Talk:Istanbul/Archive 3

Lock the Article
We must protect the article because there is an unsigned vandal editing stupid things. Deliogul 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think the guy stopped. Deliogul 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, doesn't this article deserves to be a featured article? I think it is even better than the articles of some nations. Deliogul 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Deliogul why not take this job as ur task, we can help you on the way.--OttomanReference 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you must wait until 20 January. I have some important final exams :) I will start to work after the end of the finel week. Deal? Deliogul 21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might need to visit a library and get some real data; the text is full of &*^%$ I'm not a citizen of Istanbul, just familiarity, so I did not feel like correcting. --OttomanReference 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * University's library will be a good choice. After finals, I will scan the article to find the weak points so I can borrow books from library according to my findings. See you, Deliogul 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know where to put this, but the weather chart is inaccurate and awful. For example, in April the Highest Recorded, 8, is lower than the average high, 12. Same/reverse problem for the lows. And if you click on the Weatherbase link, it provides only average temps and precip., not highest/lowest recorded. (For comparison, April is 11-20 degrees C). 204.130.0.8 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)CMS 3/7/07

Edits of Ottomanreference
I think we need to revert ottomanreference's edits before its too late because
 * 1.the images cannot be used as illustrative purposes anymore.
 * 2.most descriptive sections are deleted (like administration,airpors,railroads,etc..),, and really unnecessary and confusing ones were created like urban design section is mixed with city arrangement and population growth which is not its place.Things like utilities can be mentioned in broader groups too.
 * 3.some useless charts were created like in population growth while it is important to see exact dates like 1453 which is not obvious in the charts.
 * 4.some things are listed although they mustnt have been.

although it doesnt look too bad overall, i think someone has to add what ottomanreference has been doing well to the previous version because now the main structure of the article is broken and will be too difficult to fix soon. 85.97.42.216 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is in improvement drive; the structure of the article should be same as other featured cities. (a) no content is removed. All the previous content is there. (b) The extensive number of pictures are under the lists related to Istanbul; see the relevant "lists sectio." (c) this is more than a month long improvement drive, the pics to the article will be organized afther the work on the text will be finished. Not this is an encyclopedia not a catalog, it has to include significant amount of information not significant amount of pics.OttomanReference 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish the users who adds these images (tons of it) would be interested in the improvement of the lists. The lists are presented as main pages for the relevant sections in the article. OttomanReference 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For the relevant parts: OttomanReference 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * List of museums and monuments in Istanbul
 * List of urban centers in Istanbul
 * List of universities in Istanbul
 * List of schools in Istanbul
 * List of architectural structures in Istanbul
 * List of columns and towers in Istanbul
 * List of libraries in Istanbul

Symbol of Istanbul Municipality
I think the symbol is relevant and deserves inclusion in the infobox, but in a better, clearer form. Certainly this exists on the internet: or. Can such a logo be appropriated under fair use? Otherwise, there is that on the commons, though it also took lacks a certain quality the page deserves.--Patrickneil 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you help us with the blue version of this logo. + is it possible to have it named as Logo? Even if it may be used as a flag, Turkish constitution do not enable it to be named as "flag". The administrative divisions (including municipals) do not have official flags in Turkey. Thanks --OttomanReference 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are logos in various formats in this official address. I think they can be used under fair use, since this page is titled "press materials", it is as if they are for use in media. The example above is not good, this logo is not usually on a red background. It is not a flag for sure, but apart from being the logo of the municipality, it is a kind of symbol for the city as well. Filanca 12:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

History
I think it is a shame that while there is so much information about the history of Constantinople, yet, so little about history of Ottoman and Turkish Istanbul in this encyclopedia. Filanca 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that it is not possible to make a sharp distinction between Byzantine Constantinople and Ottoman Constantinople / Istanbul in terms of spatial arrangements, architectural structure, city life. A strong continuity can be observed even after the conquest of the City. On the contrary the major milestone in the history of the city is the Latin Invasion in 1204 during which Catholic West sacked all the wealth of the city almost 200 years before the Ottomans. However this is wikipedia and representation of facts is doomed to be biased due to nationalistic edits by all sides. --Z yTalk 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crime
Crime is an integral part of city information. Represented under demographics; some examples from featured cities:--OttomanReference 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma and crime section
User User:Shuppiluliuma, this is a city article. Two days ago you were deleting this section. Today, most of the information you are adding belongs to demographics of Turkey. Please, do not include information which has factual problems, such as Ugur Mumcu did not killed in Istanbul. Or your extensive definition of what a petty crime should be located in its own page. Thanks for your efforts. --OttomanReference 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag
Tag is in relation to the statement
 * Istanbul is also the only city in history which served as the capital of three different empires: the Roman Empire (330-395), Byzantine Empire (395-1453) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922)

