Wikipedia

Talk:Istanbul/Archive 7

< Talk:Istanbul
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Graham87 in topic Edit request on 10 December 2012
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Copyediting notes

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

If no one has a chance to look at these before the next FAC, I'll copy these over to the next FAC page. - Dank (push to talk)

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.
  • First: great writing, very enjoyable.
  • The first footnote is "d", and the second is "c". That doesn't bother me at all, but it does bother some folks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • WP is really slow tonite so I'm adding the in-use template; I'll do it all in one edit. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, I got down to Istanbul#Economy, I'll pick it up in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See WP:$. The repeated use of "US$" rather than "$" (after the first occurrence) could possibly generate opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "served to engender Turks toward musical traditions": I don't understand "engender" here.
  • "... Istanbul had the country's primary institution of art until the 1970s. Since then, artists formerly based in Ankara have moved in ...": The sentence seems to be pulling in different directions ... is it talking about the rise or the fall of Istanbul as an art hub? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, I'll be happy to support at FAC. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    For the record, I don't plan to bring this back to FAC, at the very least, until the issues with the images are resolved. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Süleymaniye mosque

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please replace the poor photo in the article with this pic that I took from a previous version of the article on Suleiman I. Why are all the mosque photos in this article are chosen amongst the ugliest? The Sultanahmet and Süleymaniye mosques, as well as many others like the Büyük Mecidiye, Valide etc are among the very best works of architecture and cultural heritage of the Πολη. --E4024 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, you must be kidding if you think that picture of the Süleymaniye Mosque is superior to the one currently in the article. It hardly shows the mosque. The reason the current picture was chosen is because it's in the History section and some people (e.g. me) think it is preferable to have a historical photo of the subject if one is available. The current image remains a very accurate and clear image of the mosque, even if it's not from the 21st century. In fact, it may be among the clearest we have, given it's devoid of road traffic and from a vantage point that would be hard to replicate today. As the photo you suggested illustrates, there are few true photographs (none on Commons, insofar as I can tell) that show a significant portion of the exterior of the mosque close up. So, I think that's fine.
You've also complained about the image selected to illustrate the Sultan Ahmet Mosque in the collage. Once again, I question your aesthetic judgment. That photo was voted a featured picture on Commons with near-unanimous support. "Strange yellow-orangeish Andalucian UFO"? No, it's called recognizing that it's not always high noon in Istanbul. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you think you are the "owner" of this article? Then you are inviting and justifying a photo-war. Replace the Eyüp photo with a high noon photo of either Sultanahmet mosque or Büyük Mecidiye of Ortaköy. Place the remaining one of the two photos in the collage instead of that Alhambra that does not belong here. "Please". --E4024 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussions surrounding these images did not happen in secret. You're about the only one who thinks the current Sultanahmet Mosque photo is of poor-quality and has no place in the article. You never even brought up your concern when you concurred that it should be in the collage. The point about the Eyup Mosque existed on this talk page, unchallenged, for weeks before it was finally added in. Sorry, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for you to chime in with your questionable aesthetic taste. And I'm also not going to sit around responding to your comments further. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a new version of the city collage

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to propose a new version of the city collage. The reasons are stated below:

 
Current city collage
 
New version of the collage
  • The roof of the Haydarpaşa Terminal was sadly damaged by a fire in 2010. However, it won't forever remain in this bad state (reparation and restoration works are about to begin) therefore the photo in the current collage (showing the damaged roof) will eventually become obsolete and will have to be changed. I substituted it with an image of the Bosphorus Bridge.
  • I added a better photo of İstiklal Avenue showing both the nostalgic red tram and the rows of historic buildings lining the avenue (the İstiklal Avenue picture in the current collage doesn't show the historic buildings.)
  • The Princes' Islands can also be seen (on the horizon, at left) in the top image of the new collage, and therefore can be added into the caption text below the city collage, in the infobox.

Forthenote (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes! This is it. Please change the collage ASAP. Let us please use the Haydarpasha Train Station pic also somewhere in the article... --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it extremely odd and suspicious that this editor, Forthenote, creates an account on Friday and then is creating collages and uploading them to Wikimedia Commons by Sunday. Wikimedia Commons is not a well-known project, and most new people on Wikipedia would just upload an image here. At the same time, he's creating well-put-together new articles. My suspicion is not lessened any bit by the fact that E4024 comes in within ten minutes to so wholeheartedly agree with this mysterious new editor, who just so happened to repeat a point (that the Blue Mosque photo should show all six minarets) that E4024 initially brought up. Suffice it to say, I'm not sure what to think about this new editor.
In regards to the proposal itself, when Haydarpaşa Terminal is restored, the picture in the collage can be replaced. I don't think there's much iconic about the Bosphorus Bridge; it's about as plain as suspension bridges can get. As I've stated on multiple occasions, I see no pressing need to show all of the minarets in the Blue Mosque, especially when it means using a lower quality image. The Istiklal Avenue image is better though. -- tariqabjotu 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Look I find it odd that you are trying to own the article and not let anybody do anything other than your personal choices. If you have suspicions about the user that made this excellent collage take them wherever you wish but do not throw mud on others. Today I have reverted or approved other users in less than ten minutes in several articles. Nobody showed your ridiculous reaction. I don't like your photos and I will support wholeheartedly most alternatives. Stop being like this and collaborate, positively. --E4024 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The bridge is a symbol, BTW, not "any suspension bridge". It unites two continents, like Turkey and like Istanbul, my beloved city... --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There is simply no basis for the nonsense you keep spewing about me owning the article. There was a discussion lasting more than a month about the collage, and toward the end, you seemed to have no interest in participating. Only after the new collage was put in did you decide that you were going to complain about one of the photos in it as well as a photo later in the article. The real problem here is that you expect everyone else to bend over backwards for you. Disagreeing with you and implementing something closer to what the majority wants is not called owning the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Note for the records: I don't even know how to make a photo collage... --E4024 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, the Bosphorus Bridge (which connects Europe and Asia) is a more popular and prominent symbol of Istanbul than the Haydarpaşa Terminal has ever been (don't get me wrong though: I also like the Haydarpaşa Terminal and felt very sorry when its roof burned in 2010 (it still hasn't been fully repaired yet); but it will eventually be repaired and the "burnt roof" picture in the collage will become obsolete.)
As for the İstiklal Avenue photo in the current collage: As Tariq also accepts, it doesn't make justice to the beautiful historic buildings lining the avenue.
Being a software engineer, I didn't find editing articles on Wikipedia or uploading images to Wikimedia Commons difficult at all (I simply checked out what other people (including Tariq) are doing and did the same.) I don't know why you think it takes a "genius" to accomplish such things. Also, I have no connection with user E4024. Forthenote (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and unsourced images

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

To Forthenote, or whoever this guy is a sockpuppet of, two people agreeing on something over the course of twenty-four hours fifteen minutes is not consensus, in light of an image that came out of a six-week discussion with far more participants and input (including from E4024, who seems to change opinions every week).

