Talk:Karaköy

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

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

Article policies

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

A fact from Karaköy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Karaköy, part of ancient Galata, and an important commercial and transport center at the Golden Horn, was the birthplace of André Chénier, a French poet beheaded during the French Revolution?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March.

Wikipedia

POV tagging of this article

I've POV tagged this entire article. Karaköy is just the name of a small district of Galata where the ferry port is located - it is not all of Galata. I'm not sure if there are bad motives behind this expansion to include all of Galata (an attempt at denying or minimising the use of the name Galata, perhaps). Meowy 14:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galata and Karaköy are different neighbourhoods in Beyoğlu. I dont agree with you.--Abbatai 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

Ancient Galata is Karaköy. Or Karaköy used to be Galata. Limits may change in centuries but where do they not, especially after so much time?.. --E4024 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Galata here

There is no consensus to merge. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 05:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Galata used to be the name of Karaköy quarter of Beyoğlu (formerly known as "Pera") in more or less the same city limits. At present the term is only used in reference to old urban works like a bridge (Galata Bridge) and a medieval tower with the same name: Galata Tower. There is no reason nor justification to have two different articles on the same place. (The contents of the two articles are almost the same.) So we should recover whatever extra info and sources we have at Galata and use them in Karaköy article, making Galata a "redirect" so that the people who will look for this in WP may come to to the right place. --E4024 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relation between the expressions "Galata" and "Karaköy" is the same as that between Constantinople and Istanbul. Writing about "the genoese citadel of Karaköy" would be an anachronism, but a topographic (i.e.,ab out today`s Istanbul) article about the neighborhood should have the name Karaköy: otherwise we should rename Bakirköy to Makrohori, Kumkapi to Kontoskalion, Yesilköy to San Stefano, and so on. :-) Of course, the title of the history paragraph dealing about the byzantine/genoese age can bear the name Galata, and if someone wants to write an history centered article about the quarter in the Byzantine and Levantine age (as Oliver Jens Schmitt superbly did in his book "Levantiner"), the right title would be Galata. Alex2006 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I do not expect any foolish opposition to this merge. As a respected Genovese, Venetian (or neutral Swiss :-) resident of the city you should take the initiative to merge the pages without losing important stuff. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but after next week: now I am in holiday (guess where? :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I'm a volunteer, "randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment".
My question: If the Galata article was about an historical district (so justifying separation from the Karaköy article), wouldn't it start out:
Galata (modern Karaköy) was a neighbourhood in what now is the Beyoğlu district ...
.... instead of:
Galata (modern Karaköy) is a neighbourhood in the Beyoğlu district ... ?
If it's not merged with Karaköy, at the very least Galata would seem to need to be rewritten to be purely historical, with contemporary photos moved to Karaköy --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie, you shot the problem in the eye! The problem is some people wish to see Istanbul -today- as their greatgrandfather (maybe an Ottoman) told them -or better to their grandparents. But the Ottoman Empire (and the other Empires) have long gone... Alessandro? --E4024 (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merge with Galata

These pages should definitely be merged. Cities and regions within cities that have changed their name are not uncommon, and there needs to be a very good reason for two separate articles. The above discussion doesn't seem to provide any arguments one way or the other and ran out of steam. There is limited overlap so a merger would be easy to do. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – There's no reason not to have an article on the historical district, and a separate article on the modern district, provided they are fully reference each other and are properly wikilinked. --IJBall (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Constantinapole is not the contemporary name of Istanbul. Please correct the name of this formerly Greek and Byzantine, but now Turkish, city.4

Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.40.179.95 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karaköy. 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) 05:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]