Talk:Istanbul

FA criteria

The article needs substantial work to meet the FA criteria: better referencing (including citing the uncited content, as well as improving the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date. There is also massive overload of images in contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, and I have no intension editing such a page unprompted, so I give my oppinion here

I think an article should start with its formalities and links to other articles close to the subject.

I think the introduction should be:

Istanbul (/ˌɪstænˈbʊl/ IST-an-BUUL,[7][8] US also /ˈɪstænbʊl/ IST-an-buul; Turkish: İstanbul [isˈtanbuɫ] (About this soundlisten)), formerly known as Constantinople (previous capital of the Ottoman Empire and the Roman/Byzantine Empire and was originally Byzantium an ancient Greek city in classical antiquity, is the largest city in Turkey ...

because very important traces from very important past eras are available in the site (the past cities were not destroyed and there has been a continious development of it). The other eras are described in other articles and so these articles should be linked to immediatly this way.

After the formalities go on and put up history and other aspects of the city. The introduction should be cleaned from history things and put in a history section, becaus eof the subject it must be devided into subsections. The introduction after the first formalities should describe shortly the present city, that is an important commercial centre and large city of Turkey and Europe.

The article should describe the present city and the past eras should mainly be taken care of by links in the formalities and the history section (as they are supposed to be described there). However present day remains (sites, institutions and activeties) from the past history shsould be decribed in the article becauase they are turist attractions of the present and listed in subsections dependent on the era. As a turist I should be able to track the most important present sites dependent on my perspective in the present day city.

--Zzalpha (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove the image of 'Colomn of Constantine', 'Statue of Atatürk in Büyükada' and 'Syrian nationals in districts of Istanbul' and 'Pera Museum in Beyoglu'. I find these ones least relevant to the article. Metuboy (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that you are trying to make disinformation nationalism with adding "ancient greek.." bla bla thing. It's not allowed according to any Wikipedia policies. Look at the Gdansk article for some education. Old name of the city should be remove.

78.190.2.75 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

most visited tourist destination

London has 30m visitors a year. Venice is the same. Istanbul is 20m. Yet the figures in this article say that Istanbul is the most-visited in the world, after London and Dubai? New York City, Paris, Rome, London, Venice all have more visitors. 89.197.164.126 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Venice doesn't have more visitors than Istanbul, none of the Italian cities in Top 10. Also, this was made according to the new lists. 85.103.228.167 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

If there are reliable sources regarding the statistics you mentioned, let's take action accordingly. Let's revise or remove the information about Istanbul through source comparison. Adem (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete climate update

Uness232 I've replaced the in-use reference definition you deleted in your recent edit. Was it your intention to completely remove that reference? You also added an invocation of a reference named "WeatherAtlas", but that reference is not defined. I've removed that reference since it adds the topic to an error tracking category. Since your changes are dependent on this reference, you probably want to replace it correctly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas Sorry, this is just mistake on my part. I copied the weatherbox sources from the Climate of Istanbul page (since there is a new one now); I should have kept the reference definitions in mind. The climate update is complete, however. Uness232 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! When copying within Wikipedia, make sure you properly attribute the content that you're copying. You can read more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Swap Ortaköy Mosque image with Dolmabahçe Palace image

Dolmabahçe Palace is more known, significant, important. Ortaköy Mosque is not very special compared to the Dolmabahçe Palace, the palace of the great Atatürk. Youprayteas (t • c) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas You're right that in its function the Dolmabahçe Palace is more unique and special. However, uniqueness of function should not be our only consideration here; while Dolmabahçe is nowhere near not famous, Ortaköy Mosque, especially in architectural form, is so recognizable that it is everywhere. A simple Google search of the word "Istanbul" also reveals this fact; Dolmabahçe is hard to find near the top images, while Ortaköy Mosque is everywhere. Uness232 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first pop-up and I realized I completely forgot about the Topkapı Palace, more famous than Ortaköy Mosque. Why fill up the photos with mosques anyway? One is well enough. Topkapı Palace, Dolmabahçe Palace, even Rumelihisarı is more appropriate. Youprayteas (t • c) 06:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas

I still fail to see the reason why any of these changes are needed. I don't think 2 photos of religious buildings (out of 7) for a city famed for its religious architecture is inappropriate.

Topkapı Palace is a better choice compared to Dolmabahçe, but I am not sure whether it is Ortaköy Mosque that it would have to be replaced with, if anything is going to be replaced. Again, a simple Google search of "Istanbul" will reveal how ubiquitous photos of the Ortaköy Mosque are. If such a change is really necessary (I don't think it is), Levent (or İstiklal if judging purely based on photo composition) could be the one to go in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Levent can stay as it shows the urban and more modern side of Istanbul. İstiklal is incredibly important, it HAS to stay. Ortaköy Mosque is not reslly that popular, or historic, or important. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas

Importance was not my argument about İstiklal, photo composition was.

Care to elaborate on why Ortaköy Mosque is not that popular, or historic, or important? You have been leading with this assertion again and again, and I don't see any argument for it. Uness232 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am a local in Turkey and you can ask other people too, they will say my other choices are better for the comp Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas You are indeed free to ask other people, through an RfC, or through any other means. As for me, you have still not brought forth any evidence for Ortaköy Mosque's lack of historical value or importance, and therefore I can not say I see any reason to change my view on this. Uness232 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to improve Istanbul article for a long time, but didn't have the chance to get around to it. First of all, the lead is so bad, and doesn't cover most of the article. But now that you are talking about the infobox images, I think I'll start from there. I checked several cities and they all seem to use their very best images. The current images in the infobox are not that good. So I checked the page history to see why they were added, to see if there was a big consensus. The top image seems to have been changed here [1] by a sock [2]. The Levent pic was also added by the same sock [3]. I think if someone tries to use those pics again, there would be a good chance of sockpuppetry. I'm going to go ahead and change those pics. I think this one should be the top image [4]. It gives the best overview of Istanbul, with Fatih (historic core), Bosporus, Golden Horn, and showing both European and Asian sides. I'm going to change Levent pic with a much newer pic [5]. Istanbul Finance Center is also on the Asian side and there was little coverage of the Asian side in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I also changed the Hagia Sophia picture, since Hagia Sophia is now in the top image. Used an image of Topkapi Palace [6]. It is a quality image and also shows Golden Horn and iconic Istanbul ferries. Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked Level 3 vital articles for cities, Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Cities. There are no FA ones, but there are Good Articles: Mumbai, London, and Paris. They all use 1-3-2-1 format in the infobox (top and bottom large image, 3 images in second row, 2 images in 3rd row). I think we should switch to same format as well. Here's my suggestion: User:Bogazicili/sandbox. I added a large image of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge to the bottom. I think bridges are symbols of Istanbul. And the top image shows historic areas, the bottom one shows newer areas. It keeps Ortakoy Mosque and Istiklal Avenue. Although we might consider a different picture for Istiklal Avenue. Bogazicili (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I also updated the Maiden's Tower and İstiklal Avenue pictures here: User:Bogazicili/sandbox. The suggested ones are newer pictures. We have enough day-time pictures, so the İstiklal picture is a night-time picture. People's faces seem blurry too in case anyone minds being shown in a Wikipedia page with high traffic. Maiden's Tower picture shows a bit of Dolmabahçe Palace. Bogazicili (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Any comments about the last version of infobox images here User:Bogazicili/sandbox? Otherwise I'm going to make the change. Bogazicili (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Do it. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 12:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)