Also, that image you've placed into the article, while seemingly more relevant, has insufficient source information and no information about when it was published. Therefore, there is no way to know it actually fits the license it's tagged with. I've nominated it for deletion on Wikimedia Commons because it seems you cannot recognize this point otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing opinions, especially on images is very normal. Show me a photo after another and I might say "I like this one more" every time. The actual collage is good and everyone will like it, even you. Give yourself time to digest. Your above talk is childish BTW. (Or I am too old... :-) --E4024 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"From the Asian side Haydarpasha train terminal is a must." -- You
It is not illegal to change your mind or to see something new and come to the realization that you prefer that, but it is simply unacceptable to expect the article to rapidly change along with your fickle ways. There is no consensus for this image. There are simply two editors -- you, and this spurious new editor -- who quickly said they have agreed to it. I offered objection and because the previous image was the result of a far lengthier discussion with more participants (including you, no less), you must wait. That's how things work here. If you want to solicit the previous participants' opinions to see if they prefer this collage, go ahead, but please don't insult me by suggesting you know that I will agree to this image. No, I do not, and I will not. I have presented reasons for doing so, and I will not let you bully me into acquiescing. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see you are the only one who objects. I love the Haydarpasha Train Station, but not in a photo with the burned roof. I also love the Sultanahmet Mosque, but not the ugly photo of your choice. Why do you insist on attacking the user who made the collage? It may be seen as a weakness of your arguments on the collage itself... --E4024 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and only two people support this collage. Why do you keep insisting that the opinion of you two ought to be taken as the word of God? Why do your two positions outweigh the lengthy discussion that led to the current collage? -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Guys, I agree with Tariq. Two months ago the community (more than 2 people) has been discussing one month (or longer) about the best collage, chosen among the many which had been prepared. At the end we reached a consensus, which I accept, although the chosen collage is not my favorite. Once the decision is reached, everyone should support it. This is the way Wikipedia (and democracy :-)) works. So, unless there are important facts (picture license, or so) which oblige to a change, or there is a public outcry (not 2 people) against the decision, we should stick to it. Alex2006 (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Alex:I thought consensus did not mean a simple majority and that WP was not a democracy but an encyclopedia... I ask everyone who likes Istanbul to look at the two collages above and say which one looks better. That is all about it. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think this collage is better than this one. Bosphorus Bridge is one of the trademark locations of Istanbul. The main feature of the city is that it connects Asia and Europe continents. Therefore, image of Bosphorus Bridge or The Bosphorus should be in the collage, I think.--Rapsar (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Okay, but there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think Haydarpasha is fine for the infobox, as seemed to be the agreement in the previous discussion. However, if there is a desire for an image of the Bosphorus, or even an image of the Bosphorus Bridge, that can be used, perhaps to replace that picture of Haydarpasha, without changing anything else (OK, well maybe the Istiklal image). But the chosen image of the Bosphorus Bridge is very bland. Something showing the Ortaköy Mosque with the bridge and strait in the background seems like a much better choice than one that focuses solely on the gray structure. I'm thinking something like this view, cropped down to size. The image currently in the Economy section showing the bridge and the mosque could be replaced with something else.
Replacing the Istiklal and Haydarpasha images with the Istiklal image used in the previously presented collage and an Ortaköy/bridge picture is a compromise, submitting to the primary concern that the Haydarpasha photo doesn't show the icon at its best. The panorama and Maslak photos seem to have nearly unanimous acceptance at this point, and the featured-quality Blue Mosque photo had previous unanimous support during the broader discussion, despite the objections E4024 has decided to bring out of the blue. Unless anyone from the prior discussion objects, this could be put in. But, no, the image is not being so drastically replaced, as E4024 and the suspicious Forthenote want; there's no consensus for that, and there really isn't even consensus for changing the infobox image at all. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sultanahmet Mosque is known with its six minarets. First picture of the mosque is not showing these minarets and for that reason, I think second picture is more better.--Rapsar (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I try to tell him the same from the beginning; but he is obsessed with oriental taste. Does not even understand that that mosque was made there to show how beauty could be achieved simply, as a lesson of architecture to the architect of the Roman Ayasofya... --E4024 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Too bad. Aside from the four-, five-, and eight-collage images that were outright rejected (spawning the discussion in the first place), all of the previously proposed collages have this image of the Blue Mosque. There was no objection, not even by you, until the discussion ended. That ship has sailed. Too late. I'm already making an unnecessary compromise; take it or leave it. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You should better leave this article in peace and have some fresh air in other parts of the world. (Before you go, read the discussion page carefully for my previously stated opinions about Sultanahmet mosque.) --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no one named "The obsessed user" here, so your comment will fall upon blind eyes. To you, however, I would suggest you tone down your desperation to justify this new collage and understand that you don't own the article either. You are not unaware of the existence of the previous conversation, and yet you feel the need to clutch at straws to form a consensus out of two or three people. I don't have time right now to make the collage, but in around five hours, I'll create the one I suggested (provided no other opinions insisting on keeping the previous one) and put it in. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked several users to come here and opine. Do not hurry to change anything. --E4024 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine. Then, in the meantime, leave it as it was before. -- tariqabjotu 00:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There's really no point arguing with you. I am far from new to Wikipedia. I have witnessed my fair share of stubborn editors, and this tactic you're employing is not new. You latch on to a flimsy idea of consensus, and suddenly that's it. You ostensibly support continuing discussion, but the rest of the world must heed to your flimsy consensus until you're satisfied that there's consensus for something else. The problem is you will never be satisfied that there's consensus for something else, no matter what happens. You seek out people who you hope would be sympathetic to your position, even those who weren't previously involved in the article, to try to bolster your interpretation of consensus. When one of them doesn't agree with you, you find some way to twist their words to suggest that they really are. Meanwhile, you accuse anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of consensus as owning the article or "not hearing that".
And as in those other cases, these accusations fall flat when faced with the facts. Note the compromises I've made:
  • I didn't want a collage, but I accepted people wanted one. And beyond accepting that, I even helped create collage suggestions.
  • When you first brought up the request for a picture showing all six minarets, I requested that you at least find a picture less than ten years old. You never responded, and you've never done that, insisting on using a low-quality image from 2002.
  • I thought having the left and right sides of the collage of unequal width looked better than having them of equal width (as here), but I accepted that Patrick wanted them equal, so I gave in.
  • There was unanimous agreement (and this time unanimous is actually appropriate) that Haydarpasha should be in the infobox, and yet I submitted to including a picture of one of the Bosphorus Bridges in the collage. This is despite them being illustrated in two other places in the article; this will likely require me to find a picture to replace one of the other perfectly good, high-quality images.
  • When the eight-image collage was added and when Forthenote added his new collage, after reverting, I am ultimately the one who initiated the talk page discussions -- despite the onus truly being on the one introducing new contested content to do so.
And what compromises have you made?
Right. None. If this collage goes in the article, you'll get the precise image that you want, whereas everyone else will have to sacrifice elements of their ideal infobox image. Oh, but I'm the one owning the article.
The point of compromises and the concept of consensus is to find some middle ground. I tried that during the previous collage discussion. I've even tried that now, despite being confronted solely by you and two editors who have never edited here before (including a editor that created an account a week ago and then disappeared after commenting a couple times).
As I said, your approach is not novel. But if this makes you feel better, relying on spurious editors to make your point, go ahead. I'll await the arrival of someone else brave enough to put their foot down against your bully tactics. I have much better things to do than argue with an Internet warrior. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ISTANBUL NATIVE NAME - RACISM AGAINST TURKEY

