Talk:Istanbul

Population

Here I am listing why I am going to change the used 13 million population from proper to urban. First the provided source from the Statistical Institute itself shows 13.120.596 as population of the city along with other suburb cities (İl/ilçe merkezleri): [1] and as metropolitan (Büyükşehir): [2], which is not population proper. I tried to found the proper population of the city, but in the Statistical institute I found only urban. Pensionero (talk) (UTC)

Infobox image

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 [3]? How often have we had to remove these before [4]? 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

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

Current panorama First four-image collage [4a] Second four-image collage [Patrickneil] [4b] Third four-image collage, JPG version [Patrickneil] [4c] Third four-image collage, PNG version [Patrickneil] [4c-png] Third four-image collage, PNG version [Patrickneil] [4c-png] First five-image collage [5a] Second five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5b] Third five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5c] Third five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5c] Fourth five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5d] Fourth five-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [5d] First six-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [6a] First six-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [6a] Second six-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [6b] Second six-image collage [Tariqabjotu] [6b] Old eight-image collage [8a]

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)

Istanbul LRT source?

In the process of updating the Transportation section to account for the city's new metro line, I've found myself unable to source the point about the Istanbul LRT. From what I can tell, although the M1 is noted as a light-rail line [in Turkish], all of the lines that start with M are considered part of the Metro (see the map). Further, no such "light rail" designation is made for the T4 line. Searching for "Istanbul LRT" or "Istanbul Hafif Metro" or something like that seems to draw up nothing, so my question is, is there a source that can confirm that the Istanbul LRT is a real thing? Otherwise, I'm just going to combine the information about the M1 with the metro information. -- tariqabjotu 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Tariq, I have no source, but I can tell you for sure (I used both, M1 at least 20 times, T4 only once) that M1 (Atatürk Airport - Aksaray) is a Metro line, not a light rail. On the other side, T4 is a light Rail (tramway). Alex2006 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the M1 as well, and it never would have crossed my mind that that was a light rail. That being said, it is called a "light rail" on its official website. I mean, we don't have to say that if we don't believe it; we can just refer to the metro system (lines beginning with M) and the trams (lines beginning with T), which is also supported by the same source. But on Wikipedia, there seems to be this distinction -- made in several locations -- referring to an Istanbul LRT and I can't find this distinction anywhere else. -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Completeness of transportation section

For a city located on the sea, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate that the transportation section didn't contain anything on shipping. I note that an excessively long text on ports was recently worked up and then deleted. I suggest a short text be distilled and included. I suggest:

Istanbul has three main seaports, each with a different function, as well a number of smaller seaports and oil terminals located in the Strait and on the coast of Marmara Sea. The Port of Istanbul is located between the Galata Bridge on the Golden Horn and Fındıklı within Karaköy neighbourhood. It can handle about 10,000 tourists an hour. The Port of Haydarpaşa is a general cargo seaport, operated by the Turkish State Railways. It is the biggest container port in the Marmara Region and, with an annual cargo volume exceeding six million metric tons, is Turkey's fourth biggest seaport after Mersin, Ambarlı and Izmir. From 2004 on, cargo traffic moved to Port of Ambarlı, a modern container terminal situated in the Ambarlı neigborhood of Avcılar.

I have retained wikilinking that was in the earlier text: I realise some of it probably isn't needed, but haven't gone through it in any detail; happy to see it trimmed. Any views? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that the section contains nothing on shipping; it always had the information on the Bosphorus and the Port of Haydarpaşa, some of which you've removed for your proposal.

I actually tried to re-add some of the information that CeeGee added regarding the Port of Istanbul, but I gave up because I couldn't find any evidence that the sources actually corroborated what was written. So, let's go through this sentence by sentence:

• Istanbul has three main seaports, each with a different function, as well a number of smaller seaports and oil terminals located in the Strait and on the coast of Marmara Sea.

  The source doesn't really support the statement that there are three main seaports. If this is just an introduction to the remainder of the paragraph, that's fine, but I don't think the source says that. It does support the statement that there are numerous ports around the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara, but this is already implied in the article since it mentions that the IDO calls at ports around the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus. Saying anything beyond that is unnecessary, as the Sea of Marmara is quite large. It's about 200 km to the other side, so why is that relevant to Istanbul?

