This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Istanbul is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as
Today's featured article on February 23, 2019.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
The article needs substantial work to meet the FA criteria: better referencing (including citing the uncited content, as well as improving the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date. There is also massive overload of images in contrary to
MOS:IMAGELOC. (
t ·
c) buidhe 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is semi-protected, and I have no intension editing such a page unprompted, so I give my oppinion here
I think an article should start with its formalities and links to other articles close to the subject.
I think the introduction should be:
Istanbul (/ˌɪstænˈbʊl/ IST-an-BUUL,[7][8] US also /ˈɪstænbʊl/ IST-an-buul; Turkish: İstanbul [isˈtanbuɫ] (About this soundlisten)), formerly known as Constantinople (previous capital of the
Ottoman Empire and the
Roman/
Byzantine Empire and was originally
Byzantium an
ancient Greekcity in
classical antiquity, is the largest city in Turkey ...
because very important traces from very important past eras are available in the site (the past cities were not destroyed and there has been a continious development of it). The other eras are described in other articles and so these articles should be linked to immediatly this way.
After the formalities go on and put up history and other aspects of the city. The introduction should be cleaned from history things and put in a history section, becaus eof the subject it must be devided into subsections. The introduction after the first formalities should describe shortly the present city, that is an important commercial centre and large city of Turkey and Europe.
The article should describe the present city and the past eras should mainly be taken care of by links in the formalities and the history section (as they are supposed to be described there). However present day remains (sites, institutions and activeties) from the past history shsould be decribed in the article becauase they are turist attractions of the present and listed in subsections dependent on the era. As a turist I should be able to track the most important present sites dependent on my perspective in the present day city.
I would like to remove the image of 'Colomn of Constantine', 'Statue of Atatürk in Büyükada' and 'Syrian nationals in districts of Istanbul' and 'Pera Museum in Beyoglu'. I find these ones least relevant to the article.
Metuboy (
talk) 12:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
It's clear that you are trying to make disinformation nationalism with adding "ancient greek.." bla bla thing. It's not allowed according to any Wikipedia policies. Look at the Gdansk article for some education. Old name of the city should be remove.
Swap Ortaköy Mosque image with Dolmabahçe Palace image
Dolmabahçe Palace is more known, significant, important. Ortaköy Mosque is not very special compared to the Dolmabahçe Palace, the palace of the great Atatürk.
Youprayteas (
t •
c) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Youprayteas You're right that in its function the Dolmabahçe Palace is more unique and special. However, uniqueness of function should not be our only consideration here; while Dolmabahçe is nowhere near not famous, Ortaköy Mosque, especially in architectural form, is so recognizable that it is everywhere. A simple Google search of the word "Istanbul" also reveals this fact; Dolmabahçe is hard to find near the top images, while Ortaköy Mosque is everywhere.
Uness232 (
talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The first pop-up and I realized I completely forgot about the
Topkapı Palace, more famous than Ortaköy Mosque. Why fill up the photos with mosques anyway? One is well enough. Topkapı Palace, Dolmabahçe Palace, even Rumelihisarı is more appropriate.
Youprayteas (
t •
c) 06:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I still fail to see the reason why any of these changes are needed. I don't think 2 photos of religious buildings (out of 7) for a city famed for its religious architecture is inappropriate.
Topkapı Palace is a better choice compared to Dolmabahçe, but I am not sure whether it is Ortaköy Mosque that it would have to be replaced with, if anything is going to be replaced. Again, a simple Google search of "Istanbul" will reveal how ubiquitous photos of the Ortaköy Mosque are. If such a change is really necessary (I don't think it is), Levent (or İstiklal if judging purely based on photo composition) could be the one to go in my opinion.
Uness232 (
talk) 02:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I think Levent can stay as it shows the urban and more modern side of Istanbul. İstiklal is incredibly important, it HAS to stay. Ortaköy Mosque is not reslly that popular, or historic, or important.
Youprayteastalk/contribs 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Importance was not my argument about İstiklal, photo composition was.
Care to elaborate on why Ortaköy Mosque is not that popular, or historic, or important? You have been leading with this assertion again and again, and I don't see any argument for it.