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

(Personal attack removed) So,is Wikipedia racist ? And also a dictatorship, because you have removed my comment about a user's (obvious and patent) racism --AlexanderFreud (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) If you won't add the native name of Istanbul (as for each city that has a different English name) I will inform the İstanbul UNESCO Club about that ~ Alessandro Gioffrè d'Ambra (international relations organizer Club UNESCO "Re Italo" di Reggio, centro del Mediterraneo, Italia) --AlexanderFreud (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusing another user of racism in this ad hominem way is likely to get you blocked from editing. I don't recommend you continue this thread and I don't recommend responding either here or on Tariq's talk page. The name has been discussed many times in this talk page's archive, and I assure you the infobox and lead conform to Wikipedia's standards.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem - as Tariq pointed out - is that the turkish "İ" in the info box renders as an "I", making the addition of the Turkish name meaningless. Alex2006 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In Wikipedia, all the other Turkish cities (e.g. Iğdır, Gümüşhane, Çanakkale) have their name written in Turkish alphabet but İstanbul. How is this logical again? If one is not gonna use the Turkish alphabet then we should all change the city names of Turkey. Like, Igdir (Turkish: Iğdır), which would be quite silly really. --Infestor (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is only a graphic problem. Who can solve it? Alex2006 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
These are two separate problems. All of the articles Infestor mentions are at their Turkish names, and there really are no English equivalents. For that reason, all of those cities have just one name in their respective infoboxes -- the name as it's written in Turkish. That's not the case here. However, this has been debated many times before, and the article is not moving to İstanbul. So, just forget about that.
That leads to the issue about putting both "Istanbul" as well as "İstanbul" in the infobox. There isn't much of a graphical problem; all that needs to be done to make the dotted İ clearer is to add more space between lines, something that's not difficult to do. But what's the point of putting both names at the top of the infobox, when the only difference is a dot? The average reader is not going to know that the dotted İ version is Turkish; for most, I imagine, I doesn't look like a different language (this is much more obvious when the native language is something like Chinese or Arabic, with completely different alphabets). Those that are familiar with the dotted İ and its use in Turkish probably already know that the Turkish name includes the dotted İ. So, it serves no purpose. I think the reader can wait until they read the first three words of the article to see how it's rendered properly in Turkish. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
[...]what's the point of putting both names at the top of the infobox, when the only difference is a dot? If you talk like this, I'm sorry, It could mean that your mind is not so open. For you and for me is just a dot; but a Turkish speaker reading the word Istanbul read something like this: hstanbul (we don't have ı sound so I just put a letter which has a similar sound). However Izmir page has both toponym; I just will add it in Istanbul page. --AlexanderFreud (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a requested move.-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 22:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't. You'll just be wasting your time. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, a Turkish reader reading English wikipedia reads "Istanbul", because he/she is reading English, not Turkish. Anyway, I support having both names in the infobox, provided that the dot above the I is visible (and now is), since the native name should be written in the native alphabet. Alex2006 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

Latest comment: 11 years ago45 comments26 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


Istanbul → İstanbul – -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I request that the article to be moved to İstanbul. The reasons are:

  • İstanbul does not have a distinctly different name in English like Copenhagen (Danish: København), Naples (Italian: Napoli), Bucharest (Romanian: București) and Munich (German: München) etc.
  • The name "İstanbul" is a Turkish word. The avoidance of the capital letter "İ" is because that letter does not exist in many keyboard layouts. This does not make Istanbul an English name— contrary to some people claim here.
    • If the re-modification of the letter "İ" to "I" was indeed acceptable in the case of İstanbul, then we should re-modify all the Turkish city names! Kahramanmaraş→Kahramanmaras, Iğdır→Igdir, Gümüşhane→Gumushane etc. As you can see this is not very logical. Changing the Turkish characters into their closest English character does not make a name in English! Take Timişoara for instance, it is written as Timişoara in English Wikipedia, not as Timisoara.
  • İstanbul vs Istanbul difference is not cosmetic. Letter I [IPA:ɯ] in Turkish gives a different sound than letter İ [IPA:i].

-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:ENGLISH. Case closed. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Valid arguments. --Varg (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Istanbul might be the most common way to write İstanbul but it is not an English name (there isn't one, it is İstanbul). The current naming makes it seem like there is actually a standard English correspondence to İstanbul. Case open. 86.127.67.25 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Query: I'm not sure what is meant by editors here when referring to an "English name". Pick up almost any English language reliable source and it refers to "Istanbul". Can those supporting a name change explain to me why that is not a relevant (indeed, arguably determining) factor? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe I can explain: All the other cities of Turkey are written in their indigenous language (Turkish) in Wikipedia—except İstanbul. Why does İstanbul does not follow this rule/trend? I mean you can also pick up a reliable English tour guide or source and see the city of Tekirdağ written as Tekirdag. Does that make it right because most of the world lack those characters on their keyboards? I don't see Mönchengladbach written as Monchengladbach in Wikipedia. Why is that? Think about it. I mean, we either emit all those extra Turkish characters from all the Turkish location names or we leave it as it is. Just because İstanbul is the biggest and most known city of the country does not mean that it should get a pass.-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 01:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
      • There is a pattern in the posts here of talking about how the names of other Turkish places are named. As I understand it, that isn't really relevant to determining the naming of this article under WP guidelines. It may be that the naming of those other places in Turkish results from the Turkish names being used in English-language sources, for example. I'm still looking for an explanation for why the widespread use of "Istanbul" in English-language sources should not lead us to conclusion that "Istanbul" is the correct title for the English WP article. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME Hot Stop (Talk) 05:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME too. Moreover, I would like to point out that it is not true that "All the other cities of Turkey are written in their indigenous language (Turkish) in Wikipedia—except İstanbul" . Many Turkish cities whose name begins with "İ" (İzmir, İznik) are consistently written in english wikipedia using "I". If we change Istanbul, we should change also the other city names. Generally speaking, I think that the proposer is a little bit confused. :-) This is English Wikipedia, and in English there are 26 letters. Turks use a modified Latin alphabet, that should be transliterated in English. The word "Istanbul" is the (lucky) product of a partial transliteration, easy in this case, since the Turkish dotted I corresponds to the Latin I. For other letters, possibly because of lack of norm (or laziness), this did not happen, but on the wrong side are city names like Eskişehir, not Istanbul. In the old Italian works about Turkey (like "Costantinopoli" by De Amicis), all the Turkish words were transliterated/transcripted: Eskişehir became Eschiscehir, and Kadiköy Kadikioi. Alex2006 (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Alex: Yes Alex, but d'Amicis died, If I am not wrong, before the Alphabet Reform of 1928 in Turkey. As regards the naming discussion, I myself have moved some "İzmir" articles to "Izmir". (I hope no-one visiting English Wikipedia reads those names as they would be pronounced in Turkish with an "ı".) --E4024 (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

De Amicis was only an example. I have also books of the forties, where the Turkish names are transcribed. Personally I would have nothing against adopting the Turkish alphabet also here, but it is written nowhere that the average English (or Italian) wikipedia user should understand what 'ş' means (except maybe in şeker). :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Iñfẽstør - you may receive a certain amount of abuse for posting this RM. Unfortunately there's a certain something in the Anglo-Saxon psyche that sometimes accepts Noël Coward because he was British, but froths with "this is Britain/America/Australia!" when exposed to Noël Godin. However en.wp consensus accepts Llŷn Peninsula and Saint-Étienne so no reason other than İzmir not being in Wales or France to not spell İzmir correctly. And we do already spell all Turkish WP:BLPs correctly, I know this because I did an extensive check in April. Anyway be interesting to see what following logical argument there is for accepting Besançon, and Göttingen but discriminating against Turkish place names. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Alex2006: I agree that it's written as ISTANBUL in many languages and is the most common form (thus the WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME). But what I am saying is that it's a common mistake made by the millions out of necessity for they can't write the capital Turkish i (İ). Wikipedia should redirect it to İstanbul, because it's an encyclopedia. Then we are really lucky that "Istanbul" stuck, for there are other very common variations of the name as Istambul (most films from 80's :)), Stamboul, Istamboul, Istambol. If a quick Google search returned -say- more Istamboul results than İstanbul would that be accepted in Wikipedia because it is the most common form?-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 12:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Something ridiculous like this happening would be a good way of bringing the whole diacritics nonsense to a head. Formerip (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi Istanbul gets a pass because it's a big and famous city—and this is where the issue is. I don't really buy that it's the English exonym. Writing something wrong billions of times by billions of people does not make it right or english-exonym-ize it. I'm sure 90% if the people who want to query Göttingen & Besançon write them as Gottingen and Besancon. Does that make them English exonyms? No. Why does it make Istanbul then? -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 13:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Writing something "wrong" billions of times would make it the common name, wouldn't it? Hot Stop (Talk) 13:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone here is forgetting that the modern Turkish alphabet has been introduced only in 1928. The word "Istanbul" exists in all the European languages since a lot, lot of time, well before the invention of the "İ". Byron wrote a poem about Istanbul, not "İstanbul", and he was writing in English (I think). :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@Infestor, in this case I don't know. I haven't read the rationale in Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names 2007 to understand why the authors single out Istanbul as an English exonym. I know why Zurich is singled out - it is because the English name "Zurich" developed from the French not German, it isn't simple carelessness like "Gottingen" (sic). But with Istanbul we'd have to read the argument in the source. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I support the move as per Infestor's rationale. For the article Izmir, I support the title "İzmir" too. 86.99.218.11 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@Hot Stop (Talk) I disagree but respect your argument. The city of Malmö is written as Malmö in Wikipedia, not as Malmo or Malmoe. I am sure majority of people query it as Malmo for they have no Ö on their keyboard layout (including me. But I am glad that it redirects to Malmö). So, we should expect in the near future that that Malmö article will be written as Malmo because this is the most common way that billions of people write it (per your argument)? -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 13:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME seems to hold precedence here. Doesn't matter how it's pronounced or whether there a correct English name. All that matters is what a majority of sources call it, and that pretty clearly seems to be "Istanbul". NickCT (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since you all are here, might you be so kind as to comment in the RfC in the preceding section? -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Britannica, Columbia, and Merriam-Webster. Kauffner (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oposse, per WP:COMMONNAME and also WP:ENGLISH. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at re WP:ENGLISH. That guide recommends using Turkish for Turkish Rivers because they are cases where there is "No established usage in English-language sources". Istanbul obviously is not in that category. So the WP:ENGLISH guide supports "Istanbul". Yes? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hamilton. The main problem is WP:COMMONNAME "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen" - people are just not reading the guideline. There's an example below, 5 or 6 examples above of the wrong part of WP:AT being cited out synch with what the guideline actually says. As regards WP:ENGLISH that in this particular case is less of an issue, due to WP:RS like Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names 2007, which seems to be in accord with European Union documentation, but if Infestor had instead of Istanbul nominated İzmir and İznik (which are simply at odds with en.wp practice and would have made a better RM), then WP:ENGLISH "Tomás Ó Fiaich" "Turkish for Turkish rivers" would have been very relevant. The problem is pasting guidelines and apparently not reading/understanding them. There's also the old old one of failing to evaluate the difference between a genuine exonym like "Zurich" (from Latin Turicum, French Zurich) and a typographic limitation like "Gottingen" (from USA Today/Daily Mirror) cf User:Prolog/Diacritical marks. According to quality sources Istanbul appears to be like Zurich, while İzmir and İznik appear to be like Göttingen. But the discussion here hasn't touched on that, apart from your good self that is. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME, as cited by several people above. The accented character's appearance in English-language sources is extremely rare, and would not generally be accepted as the normal way to spell the name of the city in English. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very few English language sources use İstanbul. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which is clearly Istanbul. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is perfectly acceptable, and good, to inform of the Turkish spelling with diacritics, but it makes a poor name for a title on the English Wikipedia where WP:USEENGLISH is the rule. English texts, including encyclopedias, call Istanbul by the diacritics free name. Even the English version of the city's website [1], avoids the diacritics in its English text, reserving the dot for the Turkish text. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Question- How would one explain -say- Malmö? The English name of the city is the same as Swedish with ö. Do you Google/Google Scholar search or have actual references? Because for Istanbul I haven't seen any references on this section apart from the encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, and Merriam-Webster) and Istanbul Municipality's website -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 13:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Its hard to say. It could be the case that the other article should be moved, or it could also be that that particular city is called Malmö by more English sources than this city is called İstanbul but I simply don't know. Also, changing the name to Malmo was never discussed in that article's talk page so the fact that that article uses that name can't be used to argue that a consensus exists to use this kind spelling. Finally, I don't think that the naming of another article is a good reason to change this article either since I don't think we should be using Wikipedia as a source.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The "ö" in "Malmö" is not simply an o with two dots over it, but a separate letter of the Swedish alphabet. English encyclopedias such as Britannica use the Swedish letter on the Malmö article [2] and so keeping the "ö" letter is consistent with USEENGLISH, while they don't use the dot over the "I" in the Istanbul article [3] (although this link notes that the Turkish name is with the dot). Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • i'm sorry but your logic doesn't make much sense, i.e you're sayin that Ö is a separate letter on its own while İ is not. they are actually both individual letters with their own unicode that do not exist in standard 26-letter English alphabet. anyway, i wasn't asking about this. what i was asking is what sources/methods people here use to figure out whether a city name is an english exonym or not.-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I missed that the dotted I was a separate Turkish letter in the same vein as the "Ö" of Swedish. Still, the rest of the argument, that English sources including Istanbul's city website in English uses the undotted "I", stands. In comparison, English sources call Sweden's second largest city "Gothenburg" (not "Göteborg") and the third largest "Malmö" not "Malmo". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Tariqabjotu and others.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Diacritics are not included in English article titles. Closed. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan: So WP does not have a Chișinău article? --E4024 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Infobox collage

Latest comment: 11 years ago30 comments14 people in discussion
Per a request at WP:AN/RFC this RfC is closed. The result is that the consensus of those responding prefers Collage A. There was no consensus whether Photo C or Photo D was preferred. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2012 (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.

  1. Which of the two collages below (proposed for the infobox) is better? Collage A or Collage B?
  2. The primary disagreement is about which photo of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque to use in the collage for the infobox. Which is better? Photo C or Photo D?
Collage options, for Question 1
  •  
    Collage A
  •  
    Collage A (in .jpg format)
  •  
    Collage B
Sultan Ahmed Mosque photos, for Question 2
  •  
    Photo C
  •  
    Photo D

-- tariqabjotu 19:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The temperature of the above discussion may have scared away many editors from contributing. Allow me, as an "innocent bystander" and mainly a user of Wikipedia instead of an editor, to give my opinion. I find the Collage A better than the Collage B. One reason is the Blue Mosque at dusk-picture, that I find very much better than the more "standard" postcard-like one. Another reason is the bridge, that reminds me of so many other bridges, while the building in Collage A is quite unique. I could, however, wish to use the tram picture from collage B, since it also shows some of the buildings along the street. My vote is for Collage A and definitely for Photo C. 188.4.100.1 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A&D --Esc2003 (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    Some elaboration on what you're liking about each option would be nice, especially since the mosque photo you prefer is in the collage you don't prefer. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I support B&D.--Rapsar (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a new collage needs to be created. Collage B's top picture is better because it captures more of the city landscape in better quality. I slightly prefer B's Mosque picture as well because it’s in daylight, so the structure is clearer to see. However, I don't think B's bridge is necessary because the top picture already shows the part of the strait. It should be replaced with an unique building that IP pointed out.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    You do realize the top picture in Collage B is the same one used in Collage A, right? Therefore, how is the one in Collage B of better quality? -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I know they're the same. But it appears that the B image is sharper. That's all. The top one for A looks fuzzier for some reason.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
So... what you're saying is you prefer the image being in .jpg format rather than .png format. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about File:The Blue Mosque, Istanbul (June 2011).jpg below? -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 
High-quality daytime photo
  • A and C. The layout, with the borders and equal heights, is superior to that of Collage B. I honestly can't understand what anyone could find appealing about that collage, unless they just think some of the pictures selected for it are nicer. Picture C is a featured-quality image, even if it's not in broad daylight, whereas Picture D is a low-quality image from 2002. I'd be amenable to having a higher-quality daytime photo (like the one seen right), but as few images (no other on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell) capture all six minarets, I doubt I could locate one that would placate the primary concern from those supporting D [not in this RfC, but in previous discussions] that it depict all of its minarets. Infobox images, especially infobox collages, are primarily used for aesthetic reasons, not informational reasons, and so I believe quality of image should trump informativeness when the gain in the latter is insignificant (and likely to be lost on readers unaware of the unusual nature of a six-minaret mosque) and the drop in the former is substantial. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A and C. The layout and image choice in A appears to be better balanced than B, however as someone pointed out above, the image has not scaled well to the size displayed in the collapse boxes above so that needs to be improved. Correct balancing is important, and the oversized top aerial shot at the top of B unbalances the rest of that image. On the second choice, C is broadly a better picture. While it shows more of the structure itself, the image composition on D is way off - the skyline is inappropriately placed in the bottom third and because of its angle it gives the spires undue attention and creates a vast area of empty sky. The 'daytime' photo of the structure Tariq provided above is worse, in my view, as the perspective is much too severe to be illustrative. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A and C are the nicest options. When I'm thinking about these collages, I compare them to the Intro section of the article. The intro should summarize the rest of the article, and give the high points (biggest, oldest, etc) of its subject. The intro doesn't need much in the way of explanation, that's for sections below. In the same way, a city's collage should try to be both expansive, with a variety of places (i.e. Haydarpaşa), and use the most beautiful options available, (i.e. any featured photos). I don't see an image's "clarity" as being important in this situation.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A & C seem to be the better options. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Call to admins: Is this RfC closed? What was the result? Who is the uninvolved admin to conclude this discussion? (Non-admins please do not bother to respond.) --E4024 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    From your edit summary: This article suffers a concealed ownership. Yeah, sure. -- tariqabjotu 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Any experienced and uninvolved editor can close an RFC, it doesn't have to be an admin. But to answer your question, no it's not closed. It opened on 9 November and usually runs for 30 days as long as input is still being provided. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • B & D for me. Forthenote (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked as sock. -- tariqabjotu 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • B & D. I prefer the greater depth (image height) (as well as sharpness) of the cityscape, and while the night image of the Blue Mosque is absolutely spectacular, I feel the other image both explains its name and gives a more complete view. I think the tram in B is the better shot. The shot of the 19th C building (?) has an untidy foreground, whereas the shot of the bridge is nice and clean - particularly useful in a collage. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    The sharpness issue is a .jpg vs. .png thing, which is resolved by -- you know -- converting the file to .jpg format. That's been done. The Istiklal Avenue image in B is slightly better indeed, but the licensing for it could be better. I can't say I agree with you on any of those other points though. I simply can't imagine how, on the whole, one would consider B aesthetically superior to A, D better than C, or the Bosphorus Bridge photo more pleasing than the Haydarpasha photo. I mean, I could understand saying any of the formers is not perfect, but in a side-by-side comparison? Yeah, ok. I'm filing this under arguments not worth my time or the attacks it has gotten from E4024 and Namuslu socks. -- tariqabjotu 01:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, now that I think about it, can you explain why you believe D explains the name of the mosque? It's known as the Blue Mosque because of its interior, not it's exterior, and I can't imagine how you get "Sultan Ahmet" from that. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A & C. About the pictures of the Blue Mosque, I felt that the one in D is possibly the worst image of the mosque that I ever saw. I did some research in my books, and Godfrey Goodwin (p. 344) explains very well the reason:
"The 2 extra minarets at the N. corners of the court draw attention to its great size, but weaken the tension, for the distance between these and the minarets flanking the portico is greater than between the latter and the minarets at each end of the kiblah wall. Thus the building relaxes visually along its N-S axis and only when framed in the courtyard gates does tension mount from the fountain of the avlu to the climax of the central dome"
(fat is mine) . As a matter of fact, we have here exactly the description of D and C. Almost all the pictures of the mosque on architecture books avoid purposely to show all the six minarets from North (the hippodrome), since in that way they underline what is the greatest weakness of the design. The few images which show them, are pictures taken from East (for example, a minaret of the Hagia Sophia) where the whole complex (mosque + Madrassa) is shown, and the relaxing described by Goodwin is avoided. Moreover, the picture in D shows the typical "postcard effect", flattening all the volumes of the complex: I challenge everyone to understand from this picture that there is a Madrassa almost in front of the mosque which is almost twice the size of the mosque itself. To conclude, one can discuss whether it could be better to have a whole picture of the mosque on the collage instead of the (beautiful) image of the shrine from the courtyard, but this should be taken from East, and not from North. The picture in D can be usefully employed to illustrate a future article about "List of Mosques according to number of minarets". :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
A & C. More solid aesthetics, the mosque looks better, gives a better look around the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@My dear friend Alex: Your confusion (problems of being a polyglot :-) made me begin to sing "Imagine" while I read the accidented discussion... --E4024 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC) @NULL: Do you see an uninvolved user in this RfC? Now that you are around, would you mind writing down which pics you like most? --E4024 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You should probably respond directly below where someone comments. Regardless, you obviously haven't noticed that NULL has already commented on which photos s/he prefers. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's something of an odd question. If they were 'in this RFC' then they're not uninvolved, are they. When the RFC expires, a request for closure can be filed if an uninvolved editor hasn't done so already. I don't see a rush at this point, personally, as we've had input as recently as 3 days ago. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:28, 3 December 2012 (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.

Edit request on 10 December 2012

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please change sport tab on this topic (Istanbul). because sport tab is not really useless. My entered the data is more useful than old data. Please Change. Thanks :) Mreozturk (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  •   Not done The existing 'Sport' section contains far more general information, written in better English, that is more relevant to this article about a city. You may want to consider finding a more suitable article to contribute to. Pol430 talk to me 22:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
See the contributions of the user for their edit request in full. Graham87 10:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

BJK is not the oldest football/sports club in Turkey, or in Istanbul

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

So I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ulus (talk • --2ulus (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)contribs) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Then write: "BJK, one of the oldest sports clubs of Istanbul and T." That will be more constructive... --E4024 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What was the first football club in the city? If we found the right answer this should be part of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That is a sourced statement, so please don't remove it until you find a reliable source that says otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kurtuluş SK is the oldest sports and football club in Istanbul, and Turkey; that still exists, founded in 1896 [1]. See Wikipedia article 2ulus (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Climate

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are you sure the climate of is Istanbul is mediterreanean? Ive been to Istanbul in February 2006 and it was very cold and snowy it snowed every day. It seemed to me like Istanbul has the climate that kind of which occurs in rest of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.24.202 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

it is not Mediterranean climate. it is a combination of Black sea and Marmara climates. [4] -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 03:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

Latest comment: 11 years ago54 comments9 people in discussion

I don't know why, but I'm not a big fan of the new collage in the infobox. I know the trend on Wikipedia is to use collages to introduce cities, but this one doesn't seem to do it for me. A couple possible reasons:

  1. The Levent image is used elsewhere in the article. We could obviously replace the image used later in the article, but there seem to few available on Wikimedia Commons for some reason, and that's about the only good one.
  2. It's hard to see what's going on in some of the images. For example, the image of the Bosphorus Bridge is hardly visible to the point of being worthless. The panorama of the Golden Horn and the historic peninsula looks like a wonderful image, but it's too small in the collage to appreciate it. Ironically, of course, we had a perfectly good image of a similar view prior to this collage being added.
  3. The space between the images is too wide; the white space created by the gap should not be so obvious, or it should be another color (like black).
  4. In some ways, too many images are crammed into the collage.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Or differently? -- tariqabjotu 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% and, personally, I preferred the previous image. Alex2006 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I'm also not a big fan of collages. And I do know why. See previous discussion at Talk:Istanbul/Archive_4#Infobox image, where the consensus was to not have one. This one is a bit better than a few of the older attempts, but why do people keep pushing these kinds of things in with undiscussed drive-by edits [5]? How often have we had to remove these before [6]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why are you removed collage photo?I don't understand still.It's used collage images in info box of all cities and capitals.London , Berlin, Tel Aviv and Madrid.Also,Current image quality is very low !!--Maurice07 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Why? Perhaps for the reasons mentioned above. Note that the use of a collage is not unanimous across city articles; note, for example, that Paris does not have a collage. We have decided that we do not want/need a collage here, or at least that the collage in question is inferior to the single aerial photo currently in the article. You may disagree, but it's obvious from above (and from previous discussions) that this collage does not have consensus. Please do not repeatedly re-add it, especially as you've provided no reason as to why you believe the collage is actually superior. -- tariqabjotu 13:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I have to say that you disagree with your thoughts.Your reasons are very unreasonable,unfortunately.You right,Paris article only have a picture of the Eiffel Tower but Paris is mentioned first that comes to mind,this tower.Istanbul do not have such a famous masterpiece.Is the decision is taken by a vote of two-user?Indeed,rather than the quality of this collage and the city had a picture representing a more beautiful,I would agree.
  1. Yes, Levent financial disctrict image is used elsewhere in the article but it can be removed and instead, a new file is available Wikipedia Commons.
  2. The second reason, consisting of a purely personal reviews.Bosphorus Bridge may be small but at the same time to zoom in on this collage.Golden Horn is panoramic and it's very natural to be small.
  3. I agree with you.The space between the images too wide but there are very examples.Please look at :Prague,Tel Aviv,Tebriz,Karachi,Athens...
  4. This is already a common feature of collage pictures.Many images are brought together and written description of the image below.This collage consists of eight picture.This is appropriate to standards a working.Prague,New York City,Bogotá, and Sofia. --Maurice07 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit-warring against consensus. There is no rule that all city articles must have a collage. Here on this article, editors have decided they don#t want one, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Could I support a collage with fewer images? Either four, like London, or five, like Washington, D.C.? Eight is too many, but one does seem inadequate.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? I personally see no value at all in the whole idea of collages. It's all a misdirected fad, in my view. It's a perverted form of an image gallery that doesn't want to be an image gallery, takes up space in the wrong place, pushes the actual contents of the infobox down off the screen (where they are useless), leads to the esthetics of a cheap tourist picture postcard and to a presentation of the actual images where each image is typically far too small to be useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it could take up more space, but you're talking about 100-150 pixels, depending on if the individual image is vertical or not. A vertical image, like Paris has, would take up a similar amount of space. I also remember a time here before the collages were the norm on city articles, but I wouldn't call them ugly, especially some of the simpler layouts.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at the London article and the collage there looks nice; we could do one here too, of course not with so many pics. --E4024 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't share Future Perfect's objections to collages as a whole; I just object to this collage in particular. Cutting down on the number of images would certainly help, but I wouldn't support a collage with X number of images without actually seeing it first. And I wouldn't spend the time putting one together myself because I feel the current photo in the infobox is fine. If you want to give it a shot, sure, but I really don't understand the desperation for a collage. -- tariqabjotu 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are examples of potential collages with four image and with five. The particular images are flexible, I just wanted to demonstrate the layout. Also the current image and old collage for comparison.
  •  
    Four image collage
  •  
    Five image collage
  •  
    Old eight image collage
  •  
    Current panorama
  •  
    Six image collage
Thoughts? I'm just trying to look at all the options here. The single panorama is 225px high, while these collages are 278px and 430px high respectively when used in the infobox.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Patrick, images are always symbolic. As Istanbul has been the capital of 3 Empires we should have something here from the Roman times (p.e. Ayasofya), Ottoman times (Sultanahmet Mosque, Süleymaniye Mosque or the Büyük Mecidiye M. of Ortaköy) and something from the modern Turkey (skyscrapers?) as well as the natural beauty (Bosphorus) of the city. (I ignore the short-lived Latin Empire because frankly I know of no contribution by them.) Thanks for your initiative and labour. --E4024 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That's an okay goal, though I think the article has to be foremost about the contemporary city. I worry that trying to squeeze too much in was the very problem the old image had. Conversely, I do think that the one panorama shows very little in the way of detail, pretty much just that Istanbul is city on the water.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't agree. In that photo are shown - among others - Topkapi Palace, Hagia Sophia, the Blue Mosque, Galata Tower and Bridge, Yeni Cami, the islands and also a small part of Asia. The image is awesome. Alex2006 (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
But at the resolution the infobox has it at, I can't see those things. I could say the same thing about a satellite photo, it might show a lot of the city, but it also shows nothing about it. Paris gets away with having a single photo because their is so iconic of the city. Istanbul has a beautiful skyline, but its a hard one to photograph because of how physically spread out many of the monumental features are. To me, not featuring the Hagia Sophia in the infobox would be the same as not showing the Eifle Tower on Paris, it's just the first image that comes to my mind when someone says "Istanbul".-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Alex can, because I think he is in love with Istanbul, just like me... Alex, the photo may be comprehensive (and is beautiful) but there are many things from Istanbul that we would like to see there. So either we add more pics to the article or we make a 4-5 photo collage. BTW, all the islands around Anadolu/Anatolia, from the Island Of Giresun to Cyprus belong to the Asian continent. --E4024 (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for labors Patrick. I completely agree with you. Indeed, a panorama picture can not represent of Istanbul.Four image collage is a very good choice, to me.This collage,resist and produce excuses to be used to article, totally meaningless.
Now, it doesn't have eight pictures.Levent financial district photo and Bosphorus Bridge photo not used this collage !! If I remember correctly,Tariqabjotu The first time I put this collage picture of the article in 24 July 2012 Tuesday and after you have confirmed that you make a small amendments in 26 July 2012. I was wondering,what has changed since then_? Now, you give to comment on the collage. If these collages, not used on city articles like London, New York City, Prague, Madrid.. I'd agree your opinion dear.Fut.Perf. but they just consist of your own personal thoughts.Why not get a joint decision?Why users do not want to empathize with opposite_?I liked four image collage at the same time,I accept five image collage.It's also includes the current panorama photo.Why focus on the on the joint decision ??? --Maurice07 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What changed since then? Nothing. Note that when I modified the alt text, the edit summary began with "I really dislike this new montage". And I do, for the reasons stated above. I just thought there were higher priority issues then. Now that the second FAC has started, this is still the case, and I'd rather devote my time to actual issues with the article rather than matters of preference. I would, however, like to request that those who choose to take up this matter do their best not to repeat images already in the article (or replace those in the body if similar images go in the infobox). An image of the Blue Mosque, for example, would be a great image (here is a stunning one, featured on Commons). There's also the nice view of the Ortaköy Mosque next to the Bosphorus Bridge or perhaps something depicting Bağdat Avenue. Just try to diversify the images in the collage, with respect to each other and respect to those in the article. As I said, I don't categorically have an issue with montages. It just shouldn't be a standard compendium of the top five or ten tourist sites crammed into one image. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that this can wait till after the FAC, though I don't see a consensus behind any of the options, including the present image. I'll try to be more involved in this nomination, since I have been through FAC several times now.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Four image collage" is ideal. Strong support for this image.

  •  
    Four image collage

Strong oppose for "Current panorama", photo extremely ugly, dark and repulsive.

  •  
    Current panorama

Subtropical-man (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


I really think that the Hagia Sofia image should be replaced by this image of the Blue Mosque since it's better quality and the mosque is not illustrated anywhere else in the article. There's a standing deletion request for the Maslak image. Since deletion requests at Commons move at a glacial pace, the outcome (6+ months later) is still unknown, but it looks like the image is fine. I have a slight desire to see something from the Asian side of the city (I mean on land...). This could be in place of Maiden's Tower or the bottom panorama could replaced with two images (one a different view of Maslak and the other something on the Asian side). The latter option might be better; having two panoramas looks a bit strange. Oh, and can the color between images be black instead of white? That might remove the perception that there's a massive gap between the images. (I could do this, but I'm [slowly] working on a couple other things vis a vis this article.) -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it's a good idea to use Sultanahmet (Blue) Mosque image to have something very clear of the Ottoman heritage. (Indeed Ayasofya is quite present at the Kostantiniyye article.) From the Asian side Haydarpasha train terminal is a must. P.S. Sultanahmet is the only mosque with 6 minarets; so we should see all 6 of them. --E4024 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sultanahmet may have been the first or one of the first to have six minarets, but it's not the only one. Sabancı Merkez Camii in Adana, for example, has six. I also think that the average reader will not notice this feature, or at least not realize how unusual a six-minaret mosque is. Should such a view be used, though, can we get a picture from more recent than 2002? -- tariqabjotu 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about the Ottoman heritage; thus "selatin camileri"... --E4024 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 
Here's a version of the collage with the Blue Mosque image that folks requested. I also reduced the height slightly because of this, and added the black borders too, per Tariq's request. We should obviously get the status of File:Maslak kerembarut.jpg sorted before considering using this on the page, though I don't see an timely way of closing that discussion. I definitely want one of skyscrapers, though others would do. As for the Asian side, there are some nice images of Haydarpaşa Terminal, though it already has one under Transportation.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The extremely successful change Patrick.Nevertheless,the Blue Mosque, Hagia Sophia museum put in place, did not bring much of a difference.Currently,Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque) is still available on the religion section on article.This collage made ​​of how much care, even though I have to bring some criticism. This photo can be truly professional and featured picture on Wikipedia Commons. But,only two minarets seems.Whereas, the Sultan Ahmed Mosque has six minarets.The article surfer,does not understand is that Sultan Ahmed Mosque.It can be seen as an ordinary mosque. This file is recognized that more than the other images and used in many articles.Turkey, Islam and History of architecture. In short,Hagia Sophia should have stayed on collage.I want to say good aspects of your work.Black borders, much better.I also agree about the width of collage.Haydarpasa Terminal in a historic building but at this stage, doesn't foreground.About this collage negotiation,I am in favor of choose between two collage.Hagia Sophia or Sultan Ahmed Mosque. --Maurice (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Patrick, good job. I think that this picture can be added to infobox. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The Haydarpasha image can be swapped for another one, perhaps this image of the airport. I suggested Bagdat Avenue for the Asian side because, perhaps for the same reason as choosing a skyscraper image, it'd show some more diversity in the city (i.e. a shopping area), but it's not essential. Patrick, is there a particular program that you're using to generate these collages quickly (and in the configuration you want). I wanted to play around with making a few, rather than repeatedly asking you to make changes (as I still have a few suggestions). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 
Thanks for the support guys. Here's an option with Haydarpaşa instead of the Maiden's Tower. I disagree that Sultan Ahmed Mosque needs to show all six minarets, and a well composed photo is more important here. And maybe I think the Maiden's Tower is a better photo, but I like the effort to include different, less touristy parts of Istanbul. Tariq, I'm just using Photoshop, and if you were to email me your address, I could forward along the PSD file with each image on a separate layer.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100% with you about the minarets. The picture of the Mosque through the yard is beautiful. But I wouldn't exaggerate with pictures of modern Istanbul. If we use four picture in the collage, I think that one about contemporary Istanbul and three about old Istanbul are the right proportion. Alex2006 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made another image, File:Istanbul collage 5b.png. This one has five images: a skyline (the one currently in the infobox, cropped), the same Blue Mosque image as noted above, the same Maiden's Tower image used in some of the collages above, the Haydarpaşa image from above, and an image depicting Istiklal Avenue. I just noticed that the copyright issue with the Maslak issue has been resolved, so that could be restored. That could be done by cropping it and putting it in place of the Istiklal Avenue. Alternatively, it could replace the Maiden's Tower image. As I suggested above, I thought an image of a shopping district would present diversity. (For that reason, replacing Maiden's Tower might make more sense, since it's a historical building with no contemporary purpose).
Comparing the images we have so far (at 250px, the width of the infobox image):
Infobox image options, at 250px width
Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 02:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that I used the current skyline image instead of the one used in the other collages because I felt the colors were bolder, the angle of the shot showed more of the city (and less of the sky), and the weather appeared clearer. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The most beautiful is First four-image collage [4]. Although I would prefer with Blue Mosque instead Hagia Sophia, but only during the day - rest your propositions shows Blue Mosque at night. Strong oppose for Second five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5b], Istanbul is one of the largest financial centers in Europe, must show financial district, for example Maslak. Also, skyline in infobox is standard on Wikipedia - skyline must be in infobox. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I vote for Tariq's collage, it is very nice. Nevertheless, forgetting the unfortunate sentence that "Istanbul is one of the largest financial centers in Europe" (then Tariq should fully rewrite the Economy section :-)), we need to show something contemporary in the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree % 100 Subtropical-man. I did'nt like 5b collage. It does not add a surplus value to the previous collage photos.Remove of Maslak Financial Center′s photo, eliminated all the beauty.Also current Istanbul - aerial overview is not better panaroma pic.Poor picture quality and dark according to me. Istiklal Avenue is useless for this collage. The idea is still valid in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque.Change with Hagia Sophia would be a mistake. I am in favor of 4. collage photo. --Maurice07 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I really wish one of you had read what I wrote before implying that my removal of the skyline had malintent. It was mostly because the copyright issue with the skyline hadn't been resolved (now it is). I'll create another five-image collage with part of the Maslak skyline added (I assume no one wants a six-image collage, with the full Maslak skyline at the bottom, but perhaps I'll create one of those for comparison). -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. I've added four more options, all including at least part of the Maslak skyline. Note that the difference between the two six-image collages is that 6a shows the whole Maslak skyline image while 6b shows only part of it in order to maintain consistent heights between the rows. Personally, I'm in favor of 5c and 5d. I'd be okay with 4c (assuming no one's married to the Maiden's Tower image) provided the Golden Horn skyline image is changed. As I said, I think the hazy skyline image is inferior to the more vivid skyline image currently in the infobox. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I am for 5C too. I like a lot the image of Istiklal at night :-) On the other side, we don't need to show the whole Maslak Skyline, otherwise people would think that Istanbul resembles Houston :-) Thanks for your work! Alex2006 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
As a note, I've converted 4c to PNG for a side-by-side comparison of the formats (I feel like the .jpg format introduces some blurriness, e.g. around the edges of the skyscrapers). -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Look at all those options, thanks Tariq. I'm thinking though that the staggered widths of the 5 image collages is less appealing than the 4 image ones, which look more balanced to my eye. If I had to pick one, it would be 5d, since I don't think Istiklal adds to the group. I like 4c the best, and would be fine switching in the other Golden Horn panorama.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I actually thought the staggered images looked better than having them perfectly aligned. I intentionally cropped the Maiden's Tower, Haydarpasha, and Maslak images to allow that to happen, especially because the Haydarpasha image in particular had a lot of excess content. What I did think looked better "balanced" were the row heights; as you'll notice, that doesn't occur in any of the four-image options, although that could obviously be changed (just as the staggering could be changed as well).
Perhaps the first thing we should figure out is which pictures we actually want in the collage. If there are only four pictures people want, a four-picture collage works fine. If there are five, obviously we'll need a five. Presumably we don't want more than that.
To answer that, I think the Golden Horn skyline (and I prefer the current one), the Blue Mosque, the Maslak skyline, and something on the Asian side (Haydarpasha is fine) are important. I'm indifferent about whether a fifth one is needed, but if a fifth one is added, although the Maiden's Tower photo is nice, I think Istiklal Avenue would be a better diversifying contribution. I think there are clearer images of Istiklal Avenue available on Wikipedia, but when the Maslak image was ineligible, I wanted something that emphasized less of the historic element of the street; most Istiklal Avenue shots highlight the trolley. But now with the Maslak photo, that kind of historic view of the avenue is probably fine. -- tariqabjotu 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq: Istiklal is the real center of the "European" part of the city, where Istanbullus meet and have fun. And this is the only picture of the collage where the city "lives". Maiden's tower would be just another tourist landmark on the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I worry that if we try to show where Istanbullus have fun that could lead into another 6, 7, 8 image hodgepodge. These images have to be iconic and visually striking at small resolution. For example, if we want Istiklal, I don't get why we'd ignore the trollies? I'd suggest either File:Türkiye İstanbul nostalji iki tramvay karşılaşması.jpg or File:Istiklal busy afternoon.JPG, as better, clearer images of the street. However, I'd suggest that there is a spot for a left aligned image under Demographics, and a busy shot of Istiklal would make more sense there than in the infobox.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I know there are better images of Istiklal Avenue. As I said above:

I think there are clearer images of Istiklal Avenue available on Wikipedia, but when the Maslak image was ineligible, I wanted something that emphasized less of the historic element of the street; most Istiklal Avenue shots highlight the trolley. But now with the Maslak photo, that kind of historic view of the avenue is probably fine.

So, now that the Maslak photo is fine, a more historic view of Istiklal Avenue is fine (although the picture you suggested might have a bit too much trolley). There isn't space for a photo in the Demographics section. Sandwiching the text between an image and the table would be against style guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 01:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I know which you're referring to, and those style guidelines are more, say, suggestions, than rules... but flaunting them could reflect poorly on the FAC I suppose. I'll try to produce an update this week of those montages I'd worked on last month with some of the ideas we've discussed here.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Only a short remark: the trolley on Istiklal is not "historic": it is a reproduction (in Turkish they name it "nostaljik", in Italian "falso storico" :-)) and barely 20 years old. Alex2006 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Alex, Eniște, I hate to correct you, but this time it's impossible to avoid: If we are talking about the "nostaljik tramvay"s in Beyoğlu (line Tünel-Taksim) and Kadıköy (line Kadıköy-Moda) they are authentic. They were taken from the former "Tramvay Müzesi" (where I used to go to see the horse-driven trams when I was a child, now a fire brigade hangar) in Hasanpașa, Kadıköy. You can see something about that wonderful (like many things wonderful now disappeared) museum here, in this blog. --E4024 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I love being corrected, this means that I am learning something new! :-) I did not know that: this means that they rebuilt an old line, but the material is authentic. Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So... do people still want a collage? -- tariqabjotu 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, to try to jumpstart this discussion again, I've created two additional collages. They're very similar -- they include a different picture of Istiklal Avenue, in comparison to some of the previous five-image collages. However, one is "balanced", as Patrick requested, and the other is not. Looking at them side-by-side, I still prefer the unbalanced version, as it looks more like a collage than a table of images. Nevertheless, I'm putting the balanced version in the article, pending second opinions.

The two collages are below:

-- tariqabjotu 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


cats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.245.76 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The "İstiklal Avenue" image in the current collage is awful (doesn't make justice to the historical buildings lining both flanks of the street.) The "Haydarpaşa Terminal" image shows the burnt and partially collapsed roof which was destroyed by the fire in 2010 (are you trying to make a statement regarding the slow pace of repair works?) Furthermore, Galata Tower is badly cropped in the "Galata, Golden Horn and the Seraglio Point" image on top (you should use the entire image without cropping in my opinion, or crop it a bit further down, without slashing the bottom part of Galata Tower.) 88.251.97.218 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.kurtulussporklubu.com/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul/Archive_7&oldid=1192828802"