The source is in English. The seaports of Istanbul are listed in the source. The text added mentions the ports in Istanbul's coast of Marmara Sea, not the ports at all on the Marmara Sea. Is it the better way to remove all instead of rewording or re-editing if something is incorrect? CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The source does list all the ports of Istanbul, but how would one decipher from that that there are only three main ports? The rest, as I said, is already implied, even if you limit the scope to just those ports in Istanbul. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Port of Istanbul is located between the Galata Bridge on the Golden Horn and Fındıklı within Karaköy neighbourhood. It can handle about 10,000 tourists an hour.

  This is the specific point I tried to re-add. But I couldn't see how the 10,000 figure is supported by the source, either in Turkish or in English. The port is probably worth a mention though since cruise ships use this terminal.

Please look at the source again. The figure 10,000 is impossible to overlook. You can try maybe with text editor's "find" tool. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The English version of the site, insofar as I can tell, does not contain this information. And I think I see why I had such trouble with that link. If you click on the Union Jack to look at the English version, going to the link you provided afterward displays a blank page. You have to then click on the Turkish flag and then go back to the link to get that information. Anyway, it's good this is actually there, because I couldn't find any other source that says the same (or a different figure, for that matter). -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Port of Haydarpaşa is a general cargo seaport, operated by the Turkish State Railways. It is the biggest container port in the Marmara Region and, with an annual cargo volume exceeding six million metric tons, is Turkey's fourth biggest seaport after Mersin, Ambarlı and Izmir.

  I struggle to see how this formulation is superior to the current sentence about this port. Operated by Turkish State Railways? Ho-hum. Largest container port in the Marmara Region? This is really not saying much. The rest of the sentence -- cargo volume exceeding six million tonnes and Turkey's fourth-largest port -- is not supported by the source at all. It wouldn't make sense either; Ambarlı is in Istanbul, so the statement that Haydarpaşa is the largest port in the Marmara Region (a point that is supported by the source) would be wrong (unless there's different metrics here, but that distinction is far from clear). On the other hand, we have a sourced sentence already in the article, that states it's Turkey's third largest, with a capacity of 5.9 million tonnes.

• From 2004 on, cargo traffic moved to Port of Ambarlı, a modern container terminal situated in the Ambarlı neigborhood of Avcılar.

  Not supported by the source at all. I found a source (ISBN 9789282102220) that shows a decrease in cargo at Haydarpaşa (despite no decrease in "containers"; the distinction is beyond me), but it doesn't mention where that cargo went, unfortunately. This may be a factual statement, but the source provided does not say this.

The comparison is made at Turkey level, not at regional (Narmara) level. Besides, the source in Turkish states explicitly that traffic at Port of Haydarpaşa is planned to be relocated to Ambarlı. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided (which is in English, by the way) does not say any of that. I'm not sure what comparison you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying more information can't be mentioned about seaports, but it is not correct to say that nothing is said about them already. The main omission I see is regarding the Port of Istanbul (although I am cautious about this, given this article was created less than 24 hours ago, by CeeGee). Should a referenced figure regarding this cruise port be available, I'd love to see it, and would be happy to see information about this port placed in the article. Other points could also be on the table if there were sources to support them. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I was just assuming the sources were sound, and was thinking about this as an editing / balance task. Based on your reading of the sources, it sounds like it could be good to add a point on Port of Istanbul, and a point on Port of Ambarlı, but that we don't have reliable sources to support those points at this stage. In which case, the text will have to stand as it is. Thank you for the thorough check on that. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Last but noy least. Tariq ignored my ask to check the article San Francisco, which has subsections in the Transportation section as I had edited here. I wanted to know why a featured article has such subsections and why a good article candidate may not have. CeeGee (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignored you? Need I remind you that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and, believe it or not, there are other things I wanted and needed to do, both on Wikipedia and off? I was actually constantly in the middle of responding to your message, but never finished. The gist of my response is that San Francisco was promoted to featured status six years ago and is an unreliable example of what a featured city article should look like. I'm struggling to find the manual of style page or guideline that sets how long subsections should be and recommends against cluttering tables of contents with over-sectioning, but common sense alone should be enough to conclude that four subsections is too many for a section of this length. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout gets close (I still don't think this is the one I was thinking of), saying Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I will risk adding my $.02 (two cents) and say that I don't think you need to add subsections if you don't want to but a couple of more sentences on the cargo handling port(s) might be in order if you can find sources. I would also suggest that you might consider discussing the cargo port(s) under economy rather than under transportation. In fact there are a few sentences under economy about how tourists enter the city that could be swapped into the transportation section in exchange for the text on cargo handling and port(s), which would fit better (I think) in the economy section and would seem less lost there than they do in the large transport section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Risk? Anyway, the sub-sectioning was an easy fix, but the amount added about ports was still excessive; after all, the Transportation section is already one of the article's longer sections. I think your suggestion is fine, and the source for the Port of Istanbul is there. I'm still not sure about the rest of the information. -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've made some changes. Feedback welcome. (Or just change it.) -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sultanahmet mosque

