Talk:Constantinople

Legend to the map of the Byzantium is wrong
It states that the map [Byzantine Constantinople-en.png] corresponds to the modern Day "Fatih" district - this is wrong Fatih is around hill 4 on the Map, BUT there are many other modern day districts also within the area described. Best to remove the legend altogether and just say the area within the theodosian walls. Zekimurad (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Istanbul location Fatih.svg No you're incorrect. This is map of Fatih. Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of the colloquial center/quarter. Not the entire district. Uness232 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Introductory sentenece
Shoulded the first sentence define what Constantiople was, not what it became. I think that the part "Constantinople (see other names) became the capital of the Roman Empire..." should be somtheling like "Constantinople (see other names) was a city, that became the capital of the Roman Empire..." AT44 (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate article for Istanbul and Constantinople
So I have noticed a lot of old byzantine cities that got renamed have separate articles, Istanbul and Constantinople in this case and one for Edessa and Urfa.

Why is this ? if the city was renamed/conquered in other places it doesn't get a new article. The article on Gdańsk for example is the modern name of the city. Any articles referencing danzig are about specific political entities, like "the free city of Danzig" article. Why is this different ? Shouldn't continuously inhabited cities have single articles regardless of name changes ? Jaynorg (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It depends on the article and the sources, there is no overarching standard. Here are other examples where earlier periods of a settlement have different articles:
 * London ← Londinium
 * Tokyo ← Edo
 * Mexico City ← Tenochtitlan
 * Xi'an ← Chang'an
 * Cairo ← Heliopolis (ancient Egypt)
 * Remsense 诉  11:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)