see , the story told by de Amicis is still going on :-) Bye Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Then go edit those articles, Alessandro57. Don't share your wisdom in just Turkey-related content. Also this is not the place for general rants about Misplaced Pages. Remember, talk pages are not a forum. Cavann (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my modified suggestion. I think I've addressed the concerns of Tariqabjotu. I took out the Bosphorus bridge picture, and put a pic showing Istanbul's current main business district, and its tallest building. I also put a picture of Kuleli Military High School, on the Asian side, to represent that side. Dolmabahce Palace is still there, since it is the most significant historic building outside the historic peninsula, since it was the residence of Sultans after they moved out of Topkapi Palace, and was the site of Ottoman parliament. However, we can also put the pic of the tram back there (or this pic for tram). Cavann (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Other than the diffuse answer above, I got no replies; I'm going ahead with the change. Cavann (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was told to "participate in the discussion". I take it this is the discussion, where only Cavaan has agreed to the infobox image that Cavaan has proposed. Since the reference to the previous discussions wasn't enough, let me be more explicit with further problems: (a) the picture of the skyline at night makes it hard to see, (b) there was no reason for you to move the panorama to the middle line, (c) the thick borders between images looks better than having the images directly abut each other, particularly when they're so similar. Honestly, I don't know what the problem was with the original image. Based on your rationale above, the most I would have expected you to do is replace the Hyderapasha image with an image of something else on the Asian side and replace the "picture of a tram" (seriously?) with another picture of Istiklal Avenue -- and leave everything else alone.

But, no, really, this was just an excuse to create a new image and claim consensus when no one seemed to expend more energy rejecting it. You call the original image of Maslak "unremarkable office towers", but then prefer a very dark image of high-rises in the city. You complain about one of Istanbul's most important landmarks missing, and yet you felt the need to remove an image of Istiklal Avenue and its tram. In your edit summary, you complained that the images in the previous collage were low-quality; not that quality matters when the aim is just to show it in the infobox, but have you compared your collage to the previous one at full size? You've actually introduced noise into some of the images that you didn't even swap out.

If you want to make the two changes you've substantiated -- using a different image from the Asian side of the city and using another shot of Istiklal Avenue (there are countless options for the latter on Wikimedia Commons), I wouldn't object. But, at present, you've just made arbitrary changes and demanded that everyone accept them. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. At least we agreed on "using a different image from the Asian side of the city and using another shot of Istiklal Avenue." Noise and other technical issues in the picture can be fixed. I don't care if the panorama pic is in the middle; it's just more symmetrical that way and similar to Washington, D.C., another FA.

Now why do you want to keep using the crop of this 390 KB image (is the sky purple because of the low quality)? At least the image I used shows Istanbul Sapphire, the tallest building in the city. Are you very impressed by 10-story buildings and some glass? Are they supposed to represent modern Istanbul? Is the weird purple sky supposed to be the dystopian futuristic part? Are there no other alternatives? Is it really preferable to the image I used even tho that image is at night? Cavann (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this kind of response is just unacceptable. You are the one who wants a change. I'm not kowtowing to your wishes on the basis of sarcastic argument.

Your diatribe shows you know nothing about how images work. You keep harping on the file size of that image of Maslak. Do you know the file size of your collage? I'll give you a hint: it's less than half the size of the one you keep berating. The file size is completely irrelevant. We are not making a poster for public presentation; we are making a picture that should only be used at this particular size in an infobox on Misplaced Pages, and will be cropped down for use at that size. So, as long as the height of the image in the collage is not greater than the original height of the image, it doesn't matter. You are free to view the image of Maslak at its original color, as it's been placed in the history, but modifying the coloring of an image, while maintaining natural color is completely normal and accepted on Misplaced Pages. Note, for example, that the same thing was done in a panorama you were eager to put in the article and the infobox (compare to this). The image you want to put into the infobox is very difficult to see at this size. Note that in previous discussions about this collage, some even objected to the image of the Blue Mosque because it was too dark at dusk. So, an image in the dark of night would obviously, therefore, be out of the question.

