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)

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:

• 
  Original panorama
• Fifth five-image collage
  Fifth five-image collage
• 
  Sixth five-image collage

-- 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)

Spor

Tuzla İstanbul Park

Since the Byzantine and Roman periods, Istanbul is home to many sports activities; host football, basketball, voleyball and various motor races today. The biggest in the league Turkey ; Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray in Istanbul. As well as Anadolu Efes, Galatasaray Medical Park, Fenerbahçe Ülker and Beşiktaş in basketball and Eczacıbaşı, Galatasaray Daikin, Beşiktaş Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Fenerbahçe and Vakıfbank Türk Telekom in voleyball and Beşiktaş in handball and in wheelchair basketball Beşiktaş RMK Marine and Galatasaray teams like the city's major clubs.

Ali Sami Yen Spor Kompleksi Türk Telekom Arena, Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı and Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı are in the UEFA five-star stadiums ve Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı, hosted the 2005 UEFA Champions League Finals. Likewise Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadı hosted 2009 UEFA Cup Final.

Which is the most important Veliefendi Hippodrome racecourse is home to the city's major races.

2012-2013 Season Club, in which the leagues, stadiums and sport halls

Football

Süper Lig

Club	Stadium	Capacity	Year Of Establishment
İstanbul BŞB	Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadyumu	82.576	1990
Galatasaray	Türk Telekom Arena	52.650	1905
Fenerbahçe	Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadyumu	50.530	1907
Beşiktaş	BJK İnönü Stadyumu	32.145	1903
Kasımpaşa	Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Stadyumu	14.234	1921

First League

Club	Stadium	Capacity	Year Of Establishment
Kartalspor	Kartal Stadyumu	15.000	1949

Second League

Club	Stadium	Capacity	Year Of Establishment
Sarıyer	Yusuf Ziya Öniş Stadyumu	10.000	1940
İstanbul Güngörenspor	Mimar Yahya Baş Stadyumu	7.589	1983
Pendikspor	Pendik Stadyumu	4.000	1950
Gaziosmanpaşaspor	Gaziosmanpaşa Stadyumu	4.000	1965
Tepecikspor	Tepecik Belediye Stadyumu	3.000	1988
Bayrampaşaspor	Çetin Emeç Stadyumu	2.500	1959
Eyüpspor	Eyüp Stadyumu	2.500	1919

Third League

Club	Stadium	Capacity	Year Of Establishment
Sancaktepe Belediyespor	Hakan Şükür Stadyumu	7.000	2008
Fatih Karagümrük	Vefa Stadyumu	6.500	1926
Beylerbeyi	Beylerbeyi 75. Yıl Stadyumu	5.500	1903
Anadolu Üsküdar 1908	Beylerbeyi 75. Yıl Stadyumu	5.500	1908
Maltepespor	Maltepe Hasan Polat Stadyumu	5.000	1923
İstanbulspor	Bahçelievler İl Özel İdare Stadyumu	4.350	1926
Silivrispor	Silivri Stadyumu	3.000	1957
Ümraniyespor	Ümraniye Belediye İlçe Stadyumu	655	1938

Basketbol

Beko Basketbol Ligi

Club	Stadium
Anadolu Efes	Ayhan Şahenk Spor Salonu
Beşiktaş	Abdi İpekçi Arena
Fenerbahçe Ülker	Ülker Sports Arena
Galatasaray Medical Park	Abdi İpekçi Arena

TKBL

Club	Stadium
Beşiktaş	BJK Akatlar Arena
Fenerbahçe	Ülker Sports Arena
Galatasaray	Abdi İpekçi Arena
İstanbul Üniversitesi B.G.D.	Prof. Dr. Turgay Atasü Spor Salonu

TTSB

Club	Stadium
Beşiktaş RMK Marine	Süleyman Seba Spor Salonu
Galatasaray	Ahmet Cömert Spor Salonu

Voleybol

Acıbadem Bayanlar Voleybol 1. Ligi

Club	Stadium
Bakırköy Belediyesi Yeşilyurt	Yeşilyurt Spor Salonu
Beşiktaş Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi	BJK Akatlar Arena
Eczacıbaşı Vitra	Eczacıbaşı Spor Salonu
Fenerbahçe	Burhan Felek Spor Salonu
Galatasaray Daikin	Burhan Felek Spor Salonu
Sarıyer Belediyesi Spor Kulübü	Sarıyer Spor Salonu
Vakıfbank Türk Telekom	Burhan Felek Spor Salonu