My favourites: The first photo here. --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Or the fourth pic in this link. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Image substitution

A recent edit replaced an image of Church of St. George, Istanbul with one of the Blue Mosque. I'm not sure why, particularly as the image was illustrating the text on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'll ping the editor in question for an explanation, but I would be inclined to stick to the image of St George. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO all these photo fights are due to the extraordinary natural beauty and the immense historical-cultural heritage of Istanbul. We should find space for pics of both temples; and certainly a better photo (see above) for Sultanahmet (the Blue Mosque). --E4024 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The reason why this picture has been put there is that in that paragraph it is described the Greek (orthodox) minority and the Rum Patriarchate is its spiritual center. The blue Mosque can be hosted also in the architecture section. On the other side, I understand that illustrating the religious and ethnic groups paragraph with a church can be considered a little bit strange in a city where 99 % of the population is Muslim. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I see now that on the history my revert cause has been marked as "vandalism". I just clicked "undo", and was not my intention to define this substitution as a Vandal act, sorry. Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I know. On the other hand, I appreciate your observation about your own revert and your apology; you are a real Cavaliero... --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although on Alzheimer's edge, as you can see (too many Baklavas? :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This change can not be seen as vandalism.The Greeks minority in Istanbul.İmage of Church of St. George can not put religion section on article because,the city, 99% Muslim.The real vandalism,Istanbul, shows as a Greek city !!! --Maurice (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact I already begged your pardon, above and on the talk page, for that improper label on my revert. I understand also your point of view. I think that the image of the church of St. George is there to emphasize the cultural diversity of the city. On the other side, I wonder what would happen when someone would replace the image of St. Peter with that of the Mosque of Portoghesi on the corresponding section of Rome article. Alex2006 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are supporting my point, why did you get my change back?Can you explain to me ? Show me please a city,inversely proportional to the common religion of the city, a picture.Only one picture ?115,000 Turks live in Berlin.At that time,we should put picture of Şehitlik Mosque, instead of Berlin Cathedral on Berlin article.Do you think it is accepted by the Germans ? --Maurice (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because if a change has been contested and a talk thread has been opened (as it was the case yesterday), as long as no decision has been taken by the community (us) the original version should remain: this is a Wikipedia rule, and has nothing to do with being for or against the change. Alex2006 (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See? All we really needed was explanations instead of unexplained reverting of images. So, if we can only fit in one image to illustrate the "religious and ethnic groups" (and it looks that way), I would favour one of the major mosques - such as the 'Blue Mosque' rather than the church of st george. I now would oppose reverting to st george. But why couldn't editors just talk here, instead of warring without commentary? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. There's already a mosque depicted in the History section (and secondarily in the Economy section) and there will likely be another depicted in the collage that is expected to replace the current image in the infobox. The Blue Mosque is not mentioned in the "Ethnic groups" section at all, and, although that can be changed, how do you expect to work that in? It'd be very challenging because at the end of the day, all you can say is that it's perhaps the city's most famous mosque. It might have impressive architectural features, but a centrality to religious groups in the city just isn't there, especially in comparison to the Church of St. George. The comparisons with Berlin and Rome are not apt; the Mosque of Portoghesi and Şehitlik Mosque have little historical and cultural significance, particularly in comparison to the churches mentioned. The Church of St. George, however, is a center of faith for millions of people (apparently up to 300 million). The fact that Istanbul's residents may be almost exclusively Muslim doesn't preclude the fact that one of the most significant religious buildings in the city is a church. Mentioned and discussed in that section, that is what should be pictured. -- tariqabjotu 12:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for a church image, we have much more beautiful ones in Istanbul: At least we have two "Aya Triada"s. The main problem here is making a right choice of "what", "where". On the other hand, an Istanbul article without the Sultanahmet Mosque pic is lame; so we should quickly find a more beautiful pic than the proposed one(s). --E4024 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What if we split the section in two sections, "Religion" and "Ethnic Groups" (as for example in Rome), and the former in "Muslim", "Christian" etc, subsections? A kind of Multiplication of Bread and fish :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you replying to? Please use standard indenting. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question succinctly, no. This is supposed to be a summary article; splitting and expanding sections for the sole purpose of fitting more images is plainly unacceptable. Please do not use Rome as an example of a featured-level article. Not only is it not featured, its B-class status is questionable: the excessive number of images and sections is not something we should be striving for. -- tariqabjotu 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You completely misunderstood my point. Images are more than just decoration; they are intended to illustrate content in the article. The Church of St. George is mentioned in the section, and probably the most significant subject discussed in that section. Regarding the Blue Mosque photo, I thought there was an understanding that that would go in the collage? Is that not enough? Alternatively, or in addition, we could find an image that shows both the Aya Sofia and the Blue Mosque together for the Architecture section. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot read the thoughts of others, but I don't think that the problem here was to show another mosque (which, BTW, personally I find the equivalent of Trevi Fountain in Istanbul :-))). The insertion of the blue mosque was an attempt to give the due weight to Islam in the Religion section. As you rightly point out, St. George is the most significant subject discussed there. This is hurting, at least for many Muslims. Why don't we mention in the section Eyüp which, I read, is the third most important pilgrimage place in Islam (and that, incidentally, would deserve a picture in the religion section much more than the kitsch :-) mosque)? Alex2006 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That works, although I'd exercise caution with the claim that it's the third most important pilgrimage place in Islam. -- tariqabjotu 13:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what they told me in Istanbul. Anyway, it is a matter of fact that the significance of the city for the Muslim world is enormous, and it is raising. BTW, an incidental question to all, without opening a new thread. Do you know this? What do you think if we add it to the external links section? I think that it is sensational (and one can see also Eyüp there :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@Alex: Everytime you go to Istanbul, I follow you there. Sometimes I see you eating kaymak... --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Alex strongly. That the problem here, not the Sultan Ahmed Mosque or Blue Mosque. That the issue here,population of a city which is 99% of the Muslim there is a church photo in religion section. Please show me an article with this case.Without the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, this article is lame. This file can use the collage.It's not problem. There is a lot of historical and great mosques in Istanbul. New Mosque, Ortaköy Mosque and Suleymaniye mosque. These are excuses used to impose their own ideas. Even though split,part of religion and ethnic groups,I still am opposed to the use of photograph of St. George Church . --Maurice (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can read. I was never under any impression that the issue was anything other than the fact that the proportion of Muslims is significantly greater than the proportions of other religious groups. You and Alex are disagreeing with a point never made. -- tariqabjotu 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you not repeat again your claim that the article is lame without a picture of the Blue Mosque. You may think it belongs in the article, but the hyperbole is disrespectful to the tremendous amount of work I, and others, have put into the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that we need a mosque pic at the relevant (religion) section. No objections to adding also church and synagogue photos to the section though; repeat: Sultanahmet is a must. (It makes one feel he is in Istanbul...) --E4024 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I give up. -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, E4024, although I would personally prefer Eyüp to the blue mosque in the Religion section. Alex2006 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this issue definitively closed here.Indeed,Sultan Ahmed Mosque is a requirement for this article and religion section.Even when used the Blue Mosque on collage,instead, there are many alternative as I just mentioned above. --Maurice (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked Istanbul at wiki:tr, and there they use two pictures in the religion section: (blue) mosque + St. George. Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Blue Mosque issue is closed.You are right,image of the St. George church is available on Turkish Wikipedia.Because,religion section, separated into three parts.Muslims, Christians and Jews. As usual,this photo has been used on the information in Christianity.Turkish Wikipedia should not compare with English Wikipedia. --Maurice (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This could be maybe an alternative: several subsections, each subsection with a picture. But I don't know what Tariq thinks about it...About the picture, would not be better one of Eyüp? This is the real center of Islam in Istanbul. Personally I see the blue mosque more as a place for tourists... Alex2006 (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this in the section above? And, I really don't think the Blue Mosque issue is closed just because the person who keep reverting the image of it back into the article says so. I happen to agree with Alex that Eyüp is a more significant mosque than the Blue Mosque. The Blue Mosque will be depicted in the collage. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alex (and others), the tourists visit the most famous, interesting and representative, everywhere. Not only the mosque but all Sultanahmet is the traditional "center" of Istanbul and the tourists, foreign or Turkish, rush there upon arrival in Istanbul. Governor's office nearby, Municipality nearby, traditional press quarter (Babiali) nearby, Justice House was there only until one or two years ago. The main markets are around there etc. (The modern city has split (multi) centers like Taksim, Kadıkoy, Karaköy etc.) I am speaking on collage and other pics: We need not only the Sultanahmet (Blue) Mosque but also the Süleymaniye Mosque. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