As I have tried to tell you before, this collage has been discussed multiple times over the past year. There has been an increased desire to replace the Haydarpasha Terminal image with something else, and I doubt anyone would care if we used a different Istiklal Avenue image that showed a bit more of the street without eliminating the trolley entirely from view (e.g. this one), but beyond that, you're just on a one-man crusade. Why can you not make those changes and be done with it? Not sure, but your response to that question the first time suggests you're less interested in a serious discussion than in making sarcastic jabs. -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are so adamant on that Maslak image, but I'm bored with the discussion. For those two changes (trolley and replacing Haydarpasa), I requested it at the Misplaced Pages:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.

Perhaps we can use this image somewhere else in the article; I think it's a nice image. Perhaps instead of Levent fog picture, to show the snow.Cavann (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What you requested at Graphics Lab was not only to change the two bottom pics, but also to move the panorama to the middle, which you have had no support for in the discussion here. I do not have very strong feelings about it, but I prefer the version with the panorama at top. I will accept the panorama in the middle if that is what most peopla want, but as far as this only Cavann has supported it. Talking of bored, I am starting to get bored of discussions that pop up again every second month after consensus has been reached. Regards! T*U (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Whose puppet are you then? Are you some banned user? Your first post in Talk:Istanbul was on 4 June 2013. I have no time for disruptive users using the revolving door. Cavann (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your accusation is completely off the mark and rather offensive. It would be better if you discussed the question, not the editors. Regards! T*U (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's snow in that picture? Yeah, not exactly a great photo for illustrating that. It seems better under the Economy section replacing the current image of the Levent... if the image is really needed.

Regarding the infobox image: again, I don't know why you requested that the panorama be shifted downward, despite there being no corroborating support for that. Either way, whatever new collage you create should not overwrite the current collage. That image is used on a number of articles on several different Wikipedias. Editors for each of those articles should be allowed to choose what they want to put in those respective articles and not be forced to discard this collage. So, please use a different file name (e.g. File:Istanbul collage 5g.jpg, as the number was supposed to indicate the number of images in the collage). -- tariqabjotu 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The pictures in the infobox have been discussed at length before, and the current collage was broadly supported, so I feel we should leave it at it is or with minor changes. I agree that we could change the Istiklal tram to the other Tariq proposes. I would prefer to keep the Haydarpasha station, but could accept another Asian side picture if that is what is needed to avoid another discussion in three weeks time... But before we discard the Haydarpasha picture, I would like to see more than one person actually wanting to change it. As for the rest of the collage, let's leave it as it is. Regards! T*U (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq. Alex2006 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Above is the current collage and two derivatives made recently through a request at the Graphics Lab. – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the choice, my vote is for the collage to the right (Istanbul collage 5h.jpg). T*U (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a shot using GIMP to make the panorama image larger. I think it turned out fine? Cavann (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks very well done – JBarta (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cavann (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I think this version breaks the 1/3 rule. In the other collages the height of every row is one third of the total height. In this one the midle picture looks bloated compared to the top and bottom rows. Δρ.Κ.  00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1/3 rule for every row? You just made that up. Eg: Canberra, Washington, D.C., etc Cavann (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh gee you caught me. Hold off the PAs please. I didn't say it was a Misplaced Pages rule. It just makes sense to have a symmetrical arrangement instead of a bloated centre picture looking like it has a big midsection. Δρ.