Acıbadem Erkekler Voleybol 1. Ligi

Club	Stadium
Fenerbahçe Grundig	Burhan Felek Spor Salonu
Galatasaray	Burhan Felek Spor Salonu
İstanbul BŞB	Haldun Alagaş Spor Salonu

Hentbol

Türkiye Erkekler Hentbol Süper Ligi

Club	Stadium
Beşiktaş	Süleyman Seba Spor Salonu
Yeditepe Spor	Hakkı Başar Spor Salonu

Türkiye Kadınlar Hentbol Süper Ligi

Club	Stadium
Maltepe Belediyesi Gençlik Spor	Yakacık İTO Spor Salonu
Üsküdar Belediyesi Spor	Haldun Alagaş Spor Salonu

• Türk Telekom Arena
  Türk Telekom Arena
• BJK İnönü Stadyumu
  BJK İnönü Stadyumu
• Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadyumu
  Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadyumu

|}

Picture in the UNESCO infobox

This image fully covers UNESCO's definition.

UNESCO's protection in Istanbul covers two areas: "The area inside the walls of Constantinople" and "the area inside the medieval citadel of Galata/Pera" to the north of the Golden Horn. This image is the best one available in Wikimedia Commons which shows both Old Istanbul (Constantinople) and Galata/Pera inside a single frame, perfectly fitting the definition by UNESCO.

It is actually a very rare image, taken from a helicopter and including the Galata Tower (most similar images are taken from the balcony of Galata Tower and therefore do not include the tower.)

The only other way (apart from a helicopter) to take a picture of these two areas (including Galata Tower) within a single frame is to take a "panorama picture" from the Salacak neighbourhood of the Üsküdar district, on the Asian side of the Bosphorus.

I know that a section of the image is used in the collage, but it is cut in half, with lower resolution quality. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong: the historic areas are so defined by UNESCO:

• the Archaeological Park at the tip of the peninsula;
• the Süleymaniye quarter;
• the Zeyrek quarter;
• the zone of the ramparts;

please read Historic Areas of Istanbul or the UNESCO definition. Alex2006 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Silhouette of Istanbul with Maiden's Tower (Leander's Tower)

This silhouette image including the Maiden's Tower (Leander's Tower) looks well inside the UNESCO infobox. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't agree with you on this issue. Because,your feedback contains many contradictions. You are talking about historic areas declared by UNESCO in Istanbul.After than you use Maiden's Tower photo this infobox? As far as I know, Maiden's Tower is not in this list! Unfortunately, Maiden's Tower in foreground. Aerial photo is so poor quality and at present, used in the article. Hagia Sophia and Sultan Ahmed Mosque are the most important in this historic region. I think silhouette photo more appropriate than others. As a result, it's an info box picture and previously,there wasn't a picture!! Maurice (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mauric,e . Alex2006 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe Vecihi has a point, silhoutte image that you insistently want to put in the article is in line with orientalist depictions of the city so it would be better to replace it. I really don't understand this ongoing fascination with dark, shadowy, exoticized imagery of Istanbul and I believe most Istanbulites would not really be happy with the representation of their city through such exoticized, darkened images that do not pay respect to the liveliness of the city. It shouldnt be that difficult to find another picture with Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque in it.

The name

"I stan Bul" means : stan - turkish word for city of Bul (Bulgarians) or "Many" (in turkish - Bol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

NAME

Istanbul is actually a greek phrase " εις την πόλη" that Turks made a turkish word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.196.183 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

Ahmet Gürsakal (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. You're apparently proposing (using hidden text) that the infobox's skyline image be changed to this one. If so, please explain why you think this would be an improvement. Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

from top to bottom and from left to right: Bosphorus Bridge; Maiden Tower; Sultan Ahmed Mosque; Valens Aqueduct; Rumelihisarı; Levent;Maslak;Haydarpaşa Terminal ; Bosphorus ; Ortaköy Mosque ; Bosphorus Bridge ; Türk Telekom Arena

Ahmet Gürsakal (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume this is a request to change the infobox image. If that is indeed the case then a discussion above indicates that modifying the infobox image might be controversial, so it should not be changed without first establishing consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is Istanbul shows the various parts. I want to have that picture collage.