Uness232 (
talk) 21:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I am a local in Turkey and you can ask other people too, they will say my other choices are better for the comp
Youprayteastalk/contribs 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Youprayteas You are indeed free to ask other people, through an RfC, or through any other means. As for me, you have still not brought forth any evidence for Ortaköy Mosque's lack of historical value or importance, and therefore I can not say I see any reason to change my view on this.
Uness232 (
talk) 05:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I wanted to improve Istanbul article for a long time, but didn't have the chance to get around to it. First of all, the lead is so bad, and doesn't cover most of the article. But now that you are talking about the infobox images, I think I'll start from there. I checked several cities and they all seem to use their very best images. The current images in the infobox are not that good. So I checked the page history to see why they were added, to see if there was a big consensus. The top image seems to have been changed here
[1] by a
sock[2]. The Levent pic was also added by the same sock
[3]. I think if someone tries to use those pics again, there would be a good chance of sockpuppetry. I'm going to go ahead and change those pics. I think this one should be the top image
[4]. It gives the best overview of Istanbul, with Fatih (historic core), Bosporus, Golden Horn, and showing both European and Asian sides. I'm going to change Levent pic with a much newer pic
[5]. Istanbul Finance Center is also on the Asian side and there was little coverage of the Asian side in the infobox.
Bogazicili (
talk) 14:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I also changed the Hagia Sophia picture, since Hagia Sophia is now in the top image. Used an image of Topkapi Palace
[6]. It is a
quality image and also shows Golden Horn and iconic Istanbul ferries.
Bogazicili (
talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I checked Level 3 vital articles for cities,
Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Cities. There are no FA ones, but there are Good Articles:
Mumbai,
London, and
Paris. They all use 1-3-2-1 format in the infobox (top and bottom large image, 3 images in second row, 2 images in 3rd row). I think we should switch to same format as well. Here's my suggestion:
User:Bogazicili/sandbox. I added a large image of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge to the bottom. I think bridges are symbols of Istanbul. And the top image shows historic areas, the bottom one shows newer areas. It keeps Ortakoy Mosque and Istiklal Avenue. Although we might consider a different picture for Istiklal Avenue.
Bogazicili (
talk) 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I also updated the Maiden's Tower and İstiklal Avenue pictures here:
User:Bogazicili/sandbox. The suggested ones are newer pictures. We have enough day-time pictures, so the İstiklal picture is a night-time picture. People's faces seem blurry too in case anyone minds being shown in a Wikipedia page with high traffic. Maiden's Tower picture shows a bit of Dolmabahçe Palace.
Bogazicili (
talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Any comments about the last version of infobox images here
User:Bogazicili/sandbox? Otherwise I'm going to make the change.
Bogazicili (
talk) 23:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, the old photos in the information box were better. It's a complete mess right now, as if it was created by an amateur user. The new photos may be more recent, but the previous photos were much better in terms of quality.
MrBrandon15 (
talk) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would have to kind of agree with this, especially the business district photo looks bad compared to the superior, old one.
Youprayteastalk/contribs 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I restored the Levent picture. I am definitely against this one
[7]. It's almost 11 years old, the area looks different now. Also the lighting is so bad. It also looks like there was fog or something, the picture makes it look like the air was very polluted. This is a much better picture
[8]. The drone shot is also very common if you google Istanbul. Even Britannica has a similar picture
[9]. We also need a bridge picture. This one
[10] shows both a bridge and Bosporus, which is one of the main features of Istanbul. It also shows Maslak in distance. So I definitely want these 2:
[11][12]. Except those, I'm very open to suggestions. Should we change the Maiden's Tower one to the old one?
Bogazicili (
talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili I agree with MrBrandon15 that basically all the newer photos look worse lighting and composition-wise; the only exception I could think of to this is the historic peninsula one, which is okay all around.
For the Bosphorus Bridge photo, I understand your concern about age, but as the landmarks are still recognizable, I don't see age as our biggest concern. I don't see any of the problems you see with lighting; I think the photo fits in well with the rest of the old infobox, and the air is not polluted; the haze is just the work of
Lodos, which is altogether too common to dismiss as anomalous (See
here for confirmation of Lodos that day). The alternative FSM photo is not of good quality or composition.
Similar issues are prevalent in most of your new infobox photos; especially those of İstiklal and the Maiden's Tower.
I would in fact be glad if the infobox was left alone; it was a stable version for a reason.