Κ.  02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It may break the 1/3 rule but follows precisely the 3-4-3 rule (the center row height is 4 units to the upper and lower unit of 3 units). It also follows the middle-heavy rule (the height of a middle row is slightly greater than the other two). And if anyone needs more rules, I'd be happy to supply them. That said, one suggestion might be to trim the height of the wide image slightly and put it at the top. The wide image would still be slightly taller than the others but it would exactly follow the top-heavy rule... – JBarta (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I never knew so many rules existed. I like the "top-heavy rule" the best. :) Δρ.Κ.  02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are rules enough to satisfy all. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that. I also liked the 3-4-3 rule. :) Δρ.Κ.  02:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think shortening the panorama a bit, although maybe not as short as it is currently, and returning it to the top (not to mention putting back the black borders) is the way to go. -- tariqabjotu 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand why you keep sneaking in changes. The changes you've substantiated amount to the image created as 5h, with the panorama still at top. The rest is just a preference you keep asking for and hoping you'll get after repetition. Despite what's going on at Canberra or wherever, I believe having that single panoramic image in the center looks worse than having it at top, where it would "headline" the panorama and the infoboz (with the city name just above it). I'm not sure what additional information is conveyed by heightening that panorama by a few pixels, but if you're going to do that, at least do it in the 'top-heavy' configuration. I'd also like to note that I feel the black borders look better than the white borders, particularly with the darker, bolder colors in all the constituent images. -- tariqabjotu 07:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had widened the panorama to include the historic parts on the bottom of the original image, and the Princes Islands on the horizon on top left. Cavann (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tariq: Panorama on top, either "1/3" or "top-heavy", and black borders. T*U (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Tariq. Alex2006 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I find myself getting sucked into this collage accumulation going on over here. I made another with a slightly taller top image as suggested. It's shown above as "Istanbul collage 5j.jpg". And in case someone suggests it doesn't follow the appropriate rules, be assured it follows both the 5-4-4 rule and the top-heavy rule. – JBarta (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If we have to go by top-heavy or 5-4-4 (is there really such a thing?) then "Istanbul collage 5j.jpg" is a nice example. Δρ.Κ.  17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Still looks rather amateurish compared to montages of most top importance cities on Misplaced Pages because of the purple-sky Maslak image Tariqabjotu is insisting on, but it's definitely a huge improvement compared to the current one. Ideally, I would have suggested the pattern in Canberra's image with current panorama image in the middle, this wide one on top left , the mosque on top right and rest of the 3 images (including Maslak image if you like it so much) on the bottom. But, as I said, it's definitely a huge improvement compared to the current one. Thanks for the help JBarta! Cavann (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"A huge improvement"? Oh, please. About that Maslak image, I am not "insisting" on anything. You are not the first person to initiate a discussion about the collage. We are not going to make changes simply because you demand them. That image has been in nearly every collage proposed on this talk page during the discussions in the second half of 2012. Again, the image you keep pushing is obviously far too dark, a point even raised in earlier discussions in regards to the twilight Blue Mosque image. We had another, perhaps clearer, image of a financial district in the article, but you also objected to that on spurious grounds (to say nothing of your replacement of the other image in the Economy section with one that leaves the ship barely visible). I don't know why some editors have an insatiable desire to modify the collage, but at some point you need to recognize there are many ways to illustrate the city, even if they aren't your ideal. There's no need to emulate cherry-picked articles or deride other formulations as "amateurish". This is not a particularly crucial facet of the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and this new daytime panorama you're suggesting is already in the article (thanks to you) with a functionally identical shot. -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I called my own work amateurish , don't take straightforward criticism personally. I'll be on lookout for a new day-time image. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone's objecting to Istanbul collage 5j? Cavann (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with 5J there, especially if it will settle the debate. Kuleli is a fine replacement for Haydarpaşa as a representative of the Asian side.-- Patrick, _oѺ 17:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Urban Agglomeration

I know that for administrative purposes, Istanbul is coterminous with its province. But, does the Turkish government have a measurement of both the size and area of the contiguous urbanized area within the province to give a better idea of the size? Most city pages where you have a metropolitan city that includes a lot of undeveloped area also have a category in the infobox showing the size of the actual urbanized area. I was wondering if this is something that could be done with Turkey. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That Istanbul is the second-largest city in the world by population within city limits according to the article List of cities proper by population, is problematic, because the Turkish government does not make a clear distinction between the city and province in regard to population. (For instance the criteria given in the article states: "This is a list of the most populous cities in the world defined according to a concept of city proper (an urban locality without its suburbs).") However the area 5,343 km² is given which corresponds to the entire area of the Province of Istanbul, and not to defined city limits. In the articles World's largest municipalities by population, List of urban areas by population, List of metropolitan areas by population, List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations) Istanbul does not appear as the second largest city in the lists. And in the article World's largest cities, the different ranks in population for comparison are shown in the list, which makes it even more confusing. What criterias should be used to make it clear and simple? Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.53.26 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Site infobox image

I don't know what's going on with the mini-edit war over the image in the UNESCO World Heritage site box. There is reference to a discussion about that image, but has there really been one? Are you talking about this brief discussion from February 2013? There doesn't appear to be consensus over anything there, and someone raised a point I agree with: the silhouette image is, aside from not illustrating anything, a bit of an orientalist depiction of the city: shadowy, exotic, mysterious, more befitting of an Agatha Christie novel cover than for depicting the city's World Heritage Site. I admit there is something artistic to the image, so I'm not super adamant about switching that image out, but I do believe the new image is superior. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. I agree there's very little detail in the "old" image. If folks were interested, however, the UNESCO site is actually in four "zones" according to the website: the tip of the peninsula; the Süleymaniye quarter; the Zeyrek quarter; and the "zone of the ramparts." So (gasp! I hate to suggest) would a collage be better?-- Patrick, _oѺ 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, the new image looks fine. Cavann (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is fine for me too. Alex2006 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed photo is really nice and high quality for me, but I don't think that's enough to box. Topkapi Palace in the background and it's not alone structure in the historical peninsula. Please take a look at the web page of UNESCO. 16 photo of Hagia Sophia, 10 photo of Sultan Ahmed Mosque and one picture of Topkapı Palace. It emphasizes the importance of World Heritage list in Istanbul. As a third option, I would suggested this photograph. An image that is a combination of all three. Maurice (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Conditional TFA request for September 8

I have requested that Istanbul conditionally run as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page on September 8. See Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#September 8. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Alex2006 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A nice gesture. It's an honour for Istanbul. Thank you Tarıq Maurice07 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The issues with the lead and Toponomy needs to be fixed first. Cavann (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, no. -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, this is nominated conditional on Istanbul earning the chance to host the 2020 Olympics. -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Toponymy and Lead

Cavann has started another round of edit-warring adding settlements in the toponymy and trying once again to deprecate the fact that Byzantium is the first attested name for the city. This being an FA article, this drastic change needs discussion. Cavann's tactics include insulting edit summaries linking to Golden Dawn. That is a gross personal attack and should not be repeated. Δρ.Κ.  02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, concur. -- tariqabjotu 06:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"first attested name for the city." All sources say this (remember WP:NPOV)? This invented excuse is nonsensical.

This sentence in the lead, "Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium, the city now known as Istanbul developed," and deleting the info in Toponomy section does not comply with WP:NPOV, as it ignores various reliable sources. Some sources (the text is not perfect, as I used a computer application to convert images to text):

"confirmed that the city was inhabited during die Neolithic Age"

The emergence of the land that straddles the strategic Bosphorus Strait is the stuff of legends. But a chance discovery of four human skeletons some four miles beneath Yenikapi in rnid2008 '''confirmed that the city was inhabited''' during die Neolithic Age. an estimated 8,000 years ago. Up until that point, the Thracians were thought to have settled the Scraglio—the tip vi the Sulta na h met peninsula—at Lygos between the 13th and 11th centuries B.c. Winding for ward four centuries, King Byzas was actually the first to colonize it. He was the ruler of the Greek town of Megara who, after consulting with the Oracle at Delphi as ro where ro found a new city. was told ro look 4’oppositc the blind.” Byzas reached the settlement of Chalcedon—today’s Kad iköy—a nd thought chat Chalcedonians must have been “blind” for not realizing the much fluer land that lay just across the Bosphorus Strait. Byzas setdcd the territory in the 7th century B.C. and called it Byzantion after lsimsclf Later the colony took on a Latin name: Byzantium. It became a part of the Roman Empire in the 1st century E.C., and by A.D. 306 ii was assigned the status of capi(al by Emperor Constantine, who thought it wise to redub the city Constantinople.<ref name="Tamtürk2010">{{cite book|author=Jessica Tamtürk|title=Moon Istanbul and the Turkish Coast|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JVjIDTaJnz0C&pg=PA29|accessdate=19 August 2013|year=2010|publisher=Avalon Travel Publishing|isbn=978-1-59880-175-0|pages=29–}}</ref>

Lonely Planet Guide:

Semistra, the earliest-known settlement on the site of Istanbul, was probably founded around 1000 BC, a few hundred years alÏer the Trojan War and in the same period that kings David and Solomon ruled in Jerusalem. Semistra was followed by a fishing village named L.ygos, whidi occupied Seraglio Point (Sarayhurnu) where Topkapi Palace (Topkapi Sarayi) stands today. Around 700 BC, colonists from Megara (near Corinth) in Greece tounded the city of Chakedon (now Kadiköy) on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus. Chalcedon became one of a dozen Greek fishing colonies along the shores of the Propontis (the ancient name br the Sea of Marmara). The historian Theopompus of Chios, cited in John Freely’s bianbul: The Imperial City, wrote in the latter hail of’ the 4th century that its inhabitants ‘devoted themselves unceasingly to the belier PLirsuits ol’ life’. Their way of life was apparently in stark contrast to that ot’the dissolute Byzantines, who bounded their settlement across the Bosphorus at Seraglio Point in 657 BC.<ref name="Maxwell2010">{{cite book|author=Virginia Maxwell|title=Istanbul|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iBnjiaxjqFgC&pg=PA19|accessdate=19 August 2013|date=15 September 2010|publisher=Lonely Planet|isbn=978-1-74220-404-8|pages=19–}}</ref>

"However, the fact that the city is both now so extensive and its core has remained continuously inhabited since the seventh century BC means that our knowledge from archaeology cornes primarily from rescue digs"

The archaeological records suggest that there was human habitation in the area as far back as 5000 BC, at a time when the Bosphorus was a valley with a series of freshwater lakes connecting the saline Sea of Marmara to the freshwater Black Sea. However, the fact that the city is both now so extensive and its core has remained continuously inhabited since the seventh century BC means that our knowledge from archaeology cornes primarily from rescue digs. It does appear that early Greek colonists from Megara arrived at the mouth of the Bosphorus around the beginning of the seventh century and initially established a site called Chalcedon on the Asian side. Seventeen ;rars later, according to Herodotus, another set of Megarian colonists, led by Byzas, established themselves on the European side of the entrance on the promontory on the peninsula. Byzantium, named after their leader, was a much more defensive and strategic site. The Byzantium foundation myths talk about dolphins (symbols of Apollo) marking the site and of the orade at Delphi suggesting the colonists found the new city across from the land of the blind:’ nicely inter preted as the “blindness” of the Chalcedons in niissing the better site across the strait. From the very beginning, the two colonies worked in tandem to control trade and shipping between the Greek colonies further up the Bosphorus or along the Pontos and Black Sea coast and the Aegean, althoui what became ltvzantium was by far the more significant and strategically protected in its isolation. Excavations have revealed some pottery from as early as 500 BC, and the first walls surrounded the acropolis hill. l)uring its first 400 years, the town gained a reputation for hard trading and heavy drinking; the female poet Moero (Myro) of Byzantium (ca. 300 BC), with her poems about love and wine, was representative of the literary references to the city. Xenophon (ca. fourth cenwry) suggested that Byzantium was the last truly “Greek” city before reaching the colonies to its north. <ref name="DumperStanley2007">{{cite book|author1=Michael Dumper|author2=Bruce E. Stanley|title=Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3SapTk5iGDkC&pg=PA187|accessdate=19 August 2013|year=2007|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-57607-919-5|pages=181–}}</ref>

I have been sidetracked, but I have not forgotten about this issue. Since the last RFC failed, I will swiftly go through other steps in dispute resolution if this attempt also fails. Cavann (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not doing this again. Manipulating the TFA/R process to get what you want is not acceptable. Nor is seeking to waste more of the community's time with additional dispute resolution processes. We had an RfC on this, at your request, and your proposal was soundly defeated. It's time for you to drop this. -- tariqabjotu 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The RFC (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8#RFC) did not attract any attention from uninvolved editors. So, "soundly defeated" must be your imagination. Your threats, like the previous ones , are getting annoying. And you seem to be the one abusing the Misplaced Pages processes, given your unilateral closures of RFC's , which was rebuked , and your obsessive habit of discouraging discussion of this issue. Cavann (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your continuing personal attacks against editors you disagree with notwithstanding, although I do advise you to drop it, I support Tariq's position. We have been there done that with your proposals. Time to move on. Δρ.Κ.  21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a hopefully uninvolved editor, I have read back over the April 2013 discussions linked above, and agree with the clear consensus there - the current version of the article, without undue emphasis on the Neolithic settlement in the area, is more appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You think adding a sentence into Toponomy section is also UNDUE? Cavann (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı.
2. Beşiktaş İnönü Stadı.
3. hosted the 2005 UEFA Champions League Finals (English)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• FA-Class Greek articles
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• FA-Class Turkey articles
• Top-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages