Talk:Istanbul/Archive 11

Annual Snowfall
Good morning everyone. I'd like to raise awareness about an issue regarding the average snowfall in Istanbul. In the last few days I tried to find this data and came across a bazillion sources talking about 4.9 cm of annual snowfall, and only one result claming 82 cm, the Italian study from Nimbus that is used as reference in this page. The Italian study doesn't link to any source and doesn't even mention where this claim comes from. For those who don't speak Italian: in the "Metodology" section of the study, they do say that the data is computed from METARS of airports of the cities they are evaluating and correctly state that you cannot get snow depth values from METARS. They do not mention where the data about the snow depth is from, then. The study in question is "sketchy" to say the least, then. Given that all other sources point to 4.9 cm/year, that the Turkish government itself says, literally, "Although there is not frequent snowfall due to high humidity, there is litte snowfall in the period between December and March", that the average temperatures during winter are not cold, and that the climate classification of the province of Istanbul (Cfa, Cfb, Csa) paints a picture of a moist yet not regularly snowy place, I strongly believe what's written in the Italian study from Nimbus is a gross error. If you are ok with that, I'd like to change the paragraph about snowfall to something more realistic and backed by other studies.

Winterfell98 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your work regarding the page.
 * I was the one who introduced the Nimbus data, and while I will concede that while the study isn't perfect (and furthermore requires some math to reach the data I've provided, which is never a good sign), the 4.9 cm/year value is downright impossible. This is very well illustrated by the amount of snowy days, where sources point to 8-16 days of snowfall (not snow cover) for Istanbul, regardless of microclimate. With a 4.9 cm/year snowfall value, this would mean less than 1 cm per day. Compare that to the precipitation days/precipitation amount ratio, and you should get around 6mm per precip day. Using the 10:1 rainfall to snowfall ratio (I know it's not perfect, but it is standard procedure), this would give you around 27cm of snow in January alone. Nevertheless, all of what I did in this reply up to this point verges on "common sense" editing/OR, so if you can provide a reliable source (preferably here, and one that has a better methodology than the Nimbus data) that contradicts this information I'm ready to concede.
 * Another point, the study used METARs to calculate snowfall and discusses how it is impossible to determine snow depth (Therefore, it has to be assumed that the data on snowfall is extracted from average snowfall rates associated with METARs, similar to Meteoblue). The two are different things, and most cities in Cxx zones have much higher snowfall than snow depth. Even with that, if you still think: "Why does this city with relatively mild winters have almost Dxx amounts of snow?" The answer is lake-effect snow (or I guess sea?-effect snow). Istanbul gets around one lake-effect blizzard per year (it's actually getting one right-now, see here) and these usually result in 1-2 feet of snowfall (not snow depth). Uness232 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * Thank you for your quick reply. 4.9 cm looks too small a value to me too, but that's what's reported on most other websites. One website in particular, that I am going to write below, talks about 8 cm, and it is the one that gives the highest value among the dozens of website I have consulted. The biggest problem I have with the study from Nimbus is that no other study in the world in English, French or Italian mentions anything even remotely close to what they claim. They also claim 15 snowy days, but reading the metodology section they say they consider any day with at least one METAR mentioning snow as a snowy day. For instance, a day in which one METAR reports -BLSN gets counted as a snowy day, whereas in reality only a few snowflakes have been brought over the airport by wind for less than an hour. From other sources it looks like real snowy conditions exist on average of 1.6 days a year, with a few more days of rain and snow together. In the same website where they claim 8 cm per year, graphs about the probability of precipitation are given, and even during winter the probability of rain is hugely higer than the probability of snow: only a tiny percentage of all precpitation falls on the city as snow. The website is this: . They claim their data comes from NASA's MERRA 2 Analysis, and how accurate that is on snowfall I would not know. I also tried to contact the Turkey State Meteorological Service but to no avail (They replied in Turkish telling me to call a telephone number). It would be nice to have someone who can speak Turkish to look into the matter and look for some data in Turkish academic literature.