Uness232 (
talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To people unaware of Lodos in Istanbul (which would be majority of viewers of English-language Wikipedia), this picture
[13] looks polluted af. It was also added by a long-term sock. I'll restore Maiden's Tower and wait for further comments. I like that the new İstiklal picture shows an actual crowd, which is representative of that street, whereas the old pic (from 2007) just shows a tram. The colors in the pic look also artificially altered
[14]Bogazicili (
talk) 21:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili Whether it looks polluted or not, it is how Istanbul looks a good 30 percent of the year. I also find it to be a much better photo than your alternative.
Point taken on the colors of the tram photo. I've reverted the person who added the filter to the tram photo about a year ago, so it should now look unaltered.
Looking at the state of this discussion, I will be reverting to the old infobox per
WP:QUO as there does not seem to be any consensus on these changes yet; and while we can continue discussing here, I would think that an
WP:RfC is in order to get some wider community feedback.
Uness232 (
talk) 23:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Uness232: Not enough discussion before RFC yet. Previous version was added without consensus or a previous RFC. See:
WP:RFCBEFORE. You seem opposed to any change from your above responses. See
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Any substantial reason why you prefer an old image added by a long term sock?
Bogazicili (
talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili Point taken on an RfC I suppose, though I don't see how our differing aesthetic tastes can be resolved without wider community consensus.
For the stonewalling comment: Indeed, I am opposed to both of the proposed changes; though I believe I have given clear reasoning in each case. I have never refused to take part in this discussion, neither have I resorted to methods which make changing the status quo impossible, and I am also not the sole editor who has voiced concerns about the recent changes. I don't see how this -- especially reverting until discussion ends, a standard practice -- would be stonewalling.
For your last question; as I have said before, my substantive reason is that I think the alternative image you put forward is inferior in both quality and composition, and I think the new infobox photos you have organized are not cohesive.
Uness232 (
talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Uness232: You completely ignored my comments about 1-3-2-1 format and that this
[15][16] is a
quality image. You ignored that
Youprayteas was ok with some of the changes
[17]. You seem to be doing the bare minimum just so you can revert. Given the poor quality state this article is currently in, I am actually surprised you are so motivated to maintain status quo.
Bogazicili (
talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili I am not motivated to 'maintain the status quo'; I simply dislike the proposed photos, which you are somehow interpreting as stonewalling.
I also did not ignore your comments on the 1-3-2-1 format, because I did not oppose the 1-3-2-1 format. I opposed the new photos, though I also do not see a 1-3-2-1 format as necessary.
My problem with the Topkapı photo was largely cohesion with the other photos (though I admittedly did forget that it was a quality photo). I do not know what Youprayteas' comments have to do with my opinion, but the other user I mentioned was MrBrandon15, not Youprayteas.
Uness232 (
talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
İstiklal Avenue photo is bad imo. Topkapı image, I can't see the building. The Bosphorus photo seems unnecesarry, you can just do just 1-3-2 perhaps. I would also reccomend adding some place from the Asian side.
Youprayteastalk/contribs 19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps. I am undecided but the [18] is newer. Ask other people.
Youprayteastalk/contribs 04:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that the current images in the infobox are better. Especially the first picture, the Bosphorus Bridge, shouldn't be changed in any case. But maybe Istiklal Street photo can change, because the photo doesn't reflect the condition of the street very well.
MrBrandon15 (
talk) 18:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Proposal for changes in the infobox
İstiklal Avenue's current appearance
The pavement pattern on
Istiklal Avenue has recently been changed. This image from November 2023 shows the current pavement pattern.
The view of the Bosphorus Bridge and the modern skyline from Çamlıca Hill (2013) is outdated
The
current Bosphorus Bridge image in the infobox is from 2013 and displays an outdated view of the city's modern skyline. This
image from 2022 contains additional buildings. Many new towers will appear in the coming years.
These towers are clearly not among the timeless icons of the city. Very few of them are interesting in terms of design. Many of them will eventually be demolished and replaced by newer buildings in the future, similar to the redevelopment projects in New York, London, etc.
The
Anadoluhisarı and in particular
Rumelihisarı fortresses can be defined as the beginning point for the "Turkish" city of Constantinople (Istanbul). Rumelihisarı played an important role during the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It is one of the timeless icons of the city, definitely more so than some ordinary highrise tower blocks, the kind of which you can find anywhere else in the world.
My proposal is to replace this outdated image with the historical beauty of Rumelihisarı Fortress, combined with the emerald green hills of the Bosphorus, splendid yalı houses and mansions (such as the
Yusuf Ziya Pasha Mansion with its unique design, visible in this image) and the
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge in the background, named after
the person to whom the Turks owe the privilege of owning what is arguably the world's most interesting city.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand your concerns, and I do get that the skyline photo is very outdated, however nearly all city articles on Wikipedia use a general skyline of the city as image1:
Ankara doesn't use the Ankara Castle
NYC doesn't use- (well, they do use the Empire State, but a very panoramic image of the Empire State)
Berlin doesn't use the Brandenburg gate
London doesn't use the Big Bang
I think you get it. The point of Wikipedia isn't to flatter any city, its to inform the general public about it. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 06:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am for adding the new image of 2022, and for replacing new images with old ones where possible. Our task is to inform readers about the current state of the city, not to preemptively censor the city's development in recent years. Istanbul in the last 20 years has grown enormously, often changing (and not always for the better) the ambience and scenery for which it was famous. The article on the city should reflect these changes.
Alex2006 (
talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed the 2022 image when reading the talk page, my apologies. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 10:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For the top image, I'd prefer this
[20]. It's from 2022 and is a
valued image in Commons (there is also the
cropped version). It shows more areas than this
[21].
this also looks digitally altered, the colors are weird. For İstiklal Avenue,I'd prefer this
[22] We need a night time pic
Bogazicili (
talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I would not necessarily oppose
[24] being added. I do not see a problem with the old photo, and I consider it to be higher quality in terms of composition and color, but I understand the reason behind replacing it.
The İstiklal photo proposed by @
Bogazicili is, however, of unacceptably bad quality in my opinion.
Uness232 (
talk) 04:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's better than the current İstiklal image which is almost 20 years old. It is better than the one suggested by Poppins Potter. Are you ok with this one?
[25]Bogazicili (
talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reinstate Hagia Sophia and its okay imo. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think we can remove Ortakoy Mosque for either Topkapi or Dolmabahce palace. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 16:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My primary concern is updating the top picture. For the rest, I'm open to suggestions. But the new top pic already shows Hagia Sophia.
Bogazicili (
talk) 06:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think all the photos of Istiklal Avenue you provided, except the first, are not good quality enough to be placed in the infobox, but I think we all agree on the top image. And @
Bogazicili you are correct, Hagia Sophia is shown in the top pic. Still, I think Ortaköy Mosque could be replaced. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This reminds me a bit of Paris/Vienna and
this reminds me a bit of London.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Simple: Because the "Turkish" history of the city began with the Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses. Before, it wasn't a Turkish city. Considering the role of Rumelihisarı in the successful conquest of 1453 (Bayezid I, who had built the Anadoluhisarı, wasn't successful in his earlier siege), I thought it was a significant symbol (a starting point) for the "Turkish part" of the city's history.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For İstiklal images, I have 2 concerns:
1) People's faces shouldn't be too visible. This is technically not a requirement in Wikipedia rules. But, this page got 27 million page views since 2007 (
Wikipedia:Popular_pages#Cities). I feel it's insensitive to put people's faces in a prominent page in the infobox without their explicit consent.
2) I'd prefer a night time image but open to a really good day time one.
Bogazicili (
talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No to both, people's faces are too visible if you zoom into pictures. Among your suggestions, I'm only ok with this
[26] (most people have blurry faces). This was my suggestion
[27]. I'm ok with eticangaaa's suggestion
[28]Bogazicili (
talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Privacy rules do not apply in public spaces such as streets, squares, etc. If someone takes a photo of you when you are walking at a street, you legally don't have any privacy reservations (you can't complain about it). But if someone takes a photo of you while you are inside your home, or inside your garden, without your permission, you may sue the photographer.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Bogazicili, he mentioned that it isn't in Wikipedia rules nor is it a law, yet it is insensitive and it's really not that common to use photos with peoples faces in wikipedia, especially not in the infobox of an article that gets
5000+ views daily. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If your preference is to keep the nostalgic tram, I think
this image is perfect, and it doesn't reveal the face of any person.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 20:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the agreement with the top pic, I changed it. As I mentioned in above sections: "I checked Level 3 vital articles for cities,
Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Cities. There are no FA ones, but there are Good Articles:
Mumbai,
London, and
Paris. They all use 1-3-2-1 format in the infobox (top and bottom large image, 3 images in second row, 2 images in 3rd row)."
So we can also switch to 1-3-2-1 format. We can replace the Hagia Sophia picture with something else. What do you guys think of this pic
[29]? It'd look like this:
User:Bogazicili/sandboxBogazicili (
talk) 08:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Basilica Cistern is a good suggestion! But now you have 3 pre-Ottoman historical sites in your second row. I think we can add Topkapı Palace, it's not visible in the top image. This is a
[31]quality image in Commons. This
[32] is also from 2012. How about this
User:Bogazicili/sandbox3?
Bogazicili (
talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I edited your talk page, (hope you dont mind, lol), what do you think of that layout? ~eticangaaa (
talk) 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I don't mind. I'm fine with the proposed images. My priority are top and bottom images. You prefer Maiden's Tower to Ortaköy Mosque? Ortaköy Mosque has
Ottoman Baroque architecture.
Poppins Potter, I'm ok with this
[33]. At least only 2 people are visible. Or something like this with blurry faces
[34]. But I'm also ok with eticangaaa's suggestion
[35]. This
[36]is from 2008, so it's a definite no.
Bogazicili (
talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ortaköy Mosque is barely visible in the bottom image btw. Instead of Basilica Cistern, we could also consider Galata Tower
[37]Bogazicili (
talk) 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
eticangaaa, this image got deleted
[38] due to copyright violation. What do you think of this
User:Bogazicili/sandbox3? İstiklal image is too wide for the second row and will need to be cropped (we can crop from the right).
Bogazicili (
talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili Jumping in here; as I still think we are moving way too fast for consensus to form, I do not have the time to argue in favor of or against every change. I will say, however, that I strongly oppose that specific FSM bridge photo. It is of poor quality, especially color-wise.
Uness232 (
talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, given the sad incidents in recent years, maybe it's better to keep the current image of Istiklal Avenue with the policeman, also as a warning to potential troublemakers that the area is well-protected.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a beautiful image of
Istiklal Avenue in the "Leisure and entertainment" section of the article, but there isn't a single image of
Taksim Square. Perhaps this image of Taksim Square with the nostalgic tram may be a good substitute.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I fine tuned the image with Photoshop, gave it an appropriate file name, and fixed the caption.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Poppins Potter I would prefer the Taksim Square photo you proposed. The one you ended up editing into the article looks completely artificial color-wise.
Uness232 (
talk) 15:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Poppins Potter I am not sure that fixed the fundamental issue, which exists especially on the left side of the photo, and might not be easily fixable.
Uness232 (
talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That's the light of the Sun during the early morning hours. It also exists in the original image. I reduced the color saturation and now it looks good. The details on the building facades are now much clearer compared to the original file.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Poppins Potter I am still not convinced of the quality of that image; I think it has to do with the exposure of the camera when it was being taken. I'd still prefer the Taksim Square photo you proposed.
Uness232 (
talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bogazicili: What do you think about
[40] this instead? It's not perfect by any means, but it might be a good compromise.
Uness232 (
talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
lovely pic - support using it here
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Too dark, and the surrounding buildings don't look like İstiklal Avenue at all. It looks like an ordinary street in a small Anatolian town. I would prefer maintaining the current image.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What makes Istiklal Avenue special is its grand historic buildings, not the nostalgic tram installed in the early 1990s. You are concentrating on the wrong detail.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Poppins Potter I do not have any real insistence on the tram; my concerns are mostly photo quality.
Uness232 (
talk) 14:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just an fyi: I dipped out of this discussion because the multiple threads got too complicated for my little mind to handle. If it makes any difference, still i think it should be this. ~eticangaaa (
talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I prefer images where faces are blurry like this
[41] or the empty one
[42]Bogazicili (
talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The "empty one" was taken during a curfew (sokağa çıkma yasağı), which is the only time you can find İstiklal Avenue so empty. The curfew was probably due to COVID-19, but people may think other things (e.g. civil unrest due to political instability, a terrorist attack, etc.) so I don't think it's a good idea. It also doesn't reflect the true nature (crowded and busy) of İstiklal Avenue. The other image is too dark, I prefer daylight.
Poppins Potter (
talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
İzahatli Maarif Takvimi: Curfew was actually the joke: "If you want an image of İstiklal Avenue without faces, you need a curfew."
Poppins Potter (
talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was ok with the empty one because it was your own suggestion. I'm ok with this too
[43]. Or anything from this set where all faces are blurry
[44][45] (more images here
[46])
We also need to change the Hagia Sophia image since it's already in the top image.
Bogazicili (
talk) 16:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
it isn't really possible to add to the infobox- no area for "governor" ~eticangaaa (
talk) 18:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Earthquake prediction on the lead section
Hi,
A sentence such as "A severe earthquake is likely in the next 10 years" is persistently wanted to be added to the lead section. First of all, this contradicts
WP:CRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia doesn’t predict the future!. Of course, seismologists' assumptions are valuable information, but this does not apply to an anonymous statement in the introduction @
Chidgk1. We can then ask "
According to whom". Also, In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. (see:
WP:LEAD). Why include a future earthquake prediction here? There ara many topics about the city, geography and environment, climate, flora and fauna, architecture, sports, economy?? I object to this change and want it to be discussed and I removing the relevant addition during this period.
Adem (
talk) 11:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
CRYSTALBALL is about rumors and unverifiable information; not notable, expert predictions.
Your other concern is much more convincing in my opinion. The statement is written in wikivoice, which indeed may be inappropriate. It is also unclear whether this is the most mainstream position; I do not think that seismologists have that amount of agreement about the Istanbul earthquake.
Uness232 (
talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Uness232 How about my suggested sentence below or similar?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think “earthquake” should be mentioned in the lead because the earthquake subsection in the body of the article is very important, due to the number of people in the city who are now alive but at great risk of being killed. I don’t know how that contradicts
WP:CRYSTALBALL as it is not us editors predicting the future but seismologists and building experts. That rule includes “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.” As to whether it should be in
WP:WIKIVOICE I am open to discussion. If you like it could be written something like “Seismologists and building experts estimate that, unless many weak apartment blocks are strengthened or replaced, tens of thousands of people will be killed by earthquakes this century.” but that would be rather longer than the sentence you removed. I look forward to hearing opinions and suggestions from more people.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, they may be included, but the seismology community is not a huge part of the reliable source base for a world city, so it's certainly
WP:UNDUE, it's being put in the lede because we
unduly feel it to be particularly important to the subject, like we're telling people something they need to know.
Remsense诉 15:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t understand what you mean “the seismology community is not a huge part of the reliable source base for a world city”. Can you clarify?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, look at the lead! There is so much to say about Istanbul, and a lead has to be fair in summarizing it in four paragraphs (ideally)
Remsense诉 06:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We're talking about
earthquake forecasting, not prediction. I'm unconvinced that it belongs in the lead section though.
Mikenorton (
talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We agree on the seismological activity: however, the specific connection you are making is undue unless it has more attestation, as the lead should summarize the article, which should in turn reflect the body of reliable sources on a topic, and not privilege certain subtopics. If I may, Los Angeles, Santiago, and Tokyo are also important cities with a lot of important seismological activity, but their article leads do not mention this—Tokyo's mentions a specific individual earthquake as an epoch in the city's history—because that would seem to privilege what editors personally feel is important beyond the balance established by all relevant sources—meaning, not just seismologists. Doubly so because it's a future, and therefore even more niche, statement.
Remsense诉 06:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
in my opinon this shouldn't be in the lead in its current form, mostly because of the WP:DUE issue mentioned by Remense above, but also because those are rather strong words to just leave in there without any further context. If a comment about the earthquake risk for Istanbul were to be included in the lead, it would have to be more quantified, and discussed in a relevant context. In this case that would be an alinea summarising the geography section of the article, for example. Which dovetails nicely into the discussion just opened below this one! --
Licks-rocks (
talk) 20:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Licks-rocks: Re quantification and comparison of
urban seismic risk between cities you must be more expert in the subject than me. I don’t know any Istanbul equivalent of
UCERF3. I guess
Kandilli Observatory is the most reliable source?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The fact that Istanbul is prone to earthquakes and sits close to
North Anatolian Fault can be mentioned in the lead. Los Angeles, Santiago, and Tokyo are not GA or FA, so not really examples for this article.