| image = İstanbul city-5.jpg | image_size = 300px|

Oppose to the change. First, in this collage there too many pictures. in the previous RFC there was consensus that this collage should contain at most 5-6 pictures (here we have ten). moreover, I think that some of these pictures are insignificant, while important places in the city (like Beyoglu) are missing. Alex2006 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map in the infobox shows Istanbul near the Dardanelles, in the wrong place. Other maps agree Istanbul is on the Bosphorus. The coordinates look OK, so something more complicated is to blame. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks perfectly fine to me. I suggest you take a screenshot and upload it to a photo-sharing site like Imgur (since you don't have the appropriate permissions to upload onto Wikipedia) to illustrate what you're seeing. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is my (first ever) screenshot. It isn't as clear as it is on my computer, but it's good enough to show Istanbul on the wrong side of the Sea of Marmara. Windows 8, Firefox 19.0.2 67.160.69.105 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes... that's very odd. Let me see if I can perhaps find an answer to this conundrum. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

New Collage and Cityscape picture

For cityscape section

Newer collage

1) Cityscape section needs a wide picture 2) Newer collage is required. Showing a tram is a bad choice when there are so many other attractive pictures. Cavann (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I like the cityscape picture that you inserted.

2) Some months ago we had a lengthy discussion about the collage, which I advise you to read. The existing collage is the one which got the consensus of most users. Alex2006 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

By "some months ago", you mean almost a year ago. Is this consensus eternal? Cavann (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost seven months ago. Of course consensus is not eternal, but you should get a similar consensus if you want to change the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for the input. Cavann (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

City's foundation in infobox and wording in history section are incorrect

City's history goes back to Neolitic

“ "It all shows there was a Neolithic settlement here in the historic peninsula of Istanbul where people lived, farmed and fished," he adds.[5] ”

There are also Semistra and Lygos [6]

Now, currently, the line in history section, "However, the history of Istanbul generally begins around 660 BC," and the "established" part in infobox use note a as a source. All the sources in note a are seriously dated. One is a translation of Herodotus which is thousands of years old. The others are the following: Isaac 1986, Roebuck 1959, Lister 1979, and Freely 1996. All these sources predate Neolithic discoveries and, hence, are no longer valid. Finally, most importantly, note a refers to foundation of Byzantium and completely ignores the issue of earlier settlements.

As such information in infobox, and the particular line in history section needs to be changed. Cavann (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In the context of ancient Greek poleis, a city's foundation is when it is founded as a city, which implies a certain political organisation, legal constitution, name and so on. Earlier informal settlements on the same site just don't count. Whatever was there before Byzantium may have been some fishermen's villages, but it wasn't Byzantium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Istanbul, the current city. Hence its history encompasses all of its history, not just since Byzantium. That was my point. Cavann (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. is right. This article is about the city, not the site where the city lies. I think that you do not understand (yet) the difference between these two concepts. If you know Italian, you can usefully read the first volume of the "Storia di Roma" edited by Einaudi, where this difference is fully explained in the context of the foundation of Rome. Palatine hill was inhabited at least 13,000 years before the establishment of the city, but none thinks to link directly these settlements to the future city. This of course does not mean that the info about Istanbul's site during Neolithic should be censored or removed, but it should be clear that we are talking about another thing. Alex2006 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alessandro57, learn to read. The first settlements in Istanbul was in 6400 BC. That's what the infobox states. Your subjective understanding of what a city is irrelevant. What matters are the sources. Byzantium would not be considered a city in today's standards as well, certainly not compared to 13 million Istanbul. Cavann (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Cavann, there is a discussion ongoing, and 2 people (me and Fut.Perf.) have another opinion. Please leave the original version until the discussion is over, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete referenced information and do not WP:OWN the article. You are acting in an irrational manner. Cavann (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, I don't know since when you are active in Wikipedia, but if you change something, and this info is contested, a thread will be opened on the talk page, and the original version is kept until consensus on the change has been reached: this procedure is called Edit-Revert-Discuss. I have been still reverted a lot of times, and this is for me only the sign that a discussion must take place. I am against Edit wars, but this means that next time that you revert the article without waiting for the end of discussion I will contact an administrator. Coming back to what you say, this is not "subjective understanding", but is a standard notion in historic research. Alex2006 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which you have not referenced with respect to Istanbul. Until then, you cannot revert reliably sourced material just because you feel like it. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a core policy in Wikipedia. Cavann (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology is not done by the BBC per WP:NOTNEWS. Wait for the archaeologist to publish his paper before you change longstanding information. Also at Talk:Turkey you said to Athenean:

Learn to read. Primary component =/= Only component. Saying X compromises the primary component does not necessarily exclude A, B, C backgrounds. The point that there are other ethnicities in Turkey is already made in the lead, with an entire paragraph. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the time periods, learn what Neolithic means. Cavann (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Now on this talkpage you said to Alessandro57:

Alessandro57, learn to read...

I think it is high time you learned WP:NPA. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from the BBC:

It all shows there was a Neolithic settlement here in the historic peninsula of Istanbul where people lived, farmed and fished," he adds. Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. The discovery of the skeletons has revealed far deeper roots.

Conclusion: Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. So, in all of previous recorded history, Historians had believed modern-day Istanbul was first settled around 700 BC. But, wait, "Breaking News"!!! "Not True"! A BBC reporter has just now reported the earth-shaking news that what historians believed up to now is wrong. This, without waiting for the discovering archaeologist to publish his findings in a reputable journal and without waiting for them to be peer-reviewed and for historians to critique the paper, accept it or reject it. Archaeology is not done by BBC news or any other news, especially if it is an extraordinary claim such as this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There you go. Abstract:

“ An extensive rescue excavation has been conducted in the ancient harbor of İstanbul (Yenikapı) by the Sea of Marmara, revealing a depositional sequence displaying clear evidence of transgression and coastal progradation during the Holocene. The basal layer of this sequence lies at 6 m below the present sea level and contains remains of a Neolithic settlement known to have been present in the area, indicating that the sea level at ~ 8–9 cal ka BP was lower than 6 m below present. Sea level advanced to its maximum at ~ 6.8–7 cal ka BP, drowning Lykos Stream and forming an inlet at its mouth. After ~ 3 cal ka BP, coastal progradation became evident. Subsequent construction of the Byzantine Harbor (Theodosius; 4th century AD) created a restricted small basin and accumulation of fine-grained sediments. The sedimentation rate was increased due to coastal progradation and anthropogenic factors during the deposition of coarse-grained sediments at the upper parts of the sequence (7th–9th centuries AD). The harbor was probably abandoned after the 11th century AD by filling up with Lykos Stream detritus and continued seaward migration of the coastline ”

Quotes:

“ There are as yet no absolute dates available from the prehistoric layers; however, large amounts of diagnostic pottery sherds have been recovered which display the distinct features of various cultural assemblages previously recorded and dated from other excavations in northwestern Turkey.....On the other hand, the material found in this horizon was mostly of Archaic Fikirtepe, Classical Fikirtepe, Yarımburgaz 4 and 3/2 horizons, covering the time range between 6600 and 5530 BC. There were also a few, but rather dubious, sherds that might be of an earlier age....The location of the Neolithic settlement at Yenikapı is similar to other contemporary sites, being located within easy reach of the sea coast ”

Source: Oya Algan, M. Namık Yalçın, Mehmet Özdoğan, Yücel Yılmaz, Erol Sarı, Elmas Kırcı-Elmas, İsak Yılmaz, Özlem Bulkan, Demet Ongan, Cem Gazioğlu, Atike Nazik, Mehmet Ali Polat, Engin Meriç, Holocene coastal change in the ancient harbor of Yenikapı–İstanbul and its impact on cultural history, Quaternary Research, Volume 76, Issue 1, July 2011, Pages 30-45, ISSN 0033-5894, 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.04.002. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411000457) Cavann (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar results for this paper: Cited by two. It is far from being accepted widely by historians and I don't see anyone rushing to update the prevailing 700 BC. estimate of the settlement of Istanbul based on that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is "accepted widely by historians"? Source?

We already knew there were settlements prior to Byzantine, and that's already in the article (and sourced), but not reflected in the infobox. Did you read the history section of the article?

Also look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your google scholar argument is a stupid one, especially considering it's a 2011 paper. In any case Wikipedia is neutral and it is not appropriate for you to try to push an agenda here, while ignoring reliable sources (i.e., journal articles). Cavann (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But you admit yourself that the paper is new, so it is obviously not very well known, therefore not accepted by historians. If it were accepted by historians then the historians who accepted they would have made their acceptance known. If it is not known and Google Scholar does not pick it up then it is not mature enough to be included in an encyclopaedia such as this one. As far as your aggressive statements, your links to WP:NOT, and your allegations about my agenda as well as your statements about my use of Google Scholar which you call stupid without foundation, I can only say that you look completely over the top and out of control. Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)