Winterfell98 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Before getting into the data on weatherspark, I want to say that as someone who knows Turkish, there isn't much academic literature surrounding snowfall in Istanbul, or at least not concerning its averages. While snow depth is recorded in every Turkish airport (see here for today's data, or here for normals), snowfall is not documented. Therefore, the most reliable way to estimate snowfall is through METAR.
 * You could criticize the way the study uses METAR, but with a look at what these METARs are, you can clearly see that even if some METARs were removed from the criteria for snow, the value would still be much higher than 1.6 days.
 * As for weatherspark, it tends to be very innacurate for Istanbul. Compare, for example, the precipitation normals on weatherspark with those from MGM, and you will definitely understand what I'm talking about. Furthermore, as most of the snow in Istanbul falls in the form of heavy convective showers, non-convective allowing models (which includes MERRA 2) tend to massively underestimate the amount of snow that actually falls on the city (see here for a much higher resolution model making the same mistake), making the data doubly unreliable.
 * I am, however, curious about the websites and studies that claim 4.9 cm/year. If you can link some I'd very much appreciate it. Uness232 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a pity we don't have much data from Turkish literature. As an aeroplane pilot myself I know how inaccurate METARs can get and it's a real struggle to get some reliable data from those. The websites claiming 4.9 do so citing "Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü" as the source, but without reference to any specific paper, for example:, that claims 2.4 cm in January, 1.5 in February, 0.3 in March, 0.7 in December. Many website use this data, too. I did find another website that states something different: the claimed total snowfall is 21.3 cm, but without citing any source. It's this one: . Let me know if you are able to find any Turkish source that confirms any of these claims, if some websites are citing Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü as the source there probably is some official paper buried somewhere but alas I'm anable to read it.
 * Winterfell98 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weather Atlas' data on precipitation seems, let's say, very sketchy at best, as it seems to cut the total amount of precipitation Istanbul gets to half. Nowhere in MGM's website can you find information that shows Istanbul with a yearly precipitation of 300-400 mm, because beyond being completely out of the 600-1200 mm range we expect from Istanbul, a place that averages 300 mm a year with these temperatures would be a semi-arid steppe, not a deciduous forest. Also keep in mind that some websites take liquid-equivalent snowfall (in mm, completely different statistic) and present it as accumulated snowfall. Seeing that Weather Atlas is using mm to chart snow, I would not be surprised if that is exactly what they are doing.
 * On WWO, the data seems to be poorly organized, but what I can make out of it is still an anomaly to what we would expect. For example, for January 2017, when at least a foot of snow was recorded everywhere in Istanbul (mostly in two days, see here and here), WWO seems to indicate that only 15 cm of snow was recorded during the entire month, when basically all of Istanbul recorded more in these two days.
 * I understand your concern about METARs. However, it still seems (to me at least) that it is the most reliable way to estimate Istanbul's snowfall. If you so wish, we can remove the source from the climate tables to make it clear that the numbers may not be as accurate as measurements, but I think the paragraph should stay. Uness232 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about METARs. However, it still seems (to me at least) that it is the most reliable way to estimate Istanbul's snowfall. If you so wish, we can remove the source from the climate tables to make it clear that the numbers may not be as accurate as measurements, but I think the paragraph should stay. Uness232 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * . Yeah, that the data was given in liquid equivalent crossed my mind too at first, but it cannot be because other websites citing the (in)famous 4.9 cm do so in centrimetres. It looks like we are not the only ones having difficulties establishing this data, for example this website exclusively dedicated to snowfalls writes: "the annual snowfall depth in the city ranges between 1.93 inches (49 millimetres) and 24 inches (600 millimetres) after 7.1 snowfall days". Personally, given the total chaos and seemingly random numbers everyone is claiming about this subject, I would rephrase the paragraph to something less peremptory, something like: "According to a study, in the area of the airport an average of 60 cms of snow fall each year. The amount varies between different years and different areas of the city, with areas exposed to the North experiencing greater amounts than those exposed to the south (etc etc, insert here the sea effect snow)". This way we are not stating anything wrong nor misleading and we are not directly using the various other sources you don't think are realiable. What do you think? - Winterfell98 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. I will be removing the snowfall amount data from the climate table, but as I am very busy these days, I would appreciate if you would alter the prose to your liking. Thanks for this, I'm very pleased to see this type of discussion on here (rare as that is on this site). Uness232 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * . Sure, I can do it! I only need permission to modify the page as it's semi-protected. How do I go about that? Discussing topics with people who know what they are saying certainly is a pleasure :-)!

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Istanbul logo.svg

Flag blatantly wrong?
The flag used in the article is not the official flag of Istanbul based on any ordinance or law I could find. It is rather the logo of the municipality, the authority providing local services, on its color-accurate background. This is used as a flag of the municipality, not the city. To my knowledge, no Turkish city has a coat of arms or a flag. The governorships and municipalities have their own logos and flags derived from said logos, but they represent governmental entities, not the city itself. Gwro (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Albanian name
@Future Perfect at Sunrise I disagree. The name is relevant because Albanians have historically been inhabiting this city and form a significant minority nowadays. And in fact names can me put into the name section when a significant minority lives there. I wonder why this little sentence at the end of the name box bothers you? AlexBachmann (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. One, this is a summary of the main article, which goes into detail on many names in many languages. The most common historical languages in the city (Turkish and Greek) are covered here, as it is a summary; Istanbul used to be one of the most ethnically diverse cities in Europe and West Asia, we could have put Armenian, Ladino, and Slavic names too, but we keep that for the article itself. Two, you could have had a better argument about this if the Albanian name was not a variant of 'stin poli', already covered in the article. Uness232 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Considering the historical significance of the Albanians in Turkey and Istanbul that can not be compared to Slavs or other ethnicities, I suggest leaving the Albanian name. Even Arnavutköy testifies of that significance. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is how diverse Istanbul was. If we were to name all ethnicities who've had a major impact on Istanbul, even if we did not include Slavic peoples, for example, the section would become incredibly bloated. Istanbul was a (if not the ) center of Western Armenian culture; in fact, as far as I know, standard Western Armenian is based on the Istanbul dialect. Along with Thessaloniki, Judaeo-Spanish was a major language in Istanbul, and some amount of Ladino heritage still lives on in the city despite discriminatory measures; unlike in Thessaloniki, where the Nazis genocided the Jewish population. Why Albanian and not these? The reason we're limiting this is not because of any underestimation of Albanian heritage in the city; it is rather to not underestimate the sheer diversity of different heritage(s). Uness232 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to this, the main reason why we shouldn't be treating any of these names – independently of how many of them there are – is that assessing the historical significance of some group is not what mentioning or not mentioning a name is for. This is a very common error of judgment among Wikipedia editors, but it's still a POV trap. Just get rid of the idea that the treatment of placenames is a place in an article where we should symbolically "acknowledge" this or that group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes, but intuitively people think of place-names as a good index for representation, it seems. It makes sense too; what easier way to say "my people lived here" then to demonstrate by naming convention.
 * (I do agree with you on everything else obviously, but I understand why @AlexBachmann and so many other users keep wanting to make a change like this, simply saying "decouple this idea with that one" when these ideas are intuitively intertwined won't work, I don't think.) Uness232 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, what is the name section for, @Future Perfect at Sunrise? What about cities in Albania? Gjirokastër, Himarë, etc. have the Greek name in the lead and section because of the Greek minority. As for @Uness232, all ethnicities you've listed do not make up such a significant minority nowadays as the Albanians and probably historically. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, maybe (although we would need to discount Kurdish and Arab folk if we are to think of all ethnicities). Historically, no. Uness232 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Albanian influenced Istanbul the most (that would be a WP:OR and WP:NPOV statement), however enough, to include the name. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I’m saying that – because Istanbul was so diverse – we just can not include these (admittedly influential) names in the summary form of this article, rather than the article itself. That sets up a bad precedent, and would surely result in a bloated section. Uness232 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023
Remove the following templates: Turkey topics, Eurovision Song Contest, and ABU TV Song Festival. None of these template links to this page, or any other city for that matter. 2600:8800:590E:BB00:40AE:9484:2F76:7F87 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ AnnaMankad (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request on 07.06.2023
Very first sentence about the foundation of the city is wrong. There is solid evidence people were living in the region long before the given date, and written records about its foundation should be a secondary source. In current configuration, it implies there were no settlements before, which is simply wrong. It at least requires a callback to history section.
 * pls read history section. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It says there were settlements that got destroyed by rising sea levels, which doesn't really make sense since sea level rise doesn't happen immediately, and there is plenty of time to move the settlement. But even if we assume they packed up and left completely, there was still Lygos, which was there after the sea level rise, and before the mentioned foundation. Again, it is misleading to show the foundation date on current form. It indicates there was nothing substantial before it, which is wrong. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
See I am a student, I don't have any job and I am from a middle class family. If I ask my parents for 25 rs to help you they will never give me that. So please understand and take my Sorry 😔. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.161.12 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is Constantinople and Istanbul articles separate?
See Talk:Constantinople Beshogur (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The Constantinople article is more of a historical article, but I think the main reason is so people can properly cite whichever time period is relevant to their article. For example, if you were to talk about Turkey's involvement in a war after 1922, and they had a treaty at their capital, then you would cite Istanbul Istanbul. If you were making an article about chariot racing and wanted to mention the riots in Constantinople after a close race, then you would cite Constantinople. Hope this helped. Gurblet (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
2A01:73C0:501:9368:5853:2DFF:FE8F:BAAC (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Additionally, this is the article for Istanbul, but your edit request was for the Constantinople article, which isn't protected. You should be able to directly edit that article. Liu1126 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2023 (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
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 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 by a sock. The Levent pic was also added by the same sock. 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. 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. 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 . 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, Vital_articles. 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)

In my opinion, the old photos in the information box were better. It's a complete mess right now, as if it was created by an amateur user. The new photos may be more recent, but the previous photos were much better in terms of quality. MrBrandon15 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would have to kind of agree with this, especially the business district photo looks bad compared to the superior, old one. Youprayteas talk/contribs 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored the Levent picture. I am definitely against this one . It's almost 11 years old, the area looks different now. Also the lighting is so bad. It also looks like there was fog or something, the picture makes it look like the air was very polluted. This is a much better picture . The drone shot is also very common if you google Istanbul. Even Britannica has a similar picture . We also need a bridge picture. This one shows both a bridge and Bosporus, which is one of the main features of Istanbul. It also shows Maslak in distance. So I definitely want these 2:  . Except those, I'm very open to suggestions. Should we change the Maiden's Tower one to the old one? Bogazicili (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili I agree with MrBrandon15 that basically all the newer photos look worse lighting and composition-wise; the only exception I could think of to this is the historic peninsula one, which is okay all around.
 * For the Bosphorus Bridge photo, I understand your concern about age, but as the landmarks are still recognizable, I don't see age as our biggest concern. I don't see any of the problems you see with lighting; I think the photo fits in well with the rest of the old infobox, and the air is not polluted; the haze is just the work of Lodos, which is altogether too common to dismiss as anomalous (See here for confirmation of Lodos that day). The alternative FSM photo is not of good quality or composition.
 * Similar issues are prevalent in most of your new infobox photos; especially those of İstiklal and the Maiden's Tower.
 * I would in fact be glad if the infobox was left alone; it was a stable version for a reason. Uness232 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To people unaware of Lodos in Istanbul (which would be majority of viewers of English-language Wikipedia), this picture looks polluted af. It was also added by a long-term sock. I'll restore Maiden's Tower and wait for further comments. I like that the new İstiklal picture shows an actual crowd, which is representative of that street, whereas the old pic (from 2007) just shows a tram. The colors in the pic look also artificially altered   Bogazicili (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see alternative placement of Topkapı Palace and Maiden's Tower here: User:Bogazicili/sandbox Bogazicili (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili Whether it looks polluted or not, it is how Istanbul looks a good 30 percent of the year. I also find it to be a much better photo than your alternative.
 * Point taken on the colors of the tram photo. I've reverted the person who added the filter to the tram photo about a year ago, so it should now look unaltered.
 * Looking at the state of this discussion, I will be reverting to the old infobox per WP:QUO as there does not seem to be any consensus on these changes yet; and while we can continue discussing here, I would think that an WP:RfC is in order to get some wider community feedback. Uness232 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not enough discussion before RFC yet. Previous version was added without consensus or a previous RFC. See: WP:RFCBEFORE. You seem opposed to any change from your above responses. See Status quo stonewalling. Any substantial reason why you prefer an old image added by a long term sock? Bogazicili (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili Point taken on an RfC I suppose, though I don't see how our differing aesthetic tastes can be resolved without wider community consensus.
 * For the stonewalling comment: Indeed, I am opposed to both of the proposed changes; though I believe I have given clear reasoning in each case. I have never refused to take part in this discussion, neither have I resorted to methods which make changing the status quo impossible, and I am also not the sole editor who has voiced concerns about the recent changes. I don't see how this -- especially reverting until discussion ends, a standard practice -- would be stonewalling.
 * For your last question; as I have said before, my substantive reason is that I think the alternative image you put forward is inferior in both quality and composition, and I think the new infobox photos you have organized are not cohesive. Uness232 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You completely ignored my comments about 1-3-2-1 format and that this  is a quality image. You ignored that  was ok with some of the changes . You seem to be doing the bare minimum just so you can revert. Given the poor quality state this article is currently in, I am actually surprised you are so motivated to maintain status quo. Bogazicili (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili I am not motivated to 'maintain the status quo'; I simply dislike the proposed photos, which you are somehow interpreting as stonewalling.
 * I also did not ignore your comments on the 1-3-2-1 format, because I did not oppose the 1-3-2-1 format. I opposed the new photos, though I also do not see a 1-3-2-1 format as necessary.
 * My problem with the Topkapı photo was largely cohesion with the other photos (though I admittedly did forget that it was a quality photo). I do not know what Youprayteas' comments have to do with my opinion, but the other user I mentioned was MrBrandon15, not Youprayteas. Uness232 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * and, what do you think of the images here User:Bogazicili/sandbox? Bogazicili (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * İstiklal Avenue photo is bad imo. Topkapı image, I can't see the building. The Bosphorus photo seems unnecesarry, you can just do just 1-3-2 perhaps. I would also reccomend adding some place from the Asian side. Youprayteas talk/contribs 19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * so you prefer this to this, right? , any preference among those 2 pics? Bogazicili (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I am undecided but the [18] is newer. Ask other people. Youprayteas talk/contribs 04:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the current images in the infobox are better. Especially the first picture, the Bosphorus Bridge, shouldn't be changed in any case. But maybe Istiklal Street photo can change, because the photo doesn't reflect the condition of the street very well. MrBrandon15 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need Turkish name and pronunciation in lead?
I think we don’t need (Turkish: İstanbul) in the lead because it is already in the infobox. And I don’t think we need the audio file in the lead because it is already in the names section. To me as a Brit (Australian: Pom) (American: Limey) it sounds exactly the same as I would say it in English.

But perhaps you Yanks, Ozzies etc disagree? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * (Americans do not actually say limey ever.)
 * Yes, I would say all else being equal it seems redundant as lead clutter—as are most orthographically-similar translation forms that can be footnoted or explicated elsewhere. I understand I and İ are different letters, not one just being the other with a diacritic in Turkish orthography, but I'm curious how others feel. Remsense  诉  10:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved down to body Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense So did you put the IPA pronunciation footnote back in the lead because it is useful to your fellow Americans or because we need more comments here? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with having it in both places: in fact, I think it's necessarily consistent to do so. Remsense  诉  14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A footnote is not a big problem, but it is one more bit of clutter in a now cluttered lead. I think the onus should be for people who want things to be in the lead to justify them being there, generally because of their importance Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a direct argument, but it approximately 1.5em of clutter in a lead section that is really not that cluttered to begin with.
 * Secondly, can you find an applicable article about any major figure, place, or event that doesn't follow MOS:LEADLANG, i.e. either a brief parenthetical or an explanatory footnote with this information? The justification is presumably the one that has created such a universal consensus of such: it's there and fills the niche where it's useful. It's pretty straightforwardly important, unless you genuinely want me to try and elaborate why, which would be hard.
 * Frankly, as alluded to above, the lead is not that bad at present. If you want to do the maximal amount to improve this article, decimate clutter in the article itself (there's plenty to work though!) and circle back around to the lead later. Remsense  诉  15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Accessibility nightmare..... Try to keep our readers.... put it in a note...... Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Moxy 🍁 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Vali
Add the Vali - Governor of Istanbul (Davut Gül). --95.24.65.15 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * it isn't really possible to add to the infobox- no area for "governor" ~ eticangaaa  ( talk ) 18:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Too much toponomy and history in the lead?
At the moment most of the lead is toponomy and history. But some sections in the body of the article are not mentioned at all. For example: administration, politics, sports, media, education, public services, and transportation. Perhaps there should be brief mention of some of those in the lead and less about toponomy and history? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense that history occupies a large part of the lead for such an old city, but that doesn't stop other topics from being added to the lead, of course. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So you would be happy with a 5th para being added? And trimming the names info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have moved a lot of names info to body of article. I left all the history in lead but joined into a single para. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 here's the thing: the lead is not that long. It's four paragraphs, but they are small paragraphs. I don't think any information needs to be removed to fill out the lead accordingly, it just needs to be smartly arranged, I would compare with that of articles like New York City and Shanghai. Remsense  诉  12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand the part of your change comment which says “the omission of this history is totally egregious imo” as almost everything I removed from the lead was about non-English names not history.
 * Also please could you explain how the lead was not following the manual of style about linking. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is a disaster with almost one third being different Greek spellings, while entire sections are missing ranging from education to economy etc. New Rome was also a very brief name, seems too not WP:SUMMARY in the lead with the Greek and Latin. This article used to be FA. See that version from Article milestones . This article would make a good case study of how Wikipedia articles degrade. Bogazicili (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't planning on being convinced at first—really, articles usually don't simply degrade, most FFAs and FGAs are in large part the result of standards getting higher, though the dysgenic dynamics of either category are actually quite different, anyway—yes. I would almost say we should just cut and paste this, check a few times, and call it a day. Why don't editors do that more? It's clearly better, it's available, so let's make the article better in two clicks. Remsense  诉  18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - after that the lead would only need very small updates like removing the last sentence Chidgk1 (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No preference here, this is on my list of articles to improve but not sure when I'll get there. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction on the lead section
Hi,

A sentence such as "A severe earthquake is likely in the next 10 years" is persistently wanted to be added to the lead section. First of all, this contradicts WP:CRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia doesn’t predict the future!. Of course, seismologists' assumptions are valuable information, but this does not apply to an anonymous statement in the introduction @Chidgk1. We can then ask "According to whom". Also, In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. (see:WP:LEAD). Why include a future earthquake prediction here? There ara many topics about the city, geography and environment, climate, flora and fauna, architecture, sports, economy?? I object to this change and want it to be discussed and I removing the relevant addition during this period. Adem (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Adem WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply here:
 * Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
 * CRYSTALBALL is about rumors and unverifiable information; not notable, expert predictions.
 * Your other concern is much more convincing in my opinion. The statement is written in wikivoice, which indeed may be inappropriate. It is also unclear whether this is the most mainstream position; I do not think that seismologists have that amount of agreement about the Istanbul earthquake. Uness232 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Uness232 How about my suggested sentence below or similar? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or "over ten thousand in the next 20 years" according to official estimate at https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/17/middleeast/turkey-earthquake-istanbul-mime-intl Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think “earthquake” should be mentioned in the lead because the earthquake subsection in the body of the article is very important, due to the number of people in the city who are now alive but at great risk of being killed. I don’t know how that contradicts WP:CRYSTALBALL as it is not us editors predicting the future but seismologists and building experts. That rule includes “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.” As to whether it should be in WP:WIKIVOICE I am open to discussion. If you like it could be written something like “Seismologists and building experts estimate that, unless many weak apartment blocks are strengthened or replaced, tens of thousands of people will be killed by earthquakes this century.” but that would be rather longer than the sentence you removed. I look forward to hearing opinions and suggestions from more people. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Right, they may be included, but the seismology community is not a huge part of the reliable source base for a world city, so it's certainly WP:UNDUE, it's being put in the lede because we unduly feel it to be particularly important to the subject, like we're telling people something they need to know. Remsense  诉  15:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what you mean “the seismology community is not a huge part of the reliable source base for a world city”. Can you clarify? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, look at the lead! There is so much to say about Istanbul, and a lead has to be fair in summarizing it in four paragraphs (ideally) Remsense  诉  06:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We're talking about earthquake forecasting, not prediction. I'm unconvinced that it belongs in the lead section though. Mikenorton (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just earthquake forecasting - the huge Urban seismic risk makes it important enough for the lead. Do you know any other cities with such a large urban seismic risk? Perhaps Katmandu and Delhi but I cannot find such good sources for them only https://www.forbes.com/2007/12/04/earthquakes-india-japan-biz-cx_db_1203earthquakes_slide.html?sh=2f9859693a6e Chidgk1 (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We agree on the seismological activity: however, the specific connection you are making is undue unless it has more attestation, as the lead should summarize the article, which should in turn reflect the body of reliable sources on a topic, and not privilege certain subtopics. If I may, Los Angeles, Santiago, and Tokyo are also important cities with a lot of important seismological activity, but their article leads do not mention this—Tokyo's mentions a specific individual earthquake as an epoch in the city's history—because that would seem to privilege what editors personally feel is important beyond the balance established by relevant sources—meaning, not just seismologists. Doubly so because it's a future, and therefore even more niche, statement.  Remsense  诉  06:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * in my opinon this shouldn't be in the lead in its current form, mostly because of the WP:DUE issue mentioned by Remense above, but also because those are rather strong words to just leave in there without any further context. If a comment about the earthquake risk for Istanbul were to be included in the lead, it would have to be more quantified, and discussed in a relevant context. In this case that would be an alinea summarising the geography section of the article, for example. Which dovetails nicely into the discussion just opened below this one! --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re quantification and comparison of urban seismic risk between cities you must be more expert in the subject than me. I don’t know any Istanbul equivalent of UCERF3. I guess Kandilli Observatory is the most reliable source? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that Istanbul is prone to earthquakes and sits close to North Anatolian Fault can be mentioned in the lead. Los Angeles, Santiago, and Tokyo are not GA or FA, so not really examples for this article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that Istanbul is prone to earthquakes and sits close to North Anatolian Fault can be mentioned in the lead. Los Angeles, Santiago, and Tokyo are not GA or FA, so not really examples for this article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)