P.D. We also need one of the two squares with a Mosque, Synagogue and Church side by side; either Kuzguncuk or Ortaköy. That is Istanbul. (Alex, you do not realise yet with what a heritage you got married.) --E4024 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize, I realize...I wrote many of the articles about kilise-camiler here, and three months ago I read this book, so since then I became also a Kuzguncukologist... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Congrats. Now you must write your own book!.. :-) Frankly, "sözüm meclisten dışarı" (i.e. I am not referring to you) I see many people who visit Turkey several times and -possibly after a "blogging" period- begin to write their own book. Turkey seems to be a very attractive object of desire for self-declared writers. I think people should read -like you do- more than writing and neither they should ever forget that one has to read about a country all the major books written in the language of that country, to be able to claim some knowledge on it. Some of our best writers and academicians still wait for translation, however, even those who have also written in other languages have yet to be recognised and given their deserved place. BTW I take the opportunity to thank you for your contributions to the article on Semavi Eyice, one of the most eminent experts of Byzantian and Ottoman arts. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely, and I find frankly annoying that here on wiki:en a lot of articles about Istanbul (and Turkey) are written by people which have no knowledge of Turkish sources, and so get (and transmit) a partial and misleading picture on these subjects. That's why the support of Turkish wikipedians here is highly needed (although not always welcomed by all :-)). About Eyice, an article about him was due since a lot of time: his book about Istanbul is a standard reference about the city since 60 years now. Alex2006 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sunshine data added by Subtropical-man

Subtropical-man has been repeatedly reverting in information about sunshine hours in Istanbul. I don't think the sunshine hours are a useful statistic, as it considers two factors -- the amount of sunshine on a daily basis and the seasonal changes in daylight hours. Since it's determined by these two factors, rather than just one, and they're on a monthly basis, I think the data is useless. Besides, and perhaps more importantly, the source is very low quality. And to make matters worse, the source doesn't support the content that was added; the website gives daily sunshine hours, rounded to the nearest hour. Subtropical-man just decided to take that figure and multiply it by the number of days in the month, producing a figure that's up to 15 hours off the real value (assuming the figure provided in the source is some sort of median). Honestly, I think this (and the info about sea temperatures) should be removed. Any other thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Tariq,

I did a little sample check about www.weather2travel.com regarding the data about Rome in August. the reported 10 hours of daylight are impossible: considering that the average duration of the day in August in Rome is slightly longer than 13.5 hours, this would imply an overcast sky for one fourth of the time. Never ever. :-) I think that that source is unreliable (and also without checking, where they get the data from?). We should use serious sources, like mgm.gov.tr. Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that,climate data for Istanbul template is necessary for this article.(Except Average annual temperature of the sea.Because it's useless.) Eventually,These data can be hidden on article. Of course, this entails discussion and negotiation.Sunshine hours and the daily amount of precipitation may be important for some users.I still advocate that taking the reference of other cities like Saint Petersburg or Berlin.But,there is serious doubt about the source].Official meteorological agencies have true information on this subject.For instance,Istanbul Regional Directorate of Meteorology. Maurice (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alex, officially (from Servizio Meteorologico) data of sunshine for Rome in August is 9.6 hours (see source), data from weather2travel.com are reliable, shows data as full number without a comma (10) - calculations are rounded up to the nearest unit. The same automatically rounded exist in the Template:Climate chart on Wikipedia. Tariqabjotu, sunshine data and data about temperature of the sea are important and this is standard in Wikipedia (particularly sunshine data). I know, because I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers in the samples at {{climate chart}} are rounded to the nearest 1, not the nearest 15. The source you provide doesn't have precise figures, and we need that. Even ignoring that, weather2travel is not a reliable source on its own. We have no idea where the data comes from or who wrote it. If there's another -- e.g. official -- site that corroborates the information there, that site should be used instead. If there isn't such a site, the unreliably sourced data should be removed. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The weather2travel is one of the projects by Global Support Limited (Worldwide Weather, Climate & Geography Experts). Global Support Limited, based at Pinewood Studios in the UK, have combined their extensive knowledge of the world's climate and geography to create a number of unique online resources - including for the film, television, commercials industry, consumer websites for the travel and tourism industry the overseas property investment market and other. This is not "hobby" page or blog. The weather2travel.com are reliable source. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I am bothering to argue with you, or why I feel compelled to. You don't know what a reliable source is. This junk is clearly not a reliable source, no matter what they report themselves to be. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical, thanks for the info about Rome. The "Servizio Metereologico dell'Aeronautica" is surely reliable (altough I still don't understand how could they get such a number). Still, I share the doubts of Tariq about the reliability of this web site. I propose to ask an opinion to the reliable source Noticeboard. In the meantime, would not be possible to find similar data on the Turkish meteo web site? Alex2006 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've brought the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. They're usually quick to respond, so let's see what happens. -- tariqabjotu 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, you are quick [5], on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard exist the opinion of only one user (in the appendix as a red link, only 2 monthly contribution to Wikipedia and he can't sign under own response), and you reverted changes calling it as "consensus". Zero desire to respect opinion of others users, not even waiting for opinion of other users, pushing only your version according to your opinion. Congratulations. Subtropical-man (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If there was anyone not respecting the opinion of others, it was you. There is no reason your edit should take precedence; when you were reverted, you should have taken the matter to the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting what you wanted back in. I informed you earlier that I planned to revert you again after a third person concurred on the unreliability of the source, and that's what I did. So, it is you who must wait until consensus agrees with you, not me. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrong. It is you who must wait until consensus agrees with you, not me, because you delete text from article, not me. Second. Why you delete text from article during the discussion? Subtropical-man (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ISTANBUL NATIVE NAME - RACISM AGAINST TURKEY

(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 (Template:Lang-tr), 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)

Largest city in Europe

Once again, I am forced to bring to the talk page a matter that is probably elementary to everyone but the person insisting that it be in the article.

Thanks to Khestwol's tireless efforts, the second sentence of the article is currently as follows:

With a population of 13.5 million, Istanbul is the largest city in Europe, and among the world's largest cities by population within city limits.

I am not going to mince words. This is a terrible for sentence. For starters, the fourth source (supporting the largest city in Europe claim) -- provided as a bare link: [6] -- is horrendous. I'm not going to point to a policy. I'm not going to point to a guideline. Anyone who has any interest in writing anything anywhere should know that that site is unacceptable as a source.

Once we move beyond that, we get the claim itself: "largest city in Europe". This is extremely unclear. The largest city in Europe claim is, as far as I can tell (based on the crap source and based on Khestwol's edit summaries), supposed to be in regards to city proper. That's not stated. But the reader is not going to know that. Why? Because, unlike in Khestwol's scholarly opinion that "largest city" is more useful than the info about the metropolitan area, people don't measure cities according to city-propers. You ask anyone who knows anything about cities, "What's the largest city?", they will tell you Tokyo (which has the largest metropolitan area) rather than Shanghai (the largest city-proper).

That's because city limits are an entirely arbitrary designation, as Istanbul so well demonstrates. The city limits of Istanbul are much, much broader than most major cities. It includes areas that aren't urbanized, areas that would be considered outside the city proper in many countries' cities. Browsing List of cities proper by population, you see that of the 65 most populous cities-proper, Istanbul has the second-largest area. It has an area more than eight times that of Tokyo, which has a metropolitan area three times as populous as that constituting Istanbul. Because of this, "city proper" is a useless way to compare city size. The inclusion of the fact that it is one of the largest city propers in the world is more interesting than useful. Mentioning that it's the largest in Europe is neither, conveying nothing new to the reader. This is especially undesirable when you consider that it replaces the fact that it's the second-largest metropolitan area on the continent -- a much more useful, not to mention well-sourced, bit of information.

Rather than expending anymore of my energy reverting this low-quality content out of the article, I'd like to have a second or third opinion on the matter in the hopes that it'll convince Khestwol to let this matter go. -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The largest metropolitan area is Greater Tokyo Area, NOT Tokyo city. You write: "You ask anyone who knows anything about cities, "What's the largest city?", they will tell you Tokyo (which has the largest metropolitan area) rather than Shanghai (the largest city-proper)". Evidence?? Or otherwise, you're just making up things in your head. Khestwol (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic empirical evidence. Or take a look at this January 2012 article from the BBC, which includes quotes such as "Most experts will tell you that Tokyo is the world's largest metropolis, with a population of about 36 million people." and "Most experts rate Tokyo as the world's biggest city because of the size of the population in the larger urbanised area." And I explained, with examples, why this is the case; countries define cities differently and so it is useless to compare a city (like Tokyo) whose limits are well before the end of its urbanized area with another (like Istanbul) whose limits are in rural areas. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Will you really now change the article on Shanghai to make it a smaller city than Tokyo? Numerous sources say Shanghai is clearly the most populous city currently, while none says explicitly that Tokyo city is more populous, and on Wikipedia we can only rely on published sources. Anyone's personal experience and beliefs shouldn't matter on Wikipedia. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shanghai does not say it's the "largest city in the world"; it says it's the "largest city proper by population in the world". Similarly, the Tokyo article says it's the "the center of the Greater Tokyo Area, and the largest metropolitan area in the world". Both statements are true, and, as an encyclopedia, it is best (as those articles do) to specify by which metric a city is X-largest. That being said, as the BBC article I referenced states, sources that just plainly state "world's largest city" are more often referring to Tokyo than Shanghai. It should take you a brief Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar search to observe that (e.g. as published by the OECD). The implication is that metropolitan or urban area size is a more useful indicator of city size than city-proper size. -- tariqabjotu 17:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the technical arguments about "city proper" and "metropolitan area" etc, yes, the source is complete crap, and is based in turn on a source that does not demonstrate that it is, in turn, anything other than crap. On that grounds at least, I'm with tariqabjotu. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The link in the article cites the electronic world-gazetteer as its reference, check out their online list of largest cities and towns and statistics of their population. MANY other (relatively new) reliable sources corroborate that Istanbul is the most populous city in Europe. According to Deniz Göktürk's Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (this book is also cited in the Bibliography section of the article): "Istanbul is the largest city not only in Turkey but Europe". According to Thorpe Edgar's The Pearson General Knowledge Manual 2011, p A-40: Europe's largest city is Istanbul. According to Omer Tene's Privacy and Data Protection in Turkey: (Inching) Towards a European Framework, p 1: "Turkey harbors the largest city in Europe (Istanbul, with an estimated population of 15 million)". According to J Lovering's Bulldozer Neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The State-led Construction of Property Markets, and the Displacement of the Urban Poor: "Istanbul is the largest city in Europe". I think we may add other reliable sources which corroborate the statement about Istanbul being the largest city in Europe. Khestwol (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet you didn't source the statement with any of those sources; you sourced it with a junk website. Once again, it is unclear from several of these sources what is meant by "largest city", as they don't provide comparative numbers. Privacy and Data Protection in Turkey: (Inching) Towards a European Framework provides a number (15 million), but that's well above that provided by the census for the entire province. The World Gazetteer also provides numbers, and from them it's clear it's talking about city-proper. That leaves us with the issue of city-proper vs. metropolitan area again; as I said, it's useless to dwell on comparisons of city-proper populations. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

World-gazetteer.com is cited in more than 1000 other Wikipedia content pages, so I think it should stay for now, unless you can prove it to be a "junk website". Nevertheless, I'm adding another reliable source from the above ones, too.. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many pages cite it, I can see no evidence that it is a reliable source. Thank you for adding a reliable source. I am deleting the 'blatantworld' source: it really is no use at all, and will fall foul of source reviews at FAC.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The "junk website" I was talking about was blatantworld, something that should have been clear based on context and based on the comment you directly replied to. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When we have reliable sources, you don't need to ignore them and instead publish your original thought or your new analysis that serves to advance your biased position which is not clearly advanced by the sources themselves (see the project Wikipedia:No original research). Here, the above sources directly support that Istanbul is the "largest city" in Europe which resolves our issue, I guess. Khestwol (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Khestwol, I don't have a definite view on this matter, but Tariq has a point that isn't helped by your attack, and any claim about "bias" is ridiculous. There is a legitimate issue here. The UN source on which we rely for the population estimate in the demographics section tells us that Istanbul is smaller than Moscow. As the WP article says at that point, this makes it the second largest city in Europe. At best, we have a situation where there are contradictory reliable sources. In such a circumstance, I suggest we should initially favour those that provide detailed comparative figures and set out the bases for those figures. I certainly don't think we have clear evidence that allows the lead to contain a sentence that calls it Europe's largest city. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right, we have a contradictory source which contradicts the 4 sources I cited in this discussion. The UN estimates Istanbul was second-largest in 2011, then it gives an estimate for the near future and says Istanbul will be the largest urban agglomeration in 2015 -- but, it gives no estimate for 2012 which makes it ambiguous to use and it doesn't clarify when exactly does Istanbul become the largest. Khestwol (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I take your points. On your last remark - Istanbul becomes the largest once it actually is the largest, according to a reliable source that has access to headcounts in the cities in contention (in this case, Istanbul and Moscow). The lack of an estimate for 2012 is not relevant and i don't think makes it "ambiguous to use". Tariq is right about the Privacy and Data Protection source - the figure immediately calls its reliability into question. However, there remains the question of what to make of your other three reliable sources which apparently call Istanbul the largest city in Europe. FWIW there may be a definitional problem involved, separate to the one raised by tariq - do all sources consider Moscow to be a European city? One of the problems with some if not all of those three reliable sources (I don't have them, so can't be sure), is that they don't refer to comparitors. Which highlights the issue raised by tariq - we currently rely on a high-quality source that explicitly lists all candidates so there can be no doubt. I'm inclined to solve this in the usual messy way - by either explaining in the article that sources don't agree, or finessing it with a text that doesn't commit one way or the other (which would be more concise). In the demographics section the sentence therefore could read "Today, Moscow and Istanbul vie for the title of Europe's largest city" followed by all the reliable sources we have. The advantage of this text is that it accurately captures the population dynamics - as the UN source itself shows, both are changing and which city holds the honour is likely to change in the immediate future.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lack of an estimate for 2012 is relevant, because the population figure from 2011 implies it's outdated, and the variation in population figures assumes a constant increase in the population of Istanbul as compared to Moscow. It would be better if you came up with sources for the current population to corroborate yours and tariq's point of view. Khestwol (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton, you are misunderstanding the problem. We can theoretically have two sources agree on the population of every hectare of Europe and disagree on the largest city in the continent, as they may use different definitions of what a city is. That is likely the problem here. (I don't see why Moscow, a city entirely on the European continent [unlike Istanbul] and with serious European importance, would not be considered European.) As I mentioned, the sources presented by Khestwol so far generally don't provide comparative figures and don't say by which metric they're calling it Europe's largest city. The one that does, the World Gazetteer (a site I do actually consider reliable), explicitly says it's talking about cities-proper. So, unless we find a source (oh God, let's hope none exists) that claims Istanbul's metropolitan area is larger than Moscow's (or that Moscow's city-proper is larger than Istanbul's), we have two statements that, while seemingly contradictory, are not:

• Istanbul is the largest city in Europe, by population within city limits.
• Istanbul is the second-largest city in Europe, by population within metropolitan area.

So, let's just ignore the part about the quality of the source; that can be fixed, and it has been. We certainly should not plainly state that Istanbul is the largest city in Europe without qualification, as that depends on definition. But even that can easily be fixed with the inclusion of more words. The question is, which metric should be mentioned in the article. As I've said repeatedly, city-proper size is a useless way to compare city size as it's defined differently between different countries.

We saw an example of that during the last FAC, before which the article included a statement that said While officially part of Istanbul, much of the Asian side of the Bosphorus functions as a suburb. One reviewer -- oh wait, you -- said All cities have areas that are suburbs, and areas that people travel to work in. There is nothing unusual about this, it is how cities work. As I explained then, that's not always the case. Many cities -- I used American cities there, but it's certainly the case in some other countries as well -- have highly urbanized residential areas outside the city limits. In the case of Istanbul, there are vast swaths of sparsely urbanized outside the city center. That's why when comparing city size, it's far more useful to use some standard (metropolitan or urban area) rather than the whims of the city government (city-proper).

I don't know why this isn't so obvious for Istanbul, which embodies every problem with relying on city-proper size. In the mid-1980s, the city limits were drastically expanded. But it is not appropriate to just state, without explanation, that the population of the city nearly doubled during the decade -- because a change in city limits is more a change in jurisdiction and city government than a signal that more people actually moved (that did actually happen, but that's beside the point; a city, like Detroit, losing population could annex more land into the city-proper every year but it'd be unfair to say that its population is increasing). So, because of these expansions, we have a city whose limits extend over 5300 sq. km. This rural area is well within the city limits of Istanbul, but this urbanized area is outside the city limits of Moscow.

How is it possible or fair to compare such disparate definitions of a city? It's not, as the BBC article I provided states. Some countries -- like China and, apparently, Turkey -- use city definitions that are more appropriately termed as provinces. So, while it's an interesting tidbit to say Istanbul has one of the largest city-propers in the world in population (as well as in land area, actually!), it's adds nothing useful to also say it's the largest in Europe, especially to the exclusion of saying that it's at the center of the second-largest metropolitan area and urban area on the continent. Saying Istanbul and Moscow "vie for the title of Europe's largest city" is a serious disservice to our readers when we don't have sources contradicting each other. It's akin to saying Tokyo and Shanghai vie for the title of the world's largest city. They don't; they both the largest, according to different definitions. Just provide the definition and you're fine. And, reiterating again, metropolitan area is a more important definition. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)