This statement is not only childish in understanding, but false in content. A western scholar invented the term "Byzantine" because some Westerners then were under the delusion that the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century, and that the poor, backward and peripheral western provinces still constituted the Empire's core in the 5th century, which of course was the opposite of the truth. But let's ignore this and pretend that the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire were two different empire; well, Beijing was capital of at least 7 different Empires, including the State of Yan, Later Jin Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty and Mongol Empire, became capital of the Ming Dynasty, and the Qing Dynasty,. Xi'an (Chang'an) of ten. Babylon was capital of the Babylonian Empire, the neo-Babylonian Empire and became capital of the Persian Empire; as Ctesiphon-Seleucia was capital of the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, and as Baghdad capital of the Abbasid Empire. For this reason and others, claims about being only city to be capital of three Empires is false, both because it was only capital of two AND because other cities have like or greater honours. I tried many different ways to accomodate, but he reverted every one for this. I've got no option now but to tag the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the capital of three Empires, or at least three states that claimed to be one. Constantinople was capital of the Latin Empire between 1204 and 1261. Agreed, however, that the Roman Empire and the so-called Byzantine Empire are the same thing. In fact, as early as 284, Diocletian was governing the Roman Empire from an eastern city, Nicomedia. Also agreed that it's an interesting but not noteworthy fact. Beijing probably holds the record for being the capital of the most different states. Jsc1973 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there needs to be some discussion of what constitutes an empire. Certainly the state of Yan during the Warring States Period of China, for instance, wasn't an empire--nor were the later Chinese dynasties mentioned for that matter. I also think that there is an argument for differentiating between the combined Latin-speaking Roman empire and the later Greek-speaking (Byzantine) Roman empire. For instance see the following from the wikipedia article on Roman Empire: "Of the many accepted dates for the end of the Roman state, the latest is 610. This is when the Emperor Heraclius made sweeping reforms, forever changing the face of the empire. Greek was readopted as the language of government and Latin influence waned. By 610, the eastern part of the Roman Empire had gone under Greek influence and evolved into what modern historians now call the Middle Age Byzantine Empire, although the Empire was never called that way by its contemporaries (rather it was called Romania, Basileia Romaion or Pragmata Romaion). The Byzantines continued to call themselves Romans until their fall to Ottoman Turks in 1453. That year the eastern part of the Roman Empire was ultimately ended by the Fall of Constantinople. Constantine XI, emperor of the Byzantine Empire during 1453 is considered the last Roman emperor. The Greek ethnic self-descriptive name "Romans" survives to this day." I am not suggesting re-adding the statement, as an arguable claim like this probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. However, I personally think that, depending on the definition of the terms, the claim could be considered true. 85.109.6.201 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)veryshuai

Capital contradiction
In Ottoman Empire, Istanbul is listed as the fourth capital. Here, "Istanbul became the third capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453." Clearly the same convention should be used on both of these articles. Calbaer 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is about the way you look. Ottomans were a little Beylik at first and their lands were named Söğüt and Domaniç. Some sources count Söğüt of the early stages as a capital and other sources prefer to count Bursa, Edirne and Constantinople as the capitals of the Ottoman State. Deliogul 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Different "dynasties" don't make different "empires". The Byzantine Empire had 16 different dynasties
Calgacus, different "dynasties" don't make different "empires".

If we "unzip" the Byzantine Empire into its different dynasties (the same way in which the Chinese Empire is "unzipped" into different dynasties) we'll see that there were 16 different Byzantine dynasties, with no bloodline connection at all.

See List of Byzantine emperors (dynasties)

In that case, we would have 16 different Roman/Byzantine Empires, plus the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922) which makes a grand total (between 330 and 1922) of 18 different dynasties (empires with your logic) in which Istanbul still outperforms Beijing or Babylon or any other example you can come up with.

Officially, though, Constantinople has been the capital city of the Roman Empire (330-395), the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire (395-1204 and 1261-1453), the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922), which makes 4 empires.

These are "facts", not mere "opinions".

Also, the first settlement in Istanbul is not Byzantion. Byzantion was built on the site of Lygos, an ancient fishing settlement established by Thracian tribes between the 13th and 11th centuries BC, along with the neighbouring Semistra.

When the Greek colonists from Megara came, they actually first established Chalcedon (present Kadıköy) on Cape Moda at the Asian side in 685 BC. They later established Byzantion, in 667 BC, at the Seraglio Point, where Lygos used to stand. Several walls and substructures dating from Lygos are still found in this area. Also, the Phoenicians had established another settlement near Kadiköy-Üsküdar, on the Asian side, not to mention the settlement in Fikirtepe dating from 5500 BC. So Istanbul is actually much older than Byzantion.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmSYv8tFcEgAvSlXNyoA?p=lygos+semistra+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkj6fv8tFDSMBKzNXNyoA?p=lygos+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkibWv8tFjmQAIyVXNyoA?p=semistra+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkk7tv8tFFAYBc5lXNyoA?p=istanbul+fikirtepe+bc&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

These findings are recent enough, that's why you have to check the latest editions of Encyclopedia Britannica to see them (or Ana Britannica which is the Turkish edition).

I will add these details one by one.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire and the "Byzantine Empire" are the same state. No one, during the entire 1900-plus year history of the Roman state, ever differentiated between the two. Only latter-day historians have done so. There was a continuous governmental entity over that entire time period, regardless of the changes in territory ruled by it.


 * The comparison to China isn't valid. China, for much of its history, has not been a unified state. Many of the Chinese dynasties only ruled part of the country, often alongside other dynasties. When one dynasty reunified the whole of China, historians have always counted it as a new nation-state, because there was no continuous entity linking the various reunifications. Between 509BC and 1453AD, the Roman state always existed in some form and governed some territory, even in the years after the Fourth Crusade. The same is not true of China. Jsc1973 06:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, medieval western Europeans called it the "Greek Empire," and certainly differentiated it from the old Roman Empire. This was largely because they were ignorant.  I would add that it is quite arguable that the original Roman/Byzantine state ceased to exist in 1204, and was replaced by a variety of different successor states - the Latin Empire, Trebizond, Nicea, Epirus - which then proceeded to battle it out for supremacy, with Nicea only emerging (largely) triumphant in 1261, and never fully reuniting the pre-1204 state, since there were still independent Emperors of Trebizond for several years after Constantinople itself fell to the Turks.  But  I am nitpicking.  Calgacus is certainly right that the idea that "three empires" made their capital at Constantinople is difficult to justify.  Saying that Heraclius is somehow a breaking point between Constantinople as a "Roman" capital and it as a "Byzantine" capital is essentially arbitrary. john k 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're the one disseminating nonsense. Medieval Europeans called the "Byzantine Empire" the "Eastern Empire", as opposed to the defunct "Western Empire" which was 'restored' by Charlemagne in 800. A reunification was even proposed by way of a marriage between him and the Eastern empress Irene. Among the educated people of Europe, it was also referred to as "Romania," Land of the Romans. It may have been acknowledged as a Greek empire, but it was clearly known and recognized as the surviving portion of the Roman Empire. Even Muhammad addressed Heraclius as "Caesar of Rome" in a letter.

Your statement about 1204 is entirely reasonable, but now you're the one going against historical convention. The old Empire broke up after the Fourth Crusade, and the rulers of Epirus, Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond all claimed to be the "Roman Emperor" or equivalent. Since Nicaea was ultimately able to back up its claim militarily, we accept it today. Just like Henry VII of England should never have been King, but he "convinced" everybody otherwise at the point of a sword. Jsc1973 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: No, excessive use of subsections and incomplete paragraphs.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Not quite, claims of leadership in many areas not supported by references. One ref is a yahoo search?
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Short sections, but covers a broad range of topics.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Not quite.
 * 5. Article stability? No, atleast 5 reverts this month alone.
 * 6. Images?: Copyright issues exist. (Eg. Image:Istanbul_from_above.jpg)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Alan.ca 09:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Images in Istanbul
Following complaints from OttomanReference, I removed the images that I added to Istanbul from WowTurkey.Com, our web site. Feel free to upload your own images. I apologize for ruining everything. Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Istanbul's "controversial" status as an imperial capital city in its past, which sounds "racist" according to OttomanReference (maybe he meant "chauvinistic", I can't see the "racism" here) Shuppiluliuma 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate hyperlink under the Haydarpasa Station photo in the last edit by OttomanReference
I was determined not to "help", but I couldn't "help it" :D

Haydarpasa Terminal is NOT the terminus of the Orient Express (that's the Sirkeci Terminal on the European side)

Haydarpasa Terminal was opened in 1908 as the terminus of the Baghdad Railway (Istanbul-Baghdad Railway) and the Hijaz railway (which can be called the "Istanbul-Medina Railway" because it extended the previous line between Istanbul and Damascus all the way to Medina, thus connecting Istanbul and Medina)

Hopefully someone who knows Istanbul good enough will correct it.

Regards.


 * PS With the good article review advised to remove the pictures that has controversial copyright issues. The rest of the pictures are distributed to corresponding sections. I just moved that picture, after checking the copyright status, from the gallery to the beginning of the section. The text under the picture is written by someone else. Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image with the controversial copyright
The only image with the controversial copyright is "Istanbul_from_above.jpg" (the top image) which I scanned from the poster of the Bosphorus Marathon of several years ago.

Other images are from WowTurkey and have no copyright problems.

The WowTurkey images can be re-added, but unfortunately I don't have the capability of doing it myself. Eventually, as new (more recent) images arrive from Wikipedians living in Istanbul, they can/will replace the WowTurkey images within time (updating the city's street level view and skyline), of course. DragutBarbarossa 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos needed
I urge wikipedians residing in İstanbul to go out, take photos of modern İstanbul (north of Beşiktaş), and upload them with proper free licenses to Wikimedia Commons. There are enough free licensed photos for the old city but almost none for the actual city center. And I mean no offense for the other fine districts. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sister cities Istanbul
Rio de JAneiro is not a sister city of Istanbul! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.181.232.140 (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Then cite your source. We love Brazilians haha :) Deliogul 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Haydarpaşa Terminal ( once again :) )
Haydarpaşa Terminal on the Anatolian side was opened in 1908, not 1890 as written under its picture.

Sirkeci Terminal on the European side was opened in 1890.

Hence the confusion.

151.38.182.238 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Saint Esprit Cathedral, it's the Sant'Antonio di Padova on İstiklal Avenue
In one of the city photos, the caption gives the wrong information that the red bell tower belongs to the Saint Esprit Cathedral in Harbiye (the page about St. Esprit Cathedral also mistakenly showed an image of Sant'Antonio di Padova on İstiklal Avenue - but I corrected it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Downtown34.jpg

The photo in the link above shows the bell tower of St. Antoine Cathedral (Sant'Antonio di Padova) on İstiklal Avenue in Beyoğlu.

http://www.istanbulguide.net/istguide/im/pera/stantoine1.jpg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=st.+antoine+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

Saint Esprit Cathedral is way up north in Harbiye, is white, smaller, and can't bee seen from Galata Tower.

Below is a picture of the Saint Esprit Cathedral in Harbiye:

http://www.istanbulguide.net/istguide/im/sisli/cathedralestesprit01.jpg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=st.+esprit+istanbul&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

It's the church which Pope Ratzinger visited a few months ago.

More images:

St. Antoine (Sant'Antonio di Padova) on İstiklal Avenue, Beyoğlu

Bell tower of St. Esprit on Cumhuriyet Avenue, Harbiye

151.42.178.208 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures
Article is suffering from too many pictures. I understand many of these are great photos, but do we really need eight photos of education establishments in Istanbul? Or seven in the transporation section? Or six in the economy section? This is going overboard imo. See other FA city articles such as Canberra, San Francisco, California, Vancouver or Detroit, Michigan to get an idea at the kind of article we should be aiming for. --A.Garnet 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They are informative pictures in my opinion.

And, forgive my honesty, but none of the cities you listed above have the history, heritage, buildings and memories of Istanbul (even combined), therefore it's very normal that Istanbul needs more images for a fair representation of its extremely rich and complex character which has evolved into something unique on planet Earth throughout centuries and centuries.

7th Son of a 7th Son 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course all of them are very good and informative pictures, but just for education section, 9 pictures are unnecessary. You can add these pictures to the original articles. Kaygtr 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand 7th, but 9 pictures is too much. Ideally i'd like 3 pictures of a bigger size, but this to me is a compromise. --A.Garnet 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A compromise for what?

What's wrong about showing the beautiful school buildings of Istanbul?

There are actually many many more, and some of them are former palaces, such as the Galatasaray University (aka Feriye Palace) on the Bosphorus which is not even shown.

Very few cities in the world have more beautiful and grand school buildings (and historic schools) than Istanbul, and as true Istanbulites we have the right to brag about it.

Those who are not true Istanbulites may not care, but I do. And I believe many others like me also do. 7th Son of a 7th Son 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well good luck with it, because imo your turning this into an ugly article. --A.Garnet 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think that there's too much church image in the article. It must be more balanced.--BlueEyedCat 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Series of Istanbul articles and its template
Lets make a template for Istanbul, everything about it. The current article is big, and we can split it and make it into a series of articles related to Istanbul, just like the 'Kurdish history and Culture series' thing. Istanbul deserves it. Can we just do it, or do we need to make requests? deniz 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

any comments? And, thanks a lot everybody, especially Kerem and 7th Son of a 7th Son, for greatly improving the article lately. It looks beautiful with the images, but the images might be diverting readers' attention, which is not good. deniz 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Weatherbox
The data in the weatherbox is inaccurate and links to the wrong page on weatherbase. See http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=6071&refer=&units=metric Can someone edit it, or explain to me how I can edit it? Gerry Lynch 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a template, Template:Istanbul weatherbox

Thanks in advance for your contributions deniz 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture in template
The Hagia Sophia is a far more notable landmark in Istanbul than Maiden's Tower. It would be better if the Hagia Sophia was the lead picture, or some other picture that is more representative of Istanbul.--Sefringle 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Picture in template
Hagia Sophia is not the only symbol of Istanbul.

The image with the Maiden's Tower contains:


 * Maiden's Tower (408 BC) in the foreground


 * Left to right: The Blue Mosque (1616), Hagia Sophia (537), Topkapi Palace (1478), Beyazit Tower (1828) and Suleymaniye Mosque (1557) in the background.

Maiden's Tower (408 BC) is the oldest structure in Istanbul which has continuously existed since 408 BC.

It has witnessed the ancient Greek period, the Roman period, the Byzantine period, the Latin Crusader period, the Ottoman period and the Turkish Republican period. I can't think of an image which can symbolize Istanbul better than the Maiden's Tower in front and the entire peninsula of Constantinople in the background (which is a classic pose by the way - ask the "real Istanbulites" if you don't believe me)

Maiden's Tower & Istanbul = Statue of Liberty & New York

The image of Hagia Sophia, on the other hand, shows only the Hagia Sophia.

And it already existed below. 151.42.178.244 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

imo
But, they are not clear. If we have better pictures of Topkapi palace, or Blue Mosque, they would be better. Hagia Sofia should be near the history section. denizTC 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For me, the Maiden's Tower is definitely a better symbol of Istanbul than anything else. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't to me, because I never heard of it before reading this article. As for notability, Hagia Sophia seems to be far more notable Google gives about 400,000 links to Hagia Sophia, while Maiden's Tower only has about 20,000 links. Not to mention it is historicly more famous as an architectural acheivement. As for the "other buildings," they are hard to see in the picture; if you weren't looking for them, you wouldn't see them.--Sefringle 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that simple google searches of "Hagia Sophia" and then "Maiden's Tower" simply can't measure the notability of these as a symbol of Istanbul, it will just give a clue on how many times these two names occur, on their own, in google's web database. And getting more hits for Hagia Sophia is no surprise. Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no suprise becasue the general academic community has more to say about the Hagia Sophia, because it is a far more notable landmark. The Princeton American Society of Civil Engineers calls it the most famous landmark in Istanbul. . PBS called it the finest example of Byzantime architecture . There are just more academic sites for Hagia Sophia being more notable than there are for Maiden's Tower.--Sefringle 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of city articles are doing is putting a picture not of a particular landmark, but of the skyline. In that case, maybe this image or this image or this image or this image would be better.--Sefringle 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture
I completely agree with Sefringle that the main picture should be the skyline. Istanbul has the most famous skyline on earth, why disregard it? Could I suggest though, a more "artistically" taken picture rather than the ones you suggest Sefringle, maybe the historical peninsula pictured at dusk? Thanks [User:ankaran|ankaran] 25 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.133.193 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm
As per İzmir, İzmit, İskenderun, İnegöl, etc., does anyone think this page should be moved to İstanbul? It's only the difference of a dot, and the Turkish "İ" is pronounced like the English "i" in "sit" (close front unrounded vowel), while the I-with-no-dot is a close back unrounded vowel. "Istanbul" is essentially a misspelling. Khoikhoi 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur - let's move. I will do all the redirect fixes, replacements and category replacements using AWB. Would we need a RM for this? Baristarim 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, WP:RM is not needed for this (Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators.). For controversial moves, the discussion should be placed in the talk page, which is already done. Khoikhoi 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish you did this earlier, I made some edits and changed some İstanbul's to Istanbul, to avoid redirects. Is there an easy way to find such redirects? Google won't be helpful. denizTC 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need to change redirected links either way. Redirects are fine, there's no harm linking through them (see WP:REDIRECT, the section on "don't repair things that aren't broken"). The only thing that's bad is double redirects. - I have no strong opinion on this page move either way, but I'd strongly advise against then going on a spree of changing to "İ" everywhere in other articles, that's likely to raise quite a stink. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

 * What do you want to do Khoi? You redirect this page from İstanbul to Istanbul in Feb.2007. What is the reason that you changed your idea. Why do you want to redirect back? Why? Must . T  C 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fenerbahce ulkerspor is established in 1907 as stated in logo the 2006 date is wrong.

Page movement
Should this page not be moved into Constantinople? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.216.253 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Awiseman: ^ You forgot to remove the real nonsense, by the way. 151.37.191.227 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NO. Istanbul is the official current name. Constantinopole is the old historic name. They are not the same thing, and we'd be confusing the readers by making such a move.--Sefringle 05:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, if anyone knows, would they be kind enough to tell me what Instanbul means? I would be so grateful! Thanks!

~Emily Thompson


 * See Names of Istanbul. Khoikhoi 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally like both names and am proud of my city with all of its names/identities, but such a movement would only provoke Turkish ultranationalists to vandalize the article, and Greek ultranationalists to respond in a similar fashion. In the end, the article would have to be permanently locked. Get real. We live in 2007, and in 2007 the name is "Istanbul".

More logically, the Constantinople article can be moved into Istanbul (just like Nicomedia can be moved into İzmit, Halicarnassus can be moved into Bodrum, Smyrna can be moved into İzmir, etc) or be incorporated into the History of Istanbul section, but I don't think that's a very good idea either, as it will cause a huge "traffic jam" of information overload. 151.44.147.242 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See Names of Istanbul. denizTC 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I understand in Arabic it has been known as Instanbul for 500 years, but in English, it is a totally different story. I say it should be moved to Constantinople. 144.132.216.253 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless :) 151.42.183.128 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, lets move it to constantinople when we start speaking arabic then. :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.48.156 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Even only New York was once New Amsterdam... --Patrick 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People liked it better that way DenizTC 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It cant be compared to NEW York. Constantinople was one of the world's great cities. It is only in the past 50 years that its name has been known differently. --144.132.216.253 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * you are posting to the wrong place. You should send an email to United Nations for that. :D 85.101.56.73 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New York's original name was New Amsterdam. I think this proposal wont work. -- Cat chi? 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we must move the page to Byzantium because it was the real name of the city before that Roman guy gave his name to it :) Deliogul 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fenerbahce hqfl logo.png
Image:Fenerbahce hqfl logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rodin picture
The photo of Rodins famous "Thinker' is somewhat misleading, since the statue isn't on permanent display at an Istanbul museum. Imagine a tourist looking around for it frantically, saying: "But I saw it on Wikipedia!". Shouldn't there be another, equally beautiful statue or painting, preferably from a local artist ? Oh, and by the way, don't forget to always place an artice in front of words. the text is supposed to be in English, not Turkish.


 * It clearly says "during the Auguste Rodin exhibition in 2006", and only a truly illiterate person would think that The Thinker is permanently displayed in Istanbul.


 * Sakıp Sabancı Museum is more famous for its important visiting exhibitions rather than its permanent collection, and as such, the picture of Rodin's The Thinker is a fair representation of what this museum is about. For instance, before the Auguste Rodin exhibition, there was the Pablo Picasso exhibition, in which Picasso's many works were displayed to the public for the first time ever. Flavius Belisarius 09:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Health Care
The section on Health Care indicates that governments send lower income patients to Istanbul for treatment. This is not true. Patients from countries such as UK / Germany who cannot afford non-essential private treatment in their home country may go to Istanbul for the treatment. Such non-essential treatment may include plastic surgery or fertility treatment that would not be covered by free heath care. The referenced BBC article explains this.

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

This article is very long, perhaps a bit too long. It contains a lot of interesting information, and parts of it are very well written. But many sections can go into way too much detail, which doesn't help the prose any, and makes it a bit hard to read at times (some run-on sentences, some awkward listing within prose). Probably the best sections are the economy and culture sections. Oddly enough, the lead section is also reasonably good, as it does provide a good summary of the city as a whole (though it could be expanded to include some more details on the economy). At times, the article seems a bit heavy on the photos, almost like too many editors have added too many photos and they're trying to squeeze them all in. Consider moving some to sub-articles linked to this one.

So, at present, I really can't put this article at GA status. I tried! Considered putting it 'on hold' pending some revisions, but in the end I think there's just a bit too much for a short review time. I still think it's close, though. I'd presently assess this as a 'high B-class' article. If the length, prose, and referencing issues can be addressed in the next month or so, I'd like to see this article renominated by the end of August or early September,... ;-)

It might help editors to look at the current FA-level article New York City, which is roughly the same population as Istanbul.


 * But has 1/10 of its history, historic buildings, events and states/empires, which makes an enormous difference. Istanbul is a far more complicated city, and defining such a complicated city (perhaps the most complicated in the world) requires more space. Flavius Belisarius 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific issues:


 * where does the name "istanbul" come from? this should be in the 'names' section.

'''* look into internal reference on Bonaparte quote in history section. Though it's referencing wikiquote, an actual reference would be better? - CORRECTED 12 Sep 07'''

'''* Septimius Severus: refer to the "Roman Emporer Septimius Severus" first, then you can simply say "Severus" in the next sentence (not the other way around). - CORRECTED 27 sep 07'''


 * History section; few references. Could use more. Probably sufficient for GA status, barely. Definitely not acceptable for FA status. Nice use of panoramic image.


 * Satellite photo in climate section overlaps with temperature table, depending on browser size and screen resolution settings. The temperature table could probably be reduced in size to help alleviate this (see the table on Flagstaff, Arizona as an example). Maybe move the image up a level to the top of the geography section, too.


 * Put square miles in parentheses next to square kilometers. Ditto for the millimeters measurements (also, use 87 cm instead of 870 mm - go with the unit that results in smaller integers); though I noticed both C & F are there for temperature (For us Americans -- hey, don't blame me if my country won't adopt the superior metric system! Our President is a dumbass, and only a step above 'chimpanzee', remember? ;-) ...


 * No references on the text of the climate section. Although the 'weatherbase' reference in the table could most likely be used for most of it. Instead of linking directly to the weatherbase.com site in the text, use the 'ref' tags (in the text and table), so that the reference shows up in the reference listing at the end.


 * The panoramic view at the right of the geology section really does not good at that size. I would recommend either placing it at the very bottom of 'geology', similar to the way the other panoramic views are done, or it could even be eliminated without any great loss to the article.


 * Change the link to the list of architectural structures to a 'see also' link at the top of the section. Doesn't look right to include this in the main text. Oh wait, it already is in the 'see also' link. Then this opening sentence is a bit redundant.


 * The architecture section, while interesting, is very long. It's a bit heavy on the pictures as well. Many of the pictures have very long captions attached to them as well, which is a bit awkward given the small size of the images. Also, considering the historical details of this section, I am surprised at how few references that it has. I would recommend shortening this section. Cover the core topic of how architecture developed and changed in the city of Istanbul, with two or three photos, and leave the minute historical details to a 'main: ' linked separate article.

'''* "As of 2007, the metropolitan mayor of Istanbul is Kadir Topbaş, see list of mayors of Istanbul." Move the link to the list of mayors to a 'see also' link, at the top of the section. - CORRECTED 27 Sep 07'''

'''* "The metropolitan council is accepted as the competent authority for decision-making." Really? It's good to know that citizens feel that their government is competent (most don't), but this sentence could probably be rephrased a bit better. - CORRECTED 27 Sep 07'''


 * "On both the European and Asian sides of the Bosphorus, wealthy Istanbulites built luxurious chalet mansions, called yalı, which were used as summer residences." This sentence doesn't seem like it goes in the government/administrative section. It would probably be better served in a description of the overall cityscape, earlier in the article.

'''* Two 'citation needed' tags in the demographics section. MUST be resolved prior to GA status. - CORRECTED 27 Sep 07'''


 * The religion section is very long. As a subsection of demographics, it should primarily cover the current religious distribution of the city. Since much of Istanbul's history is tied to religion, a lot of the historical developmental details can be moved to a separate article, or to the History of Istanbul article. Or, create a new main section, not under demographics, specifically for religion, since it stands separately. But considering the article's large size already, this should probably be moved to a new article instead.


 * Istanbul is the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and was formerly (until 1924) the seat of the Islamic Caliphate. Naturally, the religion section is more detailed than the average city. Flavius Belisarius 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The economy section is well-written and well-referenced. This could be a good model for improvement of other sections.


 * One 'citation needed' tag in the 'health and medicine' section, and one in the 'utilities' section. Needs to be addressed prior to GA status.


 * Dates incorrectly linked. Per WP:MOS, full dates (August 9, 2007) should be fully linked. Individual days/months should not. Months connected to years alone should not be linked. Single years generally should not be linked unless there is context for it to be linked for better understanding (though there is some disagreement over linking of single years; whether they should be linked or not -- general consensus at WP:FAC is leaning towards unlinked years). The date thing is less important for GA status; I'd let this slide, but the article would definitely get nailed at WP:FAC on this.


 * 'Life in the city' - section heading is a bit awkward; sounds a bit more like it belongs in a tourist guide than an encyclopedia. Recommend changing to 'arts & culture'. The unreferenced blurb at the top of the section could probably be shortened and added to the beginning of the 'art and culture' subsection.


 * Italicize the names of newspapers (WP:MOS). The first Turkish newspaper name is a red-link. (minor: could probably slip for GA status, but should be done nonetheless)


 * The education section seems to go into too much detail on high schools, with little emphasis on colleges and universities and almost nothing (two sentences) on libraries. An entire long paragraph on Fen Liseleri (Science High Schools) is probably unnecessary for an article about the city. Are there school districts in Istanbul, or are all schools pretty much administered separately. How many total students attend schools (at all levels) in the city?


 * That's because the high schools (especially foreign/minority high schools) are the most interesting part. Few other cities in the world have older (and a larger variety of) high schools (especially historic foreign high schools) than Istanbul, due to the city's cosmopolitan heritage. Flavius Belisarius 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sports section completely unreferenced. The table of sports teams seems pretty low quality. Several red links, lots of repetitive info (every basketball team is in the turkish basketball league? really? probably can eliminate the 'league' column then). There's lowercase words, and uppercase words intermingled throughout the table (e.g. 'Club' is capitalized, but 'sports' is not in the headers).


 * All of those teams are in the TBL (Turkish Basketball League). Unlike in the U.S., where each city has only one or maximum two (Los Angeles) NBA basketball teams, Istanbul has multiple basketball teams, and is thus the locomotive of the Turkish Basketball League. Other large Turkish cities like Ankara, Izmir (now reduced to 1 team after the fall of Tuborg Pilsner to the second division) and Bursa also have multiple basketball teams. Flavius Belisarius 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No references in the sister cities section. The list of sister cities can be obtained at www.sister-cities.org, and that site can be used as a reference for this section (see Flagstaff, Arizona as an example).


 * The 'related lists' section could probably be eliminated, since most of those lists appear to already be included in article sections previously mentioned. per WP:MOS, if a link is used in the article text, it's generally not added as a 'see also' link at the end of the article. The 'see also' section is for related topics that have not been mentioned earlier in the article. I'd recommend eliminating the section, and adding any lists not mentioned in earlier sections to the 'see also' section below.


 * For html link references, full citation information should be included for the links, not just the link and title. The full citation should have the author (if available), publisher or name of website, date of publication (date it was placed on the web), and date of retrieval. Most of the links do not follow this format. See WP:CITE for more information on formatting inline references.


 * Watch the external links section! It looks like it contains some linkspam. There's a ticketmaster advertisement there, which should be removed, and three separate links to separate pages on emporis.com (if the site is notable, one link to the main page would suffice). See WP:EL for more information on what links are acceptable.


 * The Emporis links are specific to the subject (historic buildings inventory, modern buildings inventory, etc.) It's very difficult for someone to go to that site's homepage (www.emporis.com) and find each specific topic. I could, because I'm an editor there. The Biletix link, on the other hand, is extremely useful to check out what's going on in the city (art exhibitions, concerts, festivals, etc.) Flavius Belisarius 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. As an additional note, I didn't check all of the fair-use rationales on images. I checked a few, and the ones I saw seemed acceptable. But I didn't look at them all due to other issues. Dr. Cash 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire?
Byzantine was not an empire! See the meaning of "empire". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs).


 * Byzantine Empire was one of the most famous empires in history. Took its name from Byzantium, later Constantinople. Actually modern historians prefer Eastern Roman Empire as the name of the empire. I didn't understand what you mean?! Deliogul 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image
I think Ortakoy mosque picture is a good representative of Istanbul, it shows a (prominent) mosque (one thing Istanbul is famous for), and the Bosporus (bridge) along with a partial skyline of the Anatolian side (it was the sight chosen by G. W. Bush and co). The bad thing about it is that it does not show the skyline of European part (the current one neither). I think it is better than showing just one building. We already have picture of Hagia Sophia as well. My suggestion is to replace the Hagia Sophia image down there by the one that is currently in the infobox, and move the Ortakoy mosque image to infobox. This was we will have removed an image, which will cut down from the page loading time. Imo, the alternatives of Ortakoy mosque image should be Image:View_of_Istanbul_from_G%C3%BClhane_Park.jpg, Image:A_cruise_ship_and_seabus_on_the_Bosphorus_in_Istanbul_on_30_May_2007.jpg and Image:Rumeli_hisari.jpg, in this order. DenizTC 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We need a picture which contains historical buildings, bosporus (of course with one of the bridges) and modern buildings. Finding such an image is hard, even for the Impossible Missions Force. Deliogul 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Major paraphrasing NOT needed in History section
Whoever wrote the entire second part of the History section from 1453 on copied word for word the History of Istanbul from www.e-tahtakale.com. This is unacceptable plagiarism made much worse by not referencing it, and now I am working to replace these copied passages. For those who wish to see how it is progressing, go to http://www.e-tahtakale.com/istanbul_history.html and see what remains to be done. Monsieurdl 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IGNORE what I have said above- the opposite happened, and I sincerely apologize for what I have said. I didn't think about it fully. Monsieurdl 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote by Napoleon Bonaparte
"If the Earth was a single state, Istanbul would be its capital."

Placing it into a Wikipedia FACT page is not showing a neutral point of view. I'm sure there have been many good quotes about London, but they are not placed in the London article trying to prop up London's attractiveness.

This quote should be removed because it's very POV and this article is supposed to be neutral. Someone remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean00 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that taking away a quote by a very famous person in history who is separated so much from the Ottoman Empire or modern Turkey is fair at all. Constantinople was a VERY famous multicultural city at that time, shrouded in mysticism, and loved by many Europeans for its character. I think you doth protest too much! Monsieurdl 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny that it was not loved by Europeans for its character, but doesn't that in itself imply bias by inserting a quote that is used primarily for the sake of propping up Istanbul's status? In an encyclopedia, we have to remain neutral, and I can't help but feel that this is entirely plagued by bias. Imagine if it were a critical quote - it would be removed due to its lack of neutrality - same goes for this one. London doesn't have quotes in its Wikipedia entry despite the many famous people in history that have commented on London's grandeur! I suggest this quote be removed since it lacks neutrality and seems like I'm reading a tourist advertisement, rather a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. Sean00 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue to keep a quote which really isn't extremely vital in any way, believe me. There are a lot of changes that need to be made, and worrying about the quote is up to the administrators, not anyone else. So, as far as I'm concerned, it it out of our hands and I'm moving on! Monsieurdl 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, did Napoleon really use the name "Istanbul" in his original (French, I assume) quote? Wouldn't he rather have used "Constantinople"? If yes, I think it's historically inaccurate to "translate" Constantinople as Istanbul in the quote. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Architecture section revision
In addition to the passages I mentioned before, the Architecture section needs revision as well. There are so many important monuments and palaces in the city that the whole section seems to bounce around without any real order, which is a shame. I plan on placing them in a distinct order so that anyone who references this article can find any of the structures without too much trouble. A fine example is the Galata tower picture, which was in Urbanism for some reason. Take a look at Paris for a good example of what I mean. Monsieurdl 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood that some of Nörkkoping's revision needed to be reverted, but his addition of Leander's Tower was a great addition to the section, and was sorely needed. I have to add the obelisk as well to the text, as the picture is the only reference to it. Monsieurdl 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no plagiarism in the Architecture section. How do I know? Because I wrote it all by myself, word per word, comma per comma, building per building. I also wrote the entire Religion section, and about 80% of the Istanbul article as a whole. If the question is "how do you know all that stuff", the answer is because I studied Architecture at the University of Florence in Italy, where the "History of Architecture" classes are probably the most difficult in the entire world (they literally make you cry for passing the exams and turn you into a "Rain Man" of History), under renowned professors such as Ezio Godoli (who is the author of the famous book "Istanbul 1900: Art Nouveau Architecture & Interiors".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.253.101 (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I said has been withdrawn. I didn't think about the REVERSE being true. I have embarrased myself for not thinking about that possibility. Monsieurdl 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Monsieurdl, I must defend Flavius here. The other site copied from us, not we from them. Having followed the editing on these articles for a while, I personally have no doubts Flavius wrote what he wrote himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind if I give you a hug? :) 151.37.177.139 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize... my only saving grace was that you responded as quickly as you did. I can only hope you all accept my apology for being so stupid as not to realize what happened. I am at your mercy. Monsieurdl 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, happens to the best of us. :-) Just for the record, proof can be seen if you look at the first sentence in : "The city has many structurally significant entities, please see the list of architectural structures in Istanbul. ". What's that "please see..." doing there? Nothing, because it doesn't link anywhere. It's simply pinched mindlessly from our article, which at that point says . That whole site is just a very poorly done copy-and-paste job, funnily through some intermediate translation into a different language and back, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

copying this old suggestion of mine (my child :)) down here DenizTC 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image 2
I think Ortakoy mosque picture is a good representative of Istanbul, it shows a (prominent) mosque (one thing Istanbul is famous for), and the Bosporus (bridge) along with a partial skyline of the Anatolian side (it was the sight chosen by G. W. Bush and co). The bad thing about it is that it does not show the skyline of European part (the current one neither). I think it is better than showing just one building. We already have picture of Hagia Sophia as well. My suggestion is to replace the Hagia Sophia image down there by the one that is currently in the infobox, and move the Ortakoy mosque image to infobox. This way we will have removed an image, which will cut down from the page loading time. Imo, the alternatives of Ortakoy mosque image should be Image:View_of_Istanbul_from_G%C3%BClhane_Park.jpg, Image:A_cruise_ship_and_seabus_on_the_Bosphorus_in_Istanbul_on_30_May_2007.jpg and Image:Rumeli_hisari.jpg, in this order. DenizTC 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We need a picture which contains historical buildings, bosporus (of course with one of the bridges) and modern buildings. Finding such an image is hard, even for the Impossible Missions Force. Deliogul 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"only metropolis on two continents"
is there any other city that is not a metropolis that is on two continents? Richardson mcphillips1 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Red Sea/Suez Canal separates Africa from Asia, so that isn't it.
 * Russia is Eurasia, so it is too cloudy an area to judge with any precision.
 * North America and South America is the only other possible exception, and we are left with Panama City.


 * Could Panama City be an answer? That is a great question!! Monsieurdl 04:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definition of a metropolis, Panama City is a metropolis. According to Wikipedia's entry for South America, most people consider the Panama-Columbia border to be the dividing line between North and South America, although (the article says) a few consider the Panama Canal to be it. Is there any city or town that straddles the Suez Canal? It doesn't look like Port Suez does. Your point is good about Russia. It's a bit vague in spots. Wikipedia gives part of the border of Europe as being 'the water divide of the Urals Mountains (and) the Ural River'. We would need a town straddling the Ural River - perhaps Orenburg. Richardson mcphillips1 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving link
I found it embarrassing that the lead-in to an article about a Turkish megalopolis of 10 million is a link to a silly song best known for being covered by They Must Be Giants. It is entirely possible that this is the first thing that may come to some American's mind when hearing the name "Istanbul," but for this to be the first thing on the page is just unacceptable. Istanbul is bigger than New York City; do you think the first thing on that page should be "For the song made popular by Frank Sinatra, see Theme from New York, New York"? I've moved it to "See also," although I'm not sure it even deserves to be there. It has its own page and is referenced in the TMBG article. NTK (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)