Bogazicili (
talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Too much toponomy and history in the lead?
At the moment most of the lead is toponomy and history. But some sections in the body of the article are not mentioned at all. For example: administration, politics, sports, media, education, public services, and transportation. Perhaps there should be brief mention of some of those in the lead and less about toponomy and history?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it makes sense that history occupies a large part of the lead for such an old city, but that doesn't stop other topics from being added to the lead, of course. --
Licks-rocks (
talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So you would be happy with a 5th para being added? And trimming the names info?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have moved a lot of names info to body of article. I left all the history in lead but joined into a single para.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 12:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Chidgk1 here's the thing: the lead is not that long. It's four paragraphs, but they are small paragraphs. I don't think any information needs to be removed to fill out the lead accordingly, it just needs to be smartly arranged, I would compare with that of articles like
New York City and
Shanghai.
Remsense诉 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Remsense: I don’t understand the part of your change comment which says “the omission of this history is totally egregious imo” as almost everything I removed from the lead was about non-English names not history.
The lead is a disaster with almost one third being different Greek spellings, while entire sections are missing ranging from education to economy etc. New Rome was also a very brief name, seems too not
WP:SUMMARY in the lead with the Greek and Latin. This article used to be FA. See that version from Article milestones
[47]. This article would make a good case study of how Wikipedia articles degrade.
Bogazicili (
talk) 18:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, I wasn't planning on being convinced at first—really, articles usually don't simply degrade, most FFAs and FGAs are in large part the result of standards getting higher, though the dysgenic dynamics of either category are actually quite different, anyway—yes. I would almost say we should just cut and paste this, check a few times, and call it a day. Why don't editors do that more? It's clearly better, it's available, so let's make the article better in two clicks.
Remsense诉 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine by me - after that the lead would only need very small updates like removing the last sentence
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No preference here, this is on my list of articles to improve but not sure when I'll get there.
Bogazicili (
talk) 16:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Do we need Turkish name and pronunciation in lead?
I think we don’t need (
Turkish: İstanbul) in the lead because it is already in the infobox. And I don’t think we need the audio file in the lead because it is already in the names section. To me as a Brit (Australian: Pom) (American: Limey) it sounds exactly the same as I would say it in English.
But perhaps you Yanks, Ozzies etc disagree?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 10:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(Americans do not actually say limey ever.)[unreliable source?]
Yes, I would say all else being equal it seems redundant as lead clutter—as are most orthographically-similar translation forms that can be footnoted or explicated elsewhere. I understand I and
İ are different letters, not one just being the other with a diacritic in Turkish orthography, but I'm curious how others feel.
Remsense诉 10:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Moved down to body
Chidgk1 (
talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Remsense So did you put the IPA pronunciation footnote back in the lead because it is useful to your fellow Americans or because we need more comments here?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with having it in both places: in fact, I think it's necessarily consistent to do so.
Remsense诉 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A footnote is not a big problem, but it is one more bit of clutter in a now cluttered lead. I think the onus should be for people who want things to be in the lead to justify them being there, generally because of their importance
Chidgk1 (
talk) 14:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a direct argument, but it approximately 1.5em of clutter in a lead section that is really not that cluttered to begin with.
Secondly, can you find an applicable article about any major figure, place, or event that doesn't follow
MOS:LEADLANG, i.e. either a brief parenthetical or an explanatory footnote with this information? The justification is presumably the one that has created such a universal consensus of such: it's there and fills the niche where it's useful. It's pretty straightforwardly important, unless you genuinely want me to try and elaborate why, which would be hard.
Frankly, as alluded to above, the lead is not that bad at present. If you want to do the maximal amount to improve this article, decimate clutter in the article itself (there's plenty to work though!) and circle back around to the lead later.
Remsense诉 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Coyotes do not appear anywhere in Turkey. I am unable to edit to remove coyote from the list of mammals in Istanbul, so thought I would bring it to the attention of someone who can. No idea about the other animals cited, but I guess I am suspicious now.
134.243.253.241 (
talk) 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I deleted the whole paragraph as Daily Sabah is not a reliable source. I suspect there was a mistranslation of whatever Esra Dağlı said in Turkish. If anyone has a reliable source they could put some animals back in
Chidgk1 (
talk) 19:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply