Jump to content

Talk:Istanbul/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

City, Urban and Metro

Question, since in the case of Istanbul the city/municipality shares the same borders as the metro/metropolitan province, and since the urban settlement/agglomeration doesn't spill over the borders of the province, why are their three different population listings in the infobox, and why is there two statistics for the area? There should only be two measurements at the most for population and area. For population, at the most there should only be a figure given for the combined city-metro and then for the urban area (regardless of district borders with the province) if such a figure is defined by the Turkish statistics agency. For the area, the same thing. There should only be area measurements for the combined city/metro and then the urban area if Turkey's statistics agency defines such an area. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, and I think it's part of a wider problem with cities on WP as we often see 'innovative' definitions of city, urban area and metro. I'd favor only using official census returns for all cities, though that should probably be discussed in a more general manner. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We've had such a general discussion on the pages for the world's largest city propers. Istanbul is a rather easy case, though, since the urban area (to my knowledge) is wholly contained within the metropolitan province/city. So, again, the infobox change should be rather easy (for those who can read Turkish). Find the most recent Census and/or estimate data and that is the "city" population and land area. Furthermore, if Turkey has urban areas measurements, that is the data for the "urban" population and land area. There is no need for a "metro" entry as the metro and city are coterminous in the case of Istanbul (or any metropolitan province in Turkey for that matter). That, or the "city" entry can be removed and placed under "metro." Point is, there probably shouldn't be a city and metro entry as these aren't different measurements in Turkey. Numbers for measurements need to be added as they exist for entities in their respective countries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Istanbul is not that complex compared to other cities but there are some intricacies. The city population should be as is stated by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (MMI) and it is 14,657,343 as of 2016. However the urban and metro populations are not that straight forward. For example Istanbul Province includes Arnavutköy however the city of Arnavutköy itself is not contiguous with the urban area of Istanbul. There are a few more cities like this such as Şile and a case can be made for Silivri although it's starting to be contiguous. What is more is that the city of Gebze and Dilovası are contiguous with the Asian part of the urban area of Istanbul, however they are not a part of Istanbul Province and their population does not figure anywhere in the population statistics. So the urban area population should be pretty much equal to the city population (by excluding Arnavutköy and adding Gebze and Dilovası). The metro population is another problem altogether. Most people would agree that the population of Arnavutköy should be included but what about more distant cities forming the Eastern Marmara Metroplex such as Gölcük and Izmit (and even more distant cities like Altınova and Yalova which are about to be connected by the Izmit Bay Bridge). Until an expert can contribute with proper sources and what should and what should not be included we are stuck with the current version of the demographic statistics. EasySeven (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not all that difficult, though. If it's not contiguous, it's part of the metropolitan area population (which is also the city population). If it's contiguous, it's part of the urban area population. The only way this is difficult is if Turkish government doesn't define urban and metropolitan areas. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to keep asking this, but what does this mean: "Then about 97-98% of the inhabitants of the metropolitan municipality were within city limits..." The metropolitan municipality IS the city limits, so what in the world are two different population figures given in the infobox for the city? In this case, does "city limits" mean "urban area," which is a spatial measurement instead of a administrative one? This really need addressing, and it shouldn't be this difficult. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable or Not

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I need your opinion about a case. Today I changed the section of Ottoman and Turkish era on Istanbul. It was a good contribution as I think; but I had to reference the website because of their copyright policy (it was forbidden to use without reference to the original article). I had a conflict with A Macedonian, a Greek.. Because the previous sentence that I changed didn't have a reliable source. That's why I wanted to give some more informations with a reference but it reverted by A Macedonian, a Greek.. We discussed about this topic on the User Talk page. I hope you'll check it. According to A Macedonian, a Greek., the website that I referenced is definitely not a reliable source. I'm not agree to mention the whole website as definitely not reliable, but it's not my topic. I just wanted to know it is a right decision to revert it or wrong, if the information is true.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.27.19 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As I explained you in my talk page, the source you provided, weloveist.com, is not considered reliable. You may go ahead and re-add it if you wish, but I'm pretty sure some other editor will revert you again for the same reason. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Macedonian's decision to revert was correct. The only thing that seems wrong here is the IP time and time again invoking another user's ethnicity. Stop doing that, or you may end up being blocked. We comment on content here, not on other users. Jeppiz (User:Jeppiz) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your reply User:Jeppiz, but your message just smell prejudice. I didn't realize that my IP changed. But before blaming someone about invoking another user's ethnicity, look at the signature of the user above your message. I just used the username like how he/she used. I believe that Wikipedia is an open platform. I was just talking about the information that I wrote on the Istanbul article and it was true in every sources, also in the website that I referenced. Anyway I don't want to continue like this. Because there is nothing wrong in my world, if you change a content which has not a reference, with another content with more details and a reference. Thank you!
Do sign your comments. Do not edit other users' comments, as you did with my comment above. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Name

So Istanbul has an I with a dot but the title doesn't have a dot... but it does for Izmir? why is there no consistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.38.245 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The city of Istanbul is spoken of quite often in English so that a specific English form of the name has been formed. Izmir is much more rarely spoken of in English so that no such anglicized form exists for it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BCE

Here we go again, political correctness: BCE rather than BC. Do these people know that BCE can also stand for 'Before the Christian Era'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't go down this rabbit hole. Arguments about how "BCE/CE" is horrible political correctness are just as useless on Wikipedia as arguments about how "BC/AD" is horrible cultural hegmonism. The thing is, per WP:ERA, both styles are acceptable, established conventions within each articles should not be changed, and Wikipedians need to stop bothering about whatever ideological baggage they perceive in them. This article happened to have BE/AD when it was first written and when it went through FA, but it was changed during some round of copyediting for FA compliance some time in mid-2015. It probably shouldn't have, per WP:ERA, but at least it was proposed at talk at the time and didn't meet immediate objections, and now it's been around for two years without causing problems, so I personally don't see much sense in forcing it back now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The original convention was BC/AD. A change to BCE/CE was proposed but roundly defeated. I will copyedit this article when I get a moment. 84.9.195.2 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where it was "roundly defeated". User:John proposed the change on 13 August 2015, found no opposition for a couple of days, implemented it on 18 August, and then on 6 September two people (myself and an IP) lodged objections, but without further follow-up. Was there some previous discussion with a more definitive outcome? I'd recommend against making another change back at this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
You mean you recommend throwing the rulebook out of the window? 84.9.195.2 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

need new collage now

thanks to that tunor guy I was told to put this here. We need a new collage immediately and this new one is a lot better. I say the kind wiki editors of Istanbul have a chat and see for themselves.

Istanbul Skyline
Maidens Tower
Haydarpaşa Terminal
Hagia Sofia
Topkapı Palace
Bosphorus Bridge

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't "need" a new collage, and certainly not "immediately". Anybody who comes in here with guns blazing like this needs, first and foremost, to be told to go and do something more useful with their own time and ours. People who think they need to force debates about the color of the bikeshed on everybody else every other month just because they found some image they like better than the previous one have been a nuisance on this article for years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm well it seems that every other article has a developed and interactive collage whereas the non turkish fellows controlling this place seem to want to keep Istanbul in the shadows. typical. always trying to belittle Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No one is trying to belittle anything. It is just that a change needs consensus, so it has to be discussed properly, not with personal attacks, but with arguments about content. --T*U (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If the collage has to be used in the page, then it will really need some improvements. Seeing at it, I noticed how the objects in the photos, such as the Maiden Tower, the Hagia Sophia and the Ferry boat are way too zoomed out and that prevents the human eye from seeing more of them. Such a distance isn't necessary, and only makes things harder to see. To zoom them in will be a good start. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Date of name change

It seems like a very simple and important fact to mention the date of the name change. I believe it was 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.169.90.142 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dotted I?

Should Istanbul be written as İstanbul throughout the article (and in the article title)? That spelling would still be readable by any English speaker. Julien Cameron (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1) It is not commonly spelled that way in reliable English language sources, 2) I (and probably many others) would keep trying to wipe all those little specks off my screen, 3) why? --Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Metropolis definition

The province itself is a state metropolitan area, hence it is the same population. This is defined by the Turkish government as per the 'Metropolitan area' article. There is no 'capital' of the city - de-facto or not it is misleading. That is not how Turkish cities are structured and no district of Istanbul "exercises primary status"

Turkish highway authorithy has a different definition of urban settlement, which is defined as "the area of a settlement with regular pedestrian movement". Istanbul still has rural parts according to that definition. Where governor's seat and the courthouse is placed is the de-facto capital of a Turkish city(Şişli-Fatih in case of İstanbul). Even capital towns have their own governments in order to separate the concerns of provincial and district authorities. That does not change they are capital towns, because they have every other sign of being capital other than official designation (most government houses are concentrated in there, all roads lead to there, most of the traditional commerce happen in there). Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Turkish national capital is also similar. Ankara has its own provincial government and district governments. As common in capitals of unitary states. Unlike a capital of a strictly federal state. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

maps saying constsantinople

are you people blind or did you purposely put the location name of Istanbul on the maps in the infobox as Contstantinople? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this; it was a piece of recent vandalism that unfortunately slipped through; now fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Urban population

Source for provincial and district populations: https://www.citypopulation.de/php/turkey-admin.php?adm1id=TR100 {{cite}} tags does not work in {{efn}}. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Citypopulation.de gives the population figures for all the districts, but doesn't distinguish between urban and rural. The question is how do we know which districts are rural? Batternut (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Using commonly accepted criteria by urban planners: Spread-out lights in night orthophoto. Continuously lighted-up parts are all urban. Such a practice has been done in https://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XLII-4-W6/103/2017/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W6-103-2017.pdf. Figure 3 in that article can trivially be laid over a freely licensed geographical map, you will get your urban districts. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC) minor grammar fix Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

See the article Istanbul Province. Boccadasse (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

See also List of districts of Istanbul. Boccadasse (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Boccadasse: None of these articles cite any source that says which districts are rural and which are urban. And obviously you cannot use WP articles as a source (see WP:CIRCULAR). Batternut (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

Would it not be appropriate to include a word about the etymology of the word Istanbul, explaining that it comes from the Greek eis tēn polin "in (or into) the city"?[1], [2], [3]. See also Names of Istanbul.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This information is already in the article, under Toponymy--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Politically incorrect"

The article currently states:

Constantinople remained the most common name for the city in the West until the establishment of the Turkish Republic, which urged other countries to use Istanbul.[29][30] Kostantiniyye (Ottoman Turkish: قسطنطينيه‎) and Be Makam-e Qonstantiniyyah al-Mahmiyyah (meaning "the Protected Location of Constantinople") and İstanbul were the names used alternatively by the Ottomans during their rule.[31] The use of Constantinople to refer to the city during the Ottoman period (from the mid-15th century) is now considered politically incorrect, even if not historically inaccurate, by Turks.[32]"

The reference for the last sentence ([32]) can be read here: [4]. It says in part:

"Today the use of the name Constantinople to describe the Ottoman capital, although historically accurate, is often deemed politically incorrect by Turkish historians and by most Turks."

Is that really true, and a correct reading of the source? And if so, how widespread of a viewpoint is this? Does this have an impact on how Wikipedia should refer to it in historical contexts? I can understand that the use of "Constantinople" to refer to the city today (i.e., post-1922), such as is still done, for example, in Modern Greek (Konstantinupoli) would be considered "politically incorrect". But why would it be considered so when talking about the Ottoman period if, as the preceding sentences in the article say, the Ottomans themselves used the term (Kostantiniyye/Qonstantiniyyah) during their rule? --IamNotU (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The source speaks about Turks, and it is a matter of fact that today's Turks don't like to hear the terms "Constantinople", "Smyrna", "Nicea", and so on, referred to their cities, also in a context of the Ottoman age, when there was a large Greek minority in these cities. How is widespread? I would say near to 100 %. This comes simply from Turkish nationalism, and we have to accept it. Anyway, politically correctness has nothing to do with historical truth: because of that, using the terms "Constantinople" or "Smyrna" in Wikipedia for these cities before 1922 is perfectly acceptable. Alex2006 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Alex2006. This is the English Wikipedia and we reflect the English language RS. These scholars do not have a problem. --They agree that using the terms "Constantinople" or "Smyrna" in Wikipedia for these cities before 1922 is perfectly acceptable. Scholars inside Turkey today face serious pressure from their government to conform. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, that helps to explain. The reason I ask is because I've seen so many times people (usually anonymous IPs) changing "Constantinople" to "Istanbul" in Wikipedia. I wondered if there was any good reason not to revert it back as I normally do, so I was reading about it, and read that sentence. There doesn't seem to be any mention of it being "politically incorrect" in the main Names of Istanbul article, so I wondered how prominent a view it is. Also, the source doesn't specifically say "from the mid-15th century", so I wondered if there was maybe some other relevant date. The sentence in the article is worded more strongly than the source - "is now considered politically incorrect ... by Turks" vs. "is often deemed politically incorrect ... by most Turks", etc. Since "politically incorrect" is a somewhat vague term, I found it a little surprising for Wikipedia to be making such an unqualified statement about it as a fact, and I wondered if it was maybe overstated, or if it really is considered offensive by virtually all Turks, everywhere, as it seems to imply. --IamNotU (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
PS I just changed it a little to try to bring it more in line with how the source describes it: Although historically accurate, the use of Constantinople to refer to the city during the Ottoman period is these days often considered by Turks to be "politically incorrect". --IamNotU (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Istanbul is for sure NEVER the largest city of Europe!

Because it got an ASIAN side!!! The population of the European side is about 10 millions! That matter of fact makes Istanbul the SECOND largest city of Europe!!! MOSCOW is the largest city of Europe!!! LEARN THIS!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayDealer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Moscow only has a populaton of 13 million, while Istanbul has 15 million. Do the math. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Istanbul Province

MERGED
Redirected province page here. No unique content to merge but further content at is welcome at Istanbul#Administration Reywas92Talk 06:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

These two polities are coterminous. In other instances where we have two articles on coterminous polities, we have merged them; most notably with the boroughs of New York City.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support These are the same entity geographically and politically, there is no benefit to separate redundant articles. Reywas92Talk 00:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do the same for 80 other Turkish province articles if possible. OnurT 01:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose They are two separate entities. By merging them, you would include far-off small towns and villages such as Yalıköy and Ağva as part of the city of Istanbul, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. I understand that there is a consensus in Turkey that a city and province are the same thing, but that is false. There is a stark difference between a city and its respective province. Also the example for New York City is taken way out of context. The 5 boroughs of New York were basically 5 different cities that merged together. The Istanbul Province is the political entity that encompasses Istanbul, as well as the surrounding towns and villages that are NOT a part of the city. Instead, the metropolitan area of Istanbul could be considered synonymous with the Istanbul Province (but it wouldn't be completely accurate either, as the metro area extends into the neighboring Kocaeli Province. This merger is not a good idea and would lead to a complete misinformed article of Istanbul. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC))
    • You can say Yalıköy and Ağva are not part of the city/metropolitan municipality of Istanbul, but that doesn't make it true; both are villages or neighborhoods legally within the city, though outside the urbanized core. This article covers all 15 million people in the 39 districts, and to say that the city and the province are not the same thing is false. Reywas92Talk 22:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Legally speaking, Ağva and Yalıköy are a part of Istanbul, even if they are not a part of the city in every other aspect. Now due to the convoluted and ridiculous legal definition of a city in Turkey, you can argue that they are the same entity. Just as Fut.Perf. stated below, I understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to argue the sociological and theoretical aspects of a city, so if the majority here stands in favor of a merge, I have no choice but to accept it, even though I must protest that this misinformation will confuse readers. I propose that the legal definition of the city of Istanbul is explained in detail so that readers will understand that the legal definition of certain cities in Turkey supersede the actual city boundaries, such as in Istanbul's case. All in all, I still find this merge to be flawed. (Central Data Bank (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC))
  • Support. Our article on Istanbul, by necessity, covers the entire city in its administrative boundaries, not just the contiguous urban area, and that means that everything we say in the province article can equally well be said in the city article. Article splits and mergers on Wikipedia need to be decided not on criteria of what is theoretically a "separate entity", but on criteria of how best to package information for our readers. If the contents of the province article are 100% a subset of what is (or could be) in the city article too, then they should be merged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose these are two different administrative divisions one is province and the other is city. Istanbul city is the provincial capital of Istanbul Province.[5]
The province include districts, towns and cities.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is false. The province is the exact same thing as the city. You could also say Singapore (city) is the capital of Singapore (country) or Berlin (city) is the capital of Berlin (federal state) but they share identical status, borders, and government. They are not different administrative divisions: the mayor of the city of Istanbul is the executive of the entire Province of Istanbul because they are same thing. It is divided into districts as well, but cities and towns do not exist within Istanbul; while the terminology may be flexible any populated places separate from the urban core do not have their own governments and are legally neighborhoods of the metropolitan municipality of Istanbul. Reywas92Talk 01:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
​So you are saying that a city like Şile does not exist within Istanbul Province?--SharabSalam (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay I am just not going to comment. It seems a complicated issue and I get conflicting results in reliable sources. If this is going to be merged and if the province is the city then it should say in the lead: it is a city and a Province (I guess).--SharabSalam (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't think they should be considered two separate entities. This Article Regards Istanbul = IBB. All the voters who live within the Istanbul Province boundary vote for the Mayor of IBB/ Metro Municipality regardless, even though IBB doesn't necessarily exercise their full authority to the outskirts and leaving districts to themselves. That said, I know for a fact that IBB Itfaiye/ Fire Dept still serves Agva. 73.189.232.96 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - using the NYC comparison above, there is no separate article for Manhattan and New York County, New York, even though one is a borough and another is a county. Since they are coterminous, it would be useful to put the information about the province and city in a single article. 100.12.186.112 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - There's a reason Orleans Parish redirects to New Orleans. A demerger should only happen if there is sufficient historical data to build an article, like Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (now the county and Philadelphia are the same thing). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
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.

Bolding of historical names

The bolding of the historical names Byzantium and Constantinople in the opening paragraph was recently removed. Explanations based on the Manual of Style were given, e.g.: overbolding and per MOS:BOLD, "Article title terms": synonyms that redirect to this article should be bolded, but these are links to their own articles. Also MOS:BOLDAVOID: bolded title terms should not contain links.

Despite this, PersianV has repeatedly reverted four different editors who have supported the change: Aakkbbrr, Naegea, SharabSalam, and me. One explanation was Boldavoid is not valid for multiple names. See Ankara page., however that's not a valid example because the names there don't have links or their own articles. Another, Historical and culturally significant names of cities are usually bolded along with their current names irrespective of them having their own pages or not. doesn't appear to be supported by the MOS, nor by other examples such as Tokyo/Edo, Strasbourg/Argentoratum, Kaliningrad/Königsberg, and the majority of articles in List of city name changes, when historical names have their own articles.

It's true that a few articles do have bolded historical names with links, mainly a number of Turkish cities, such as Antakya/Antioch, Urfa/Edessa, and İzmir/Smyrna. However, as far as I can tell, these are also in error, contradicting not only MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDAVOID, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Emphasis: It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternative names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to repeat and bold the article title (unless it is a descriptive title, rarely the case with geographical articles), and its frequently used English-language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. For example, Antioch is clearly a historical name, not a frequently used English-language synonym for the modern city of Antakya. The same is true of Constantinople and Byzantium. --IamNotU (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's very clear - common synonyms for the title of the article go in bold face. Former names are not synonyms, and anything that has its own article is by definition not a synonym. So there is no reason for the terms to be in bold. Any other articles where this is done are also in error.
The user also reverted my edit where I removed a dictionary link from the word "coterminous". Dictionary links are useful if the meaning or origin of the word itself is relevant. That is not the case here, it's just a normal word being used normally. It rather insults the intelligence of the reader to imply that it might not be understood. Naegea (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. There are actually several guidelines that can affect whether a term is bolded. Common synonyms go in bold, but generally only if the term redirects to the article. Historical names, even if not synonyms, can be alternative names, and can be bolded when they are redirects to the article. For example Stalingrad, which redirects to Volgograd, is bolded. The reason is MOS:BOLDREDIRECT - so that users won't be surprised, or think there was an error, when they click a link to Stalingrad, and end up at the Volgograd article. But in this case where it's not a redirect, that's not an issue, and I believe that MOS:BOLDAVOID applies instead.
Regarding the dictionary link, common words should not be linked per MOS:OVERLINKING, but unusual words can be, whether to Wikipedia articles or Wiktionary entries, see WP:MOSSIS. I had changed the link target to the main Wiktionary page, but I have no opinion as to whether the word is unusual enough to require a link... --IamNotU (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Latinized

the city became widely known as Constantinople, which, as the Latinized form of "Κωνσταντινούπολις" (Konstantinoúpolis), means the "City of Constantine"

The Latinized form would be Constantinopolis. "Constantinople" is more precisely the Anglicized form of the Latinized form of the Greek name... -- 79.41.90.200 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal by Khirurg and Dr. K

Khirurg and Dr.K. keep removing sourced information from the article, in violation of WP:BRD. Their claim is that KONDA Research and Consultancy, an argument for which neither of them has cared to provide any support. I do find Dr. K's claim I was "edit-warring" for editing once rather misplaced, though I take it that that means any edit by Dr.K. to an article is to be considered edit warring by definitionJeppiz (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

KONDA is affiliated with the Erdogan government. It is not reliable. Furthermore, the document quoted is not a demographic survey but an electoral poll. Anyway, the burden of proof is on the one claiming a source is reliable. Do you have anything to suggest that KONDA is reliable. I also strongly suggest you don't personalize this. Khirurg (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Khirurg. I make no claim about KONDA one way or the other. As a general rule, you'll find that the burden of proof is always on one making the argument. If you claim KONDA is not reliable, it's up to you to prove that. Again, I say this on the most general level, with no intention of defending KONDA as it is very possible you are right. No intention to personalise this, though I did find Dr.K.'s behavior unusually out of place, reverting without any reason and claiming editing once now constitutes edit warring. Having said that, you are no doubt right on that matter, Khirurg, and I should probably just have ignored it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jeppiz, I see that you removed the personal comment about me, so thanks for that. My main point is that Konda research is too closely affiliated with the AKP party, so it is a politically-motivated actor. Therefore, we need a better source before we rush to speak in Wikipedia's voice about these stats. That's all. Dr. K. 21:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dr.K., I have no problem with that. Would have been good to put it in the edit summary. I was a bit surprised at being accused of edit warring after editing once, but I did overreact. My apologies for that. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries Jeppiz. I am also sorry about my edit-summary on my talkpage, but I am not used to getting blanking warnings. As far a my edit summary regarding my allegation about your edit-warring, I realise you made only one revert. What I meant was that even one revert, when part of a wider series of reverts involving multiple editors, is participation in that edit war. In any case, according to Shakespeare, all's well when ends well. Best regards. Dr. K. 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. KONDA has a history of wildly overestimating AK Party victories. Khirurg (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Being involved in this edit war, and being the one who added the source in the first place, I did so in good faith. The article needs a source under the demographic section who shows that Istanbul is a multicultural city, and minorities make up large parts of the population. Sadly, the only source being based on a relevant sample size is this Konda electoral research among the voters in Istanbul. I reverted your edits because I wrongly assumed your bad faith, and I didn't see you had opened a discussion thread. Anyways, I don't think this agency has close ties to Erdogan regime, having a lot of time highlighted how Turkish society is increasingly becoming more secular and more culturally diverse, estimating for the year 2019 (https://interaktif.konda.com.tr/en/tr-100-2019.php) for example that 15% is Kurdish or that 5% is irreligious (over 18). The political agenda of Erdogan regime is fiercely against minorities such as Kurds and it's trying to remove every sign of secularization from the country. I cannot find any argument to support your claims, but we can all agree that some kind of data is useful to the article. - FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the article, there already is a 3 paragraph section on religious and ethnic minorities Istanbul#Religious_and_ethnic_groups. The KONDA source is not only redundant, but it also extrapolates demographic data from electoral results, which is a dubious practice (for examplem, many conservative Kurdish voters vote for AK, not HDP). Khirurg (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
They don't. The survey actually asks for the ethnicity and doesn't guess anything from the party, those percentages actually represent the share of the ethnicities for the 18 and over population in Istanbul. Regardless of the party they've voted. The survey was carried out in order to see the characteristics of the voters in Istanbul, for example ethnicity and religious practice. Also, I've seen the article but still needs correct proportions on the ethnic minorities, for example an uninformed reader could never guess that kurds make up the 18% of the Istanbul population. - FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Largest city in Europe

Is Istanbul the largest city in Europe?? Or is it London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.219 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) When the map is blown up to full-screen, the marker and label for Istanbul are not visible (00:01 UTC 23 July 2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.220.139 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Outdated District Map in Administration Chapter

That wonderful map showing the borders of the province districts (and naming them) in the Administration chapter seems to be outdated. The neighborhoods/boroughs of Maslak, Ayazağa and Huzur became a part again of the Sariyer district in 2012. They used to form an enclave under the jurisdiction of the Şişli district. [1] [2]

Malconcheli1 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Best regards, Malconcheli

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sar%C4%B1yer
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslak

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Dear editors, Greetings. Istanbuls official website is not http://howtoistanbul.com/ as your external links section describes. This is a commercial website and information is not accurate. We have following websites for governship: http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/ for municipality: https://ibb.istanbul/ and for museums: https://muze.gen.tr/ , your readers can reach unbiased and official information from these sources. I wish you, your teams and your loved ones health and safety. Best, Cem Akat (Mr.) Senior I.T. officer of Directorate of Istanbul Tourism And Culture Department. (Redacted) Cemakat (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Hello again dear editors of Wiki. Before i suggested a website link for Istanbul(en) Wiki page about our new official museum page (https://muze.gen.tr/) for our city. But its rejected due to conflict of interest worry from your side. This site and none of its pages are commercial or serve any ad, and since its being newly published and have small authority online its hard for you to accept the edit i assume. Please note In my first edit request of Istanbul(en) Wiki i was meant to put link at the bottom of your page with external links category. Aside please let me know how can i prove you that i am an editor at Istanbul Directory of Culture and Tourism. Please review Istanbul (tr) Wiki to give you some idea.. Thank you team. :) Cemakat (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The site is not the official website of the city, nor does it qualify under WP:ELYES. It is not written in a neutral POV, but serves to promote tourism in the city, which is not what this article is for. Also, please review the conflict of interest guideline and disclose any relationship you may have with the subject. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Huge Sections from the Article

I have noticed a ton of sourced information being removed for several weeks now, with the excuse of featured article standards being violated, by a single account named User:Portugal1337, now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Torshavn1337. I'm sure there are unsourced sections that need to be removed, which were recently added since the article had been featured in 2019, but it doesn't explain the tens of thousands of characters being removed that were already on the featured version. It appears to be an intentional attack from what I can tell, based on some sort of agenda. I haven't seen anybody react to this yet, so wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. 82.222.99.36 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Province map missing

The other Turkish provinces do have them, here I needed it and - there is none. I mean one like this. Who's up to it? Cheers and a happy new year, Arminden (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Much better photos

Much better photos: Ortaköy Mosque and "full length" of the Bosphorus Bridge, İstiklal Avenue with its historic buildings (a better nostalgic tram photo is in the Transportation sub-chapter), better view of Galata and Galata Tower from the sea, better view of the Hagia Sophia.

Aerial overview
Hagia Sophia
Maiden's Tower
Ortaköy Mosque
İstiklal Avenue
Golden Horn
Levent at night

Martevenere (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Aerial overview
Hagia Sophia
Maiden's Tower
Ortaköy Mosque
İstiklal Avenue
Levent at night
Martevenere, I disagree; the present collage (directly above) is better. You need to stop edit warring to switch to your preferred version until there is consensus for it here at talk. You are also making numerous other image switches, and creating duplicate uses. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
And here's the alternative, if you insist on having the "nostalgic tram" which exists only in the Beyoğlu and Kadıköy districts:
Aerial overview
Hagia Sophia
Maiden's Tower
Ortaköy Mosque
İstiklal Avenue
Golden Horn
Levent at night

Martevenere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Martevenere: Seeing that you are a new editor, I would advice you to learn more about how Wikipedia works. One fundamental principle is consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. After your changes to the article were reverted, you should use the talk page to gain consensus for your suggested version before making the changes again. Instead, you have – now for the third time – reverted back to your preferred version. That is called edit war, see WP:EDITWAR. If you continue with your edit warring, you may soon find yourself blocked from editing. To avoid that, I advice you to self revert and then use the talk page to try to convince other editors.
In your edit summary, you say that no previous discussion exists on this particular image composition. That is not true, the infobox collage has been discussed several times, see just a few examples here, here, here and here.
As for the content of your suggested changes, I personally do not find your suggested infobox collage to be an improvement. Of your other suggested changes of pictures, I could support some of them, but not all. That discussion can be started as soon as you have self reverted. --T*U (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Martevenere has been blocked. I'm going to restore the status quo/prevailing consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Wait, looks like that's already been done. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

religion and arabs

>"Muslims form roughly 86% of the population in the city.[1][2][3][4]"

This section seems to be entirely unsubstantiated by the sources given. Just checeked them and they do not mention it. The studies given are also Turkey-wide and not specific to Istanbul. It's a shame but there is really no data on Istanbul's specific religious make -up.

>"Arabs form the city's largest ethnic minority, with an estimated population of more than 2 million.[5]"

This is also unsubstantiated and very likely erroneous. The Guardian article only mentions the 2 million number and there is no mention if they constitute the biggest minority or not. Considering the fact that there are at least 2 to 3 million Kurds in Istanbul, it seems unlikely. --Gogolplex (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Özkök, Ertuğrul (21 May 2019). "Türkiye artık yüzde 99'u müslüman olan ülke değil".
  2. ^ "Optimar'dan din-inanç anketi: Yüzde 89 Allah'ın varlığına ve birliğine inanıyor" (in Turkish). T24.com.tr. 15 May 2019. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
  3. ^ https://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/MRG_Rep_Turk2007_TURK.pdf
  4. ^ "Tengrism is also on the rise". odatv.com. OdaTV. 9 April 2018. Archived from the original on 15 August 2019. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  5. ^ McKernan, Bethan (18 April 2020). "How Istanbul won back its crown as heart of the Muslim world". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 December 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Hi, They have a new website for museums muze.gen.tr from istanbul tourism directory. Greg27conrad (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: why would that be a relevant external link to add? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, I don't think a tourist directory for museums is relevant. Volteer1 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Image of the old Constantinople city hall

https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/564/PFSIF9180725A389%20(1918-07-25).jpg in Servet-i Funun has an image of the old Constantinople city hall WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

New Climate normals 1991-2020

I just recently added the newer 1991-2020 data for Istanbul according to the Turkish Meteorological source. However, it looks like the data is from a different station as the older 1981-2010 data has significantly colder temperatures 1981-2010 data which is highly likely to be taken from another station as the changes are much higher than expected from climate change. Could someone clarify whether if the 1991-2020 data is indeed taken from another station? Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is actually a mistake on MGM's part. You might realize that the extremes, which are supposed to be 1929-2020, are almost always from 2010 onwards (the cold ones too, which makes no sense), which seems to suggest to me that this data is from a station that has only started archiving recently, or is just plain wrong. Istanbul is still rapidly growing, so it's normal that its urban heat island is also intensifying on top of climate change, but this doesn't seem right, especially considering that other hotter and rapidly expanding cities have faced much more modest changes in normals. Honestly, I would stick to the 1981-2010 normals for now. To be fair, I think the whole climate page needs rework or perhaps a seperate page, as the other (1949-1999) sources don't match the info on the site either. Uness232 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I had a feeling that the data might had been suspicious but looking at your comments, I agree it is from a different station that is archiving data more recently (I just took a look and I saw that all of the data is from 2010 onwards) given that the record lows are quite high. For the time being, I will remove the 1991-2020 data for now. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

About the deleted climate charts

I recently noticed that the climate charts for Atatürk Airport and Belgrad Forest have been deleted. I understand the reason behind the deletion of the climate change data, as the editor said, it's barely relevant and doesn't need to be there, and I understand that it was a mistake on my part. But I have trouble understanding the deletion of the other climate charts. It's fairly common for cities with multiple climates to have multiple climate charts (see Milan, Vienna, or Barcelona) and Istanbul had three charts before my edit as well, so I would be very pleased if someone would tell me if I've made a mistake somewhere in sourcing the data or whether its done for a rule I don't quite understand. Uness232 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight in religion section

I think "religious and ethnic groups" section gives undue weight to ethnic and religious minorities in Istanbul. Before my edits there were no mention of Sunni Islam or even Alevism in the whole section, which in turn make up the biggest religious groups in Istanbul and Turkey alike. Turkish people being the majority were also funnily not mentioned. On the contrary the section is apparently fixed on historical minorities of Istanbul, which should be mentioned, but definitely should not make up 50%> of the section, especially considering the fact that groups like Greeks, Levantines and Jews make up less than 0.01% of the total population currently. They should either be moved to history section or moved to respective, more detailed articles and summarized into a paragraph. Featured articles like Boston, Dhaka, Canberra all follow this. --Gogolplex (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AIHTNY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul/Archive_10&oldid=1171579532"