Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 4

Infobox in template
Why was the infobox factored out into a separate template, Infobox Thessaloniki? It is generally a bad idea to have templates that by their very nature will occur only on a single page. Also, the new template page has a non-standard layout and is quite difficult to edit. The common Infobox Greek Dimos worked quite fine for this page, as would the standardized Infobox settlement. I can see no advantage the current arrangement has over the standard one. It is also poor style to make such a far-reaching edit with no edit summary and in the context of an edit-war over which image to include in the box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The template Infobox Greek Dimos first of all refers to a Dimos (as in a municipality), not Thessaloniki as a whole (as in made up of several municipalities), and it is in my opinion a messy infobox. Furthermore, the flags and coat of arms are not centered on the Infobox Greek Dimos. As for your "far-reaching edit with no summary" comment, it is quite obvious what the edit was. And as for the image, if consensus is reached that another image is more suitable for the article then by all means, change it. But currently the one which I happened to make got more "favorable" reviews than the previous one that was used. Let me also point out that its been August since anyone replied or expressed further opinion on the infobox image section on the talk page. The only thing "non-standard" about Infobox Thessaloniki is that it does not include the location of Thessaloniki within the periphery and it also includes additional information such as nicknames and patron saint (minor stuff, really). --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the flags and CoA were displaying just fine before. But it's true, Infobox Greek Dimos is a messy and ill-maintained template. If you don't like the way it was working here, I'd strongly recommend simply switching over to the far better maintained and more standardized Infobox settlement (which really ought to be done for all city pages anyway). It has all the flexibility you could wish for. What is problematic about the the Greek dimos template, but even more so about the current solution, is that it mixes up content and html formatting codes to a terrible degree, making it quite hard to modify either the one or the other. The whole point about having infobox templates is that formatting and content should be separated – all the formatting code goes into the template, which should be standardized and centrally maintained, while all the content entries get specified only through tempate parameters, which itself remain on the main article page. (About the image, I personally still maintain my position that a single, moderately sized image is far superior to any collage, and I don't see any clear consensus for or against this position in the discussion you cite.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I'm requesting semi-protection for the article for a duration of 3 months. The unregistered users adding Solun as an official name to the page is getting annoying. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:ET3.png
The image File:ET3.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

photo
The translation on the photo showing the Thessaloniki Philippou Vassilisan inscription seems to be wrong. The correct translation should be (to) Thessaloniki, the daughter of Philip, the Queen. Not the queen of Philip, as this doesn't make sense. As the inscription is in accusative, it is probably from some dedication to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.4.124 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have reinstated a recent edit by an anon editor who implemented this change but was reverted by somebody else. Philippou is evidently used as a patronymic here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Languages in name section
I believe this edit summary is fairly self-explanatory. As the sentence in question pertains specifically to names "in other languages prominent in the city's history", references to the modern standard languages of neighbouring states are misplaced and ultimately redundant. For example, while Ottoman Turkish was indeed historically prominent, modern Turkish only took shape after Kemal's reforms in the 1930s—well after the city's incorporation into the Greek state and the population exchange with Turkey. · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·  13:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ that the edit is 'self explanatory'. What you seem to consider 'prominant' is Greece's hard-line policy of 'Macedonia is and was Greek'. Although Macedonian was not recognized as a language pre-1945 this does not mean that it was not spoken in or near Thessaloniki. The same applies to Bulgarian, and official Ottoman statistics show at least 6,000 Bulgarian residents in the city. As for the Turkish language, Ottoman Turkish is not a different language than modern Turkish but a period in the history of Turkish. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, a hardline policy would be to reject the historical prominence of other languages altogether. I reject only those that are historically irrelevant. While an argument could perhaps be put forward for Bulgarian, which would include what you call "Macedonian" pre-1945, I don't see how one could be made for modern Turkish in addition (and contrast) to Ottoman Turkish.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ here. The reason we include Ottoman Turkish is not so as to be politically correct, but because many English-language sources, particularly older ones, refer to it as such. Thus, there is a good chance our readers might have encountered it in the literature. Modern Turkish on the other hand, was never used by any English-language publications for the name of the city, as it was codified long after the Turkish government language reforms. And yes, it is different from the Ottoman Turkish, at least in spelling. Athenean (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I found the following excerpt from the relevant article particularly fascinating: "It is considered particularly ironic that Atatürk himself, in his lengthy speech to the new Parliament in 1927, used a style of Ottoman which sounded so alien to later listeners that it had to be 'translated' three times into modern Turkish: first in 1963, again in 1986, and most recently in 1995."  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored Bulgarian. There is consensus there. Macedonian should also be included - and it is not included pre 1945 by Bulgarian. Jd2718 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the distinction between "Ottoman Turkish" and (modern Standard) "Turkish" a useless affectation of pedantry here. Both are forms of the same language - not more and not less so than Katharevousa and Dimotiki, which are both forms of Greek. Pointing specifically to such a subdivision of a language's history only makes sense if the forms in question are actually different, which in the present case they are not. As for the Ottoman spelling, I doubt any reader is interested in that. "Selânik in Turkish" is absolutely fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with FutPerf, there isn't a meaningful distinction between "Ottoman Turkish" and "modern Turkish" as regards place names: former Ottoman regions/towns/islands etc have been retained into modern Turkish virtually unchanged, and it is only logical that it should be so. Constantine  ✍  10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Expressed in both scripts? (I'm thinking yes). Which leaves the question of Macedonian (the Slavic language). What the locals spoke - Bulgarian nationalists claimed was Bulgarian - but modern sources disagree. Jd2718 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The form is the same, "Solun", is it not? IMO Macedonian (and Serbian) is covered by "the other South Slavic languages" in the text. Otherwise we could adopt the Florina article solution and have a link to Slavic dialects of Greece. Constantine  ✍  11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the current rule of the Turkish Language Association, Selânik is wrong, Selanik is correct. Takabeg (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnical composition of Thessaloniki between 1500 and 1950 graph
What references is this based on? Reaper7 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Salonique au XXe siècle: de la cité ottomane à la métropole grecque, page 62. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Population
Just to clarify that the population of the Thessaloniki Metropolitan Area has reached 1,006,730 inhabitants and not 968,400, which had left me confused, after just by looking at the numbers.

The peripheral unit of Thessaloniki has a population of 1,104,460. After we exclude the municipalities of Volvi, Lagkada, and Xalkidona, and are left with the municipalities of Thessaloniki, Ampelokipoi-Menemeni, Delta, Thermaikou, Thermis, Kalamarias Kordelio-Evosmos, Neapoli-Sikies, Paulou Mela, Pylaia-Chortiatis and Oraiokastro, (ie. the municipalities which make up the "mitropolitiki enotita Thessalonikis" (the metropolitan area), the correct number is 1,006,730 people.

The number of 819,770 for the urban area is also wrong, according to the 2011 census the 6 municipalities that belong in the urban area, those of: Thessaloniki, Kalamaria, Ampelokipoi-Menemeni, Kordelio-Evosmos, Neapoli-Sikies, and Paulou Mela and the municipal unit of Pylaia have a combined population of 790,824. 749,560 if we only include the 6 municipalities without pylaia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thessalonian101 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes you are right about the metropolitan population, it is indeed just over 1 million. However I'm a bit confused as to how you calculated that of the urban area, the Municipality of Pylaia-Chortiatis is not included in the urban area of Thessaloniki, just the Municipal Unit of Pylaia. Did you subtract the populations of Chortiatis and Panorama, and if you did where did you get the numbers from? Panorama is not part of the urban area of Thessaloniki, although it has a population of about 20,000, and so does Chortiatis.--Philly boy92 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to recap, there have been a few edits to the population of the city. The correct figures, according to the Kallikratis reform and the 2011 census results, are:

 1 Educated guess, as the preliminary results only list municipalities and not municipal units. ''2 Minus 30,000 as Pylaia is part of Pylaia-Chortiatis. ''
 * I'm also working on a map but it will be finished later today .--Philly boy92 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I calculated the municiplalities of Thessaloniki, Kalamaria, Ampelokipoi-Menemeni, Kordelio-Evosmos, Neapoli-Sikies, Paulou Mela and the municipal unit of Pylaia to have a combined population of 790,824. Did not include the municipal units of Panorama and Chortiatis in that number. A recent local article had mentioned that Pylaia's population reached 41,264 people based from the 2011 results, will try to find it. Pretty sure the number is correct though, as I also see that the Greek article had the same number too for the urban area.

Map looks great, but even with your own estimate of Pylaia having 30,000, the combined urban population should be written 779,560 then, not 779,551. And adding each municipality of the metro area the population is 1,006,830 not 1,006,821.

There seems to be a mistake within the results themselves. After adding each municiplaity of the Thessaloniki Peripheral Unit makes for a population of 1,104,560 yet what is written on the results is 1,104,460 :/ - the number I used to subtract municipal populations that do not belong in the metro area population, giving me the number of 1,006,730. Now got a more accurate 1,006,830 after adding each municipality. Don't know what to make of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thessalonian101 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of tanks
About image of tanks:

Takabeg (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not artillery, but tank.
 * This type (Type G) of Panzer IV was not produced in 1941. The production started in 1942.
 * This picture was not taken in 1941. The Bundesarchiv also specifies this discrepancy.
 * We cannot mention to "1941" in this caption, without explanation. Historical accuracy is important, because here is an encyclopedia.
 * I think, if we must avoid to mention in details, for example "German tanks in Thessaloniki during World War II" is better.

Infobox image 2
I think it is time we revisited the quesion of whether the infobox should have one or many images (a collage). Mine was placed there temporarily, but there has not been any discussion about this in quite some time. I spent some time looking at pictures on flickr that can be uploaded to commons, so anyone interested please tell me which one(s) you think we should chose. I personaly think that one good image in the infobox will suffice. Images that stood out on flickr:, , , , (suitable for collage),  (suitable for collage), , , ,  (with some minor editing for brightness), , ,  (suitable for collage, shows vibrant city life), ,  (suitable for collage), , ,  (suitable for collage), , , , , and. Thought? --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these suggestions! Some nice stuff there. Personally, I'd still prefer a single image, as I explained last time. My personal favourite (but that's me talking as somebody who's never seen the place in real life) would be something that combines the White Tower with a good portion of the seafront. It seems not to be quite easy to do in terms of perspective, but there were one or two among your candidates that would come close. – Perhaps it would be worth uploading a few good ones right away before making the actual choice; that way they are easier to present and link to from the discussion page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I uploaded the ones I thought were best, and they can be viewed at the bottom of this section. Additionally some of the images I initially thought were under an appropriate license weren't, so I we cannot use those. My favorite for the infobox would be No. 1, followed by No. 3 and No. 4. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. 1. I also prefer a single image, I find collages busy and cluttered. Much as I dislike its origins, the White Tower ais the most widely known image of the city and that's what I would want in the infobox, together with the iconinc waterfront. That said, I find the angle on No.1 a bit odd. An image taken from a higher vantage point might work better. Athenean (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There have not been any replies to this for two months now, so I have substituted the infobox collage with image no. 1. --Philly boy92 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this collage: File:Thessaloniki collage.jpg is very good for the infobox It has clear images and representatives for the city. Athens also has a collage at the infobox Greco22 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the same opinion as Future Perfect, I would prefer a single image for the infobox. Firstly because I am not a fan of JPG files (their quality is very bad when they are made smaller than their actual size) and secondly because a collage would give far too much information in a box which is designed to give the very basic information. Also, in my honest opinion the Athens article lags far behind that of Thessaloniki in terms of aesthetics, so I wouldn't use it as an example of what an article should look like. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was fascinated by this Map, can it be extended?


Can someone extend this map to 100 AD to show how the city began as Greek major center. This map is a little POV beginning at the low point of Greek inhabitation around the 1500s of this city. Reaper7 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not POV, its transferred from a book and the book starts at 1500. A separate map could be created, but it would require attention so as not to become OR. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Reaper, this is a very confused map and reeks of not being NPOV. What book is this graph from? A neutral book? Zeno77 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian name
Shouldn't the Macedonian name be next to the Greek name? Or at least mentioned in the article just how Constantinople is mentioned in the Istanbul article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.41.207 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thessaloniki is the Macedonian name.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading this article it appears the city name has been there since day one and its a greek city from day one. Thessalonika has been the name of this city only for about 100 years when this large part of Macedonia was ceded to Greece (Treaty of Bucharest 1913) and the name was Hellenicised from the original Salon, Salonika. Just thought I mention this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Riiight... So the city was not actually founded as Thessalonike in Hellenistic times, and "Salonika" is not the shortened form of that name, but the original one. Yeah, you are definitely strong on "facts" my friend... I suppose every single mention of Thessalonike in Greek and Roman manuscripts, not to mention inscriptions, coins, etc was added by modern Greek secret agents as well. Constantine  ✍  16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm saying is that the Macedonian name should be included written in the Cyrillic alphabet, I will add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.41.207 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the modern Macedonian name relevant in the lead section? --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know the drill.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Racist edits???
@ user:Athenean's edits: It's okay to mention that a Greek pastry called "Bougatsa" and "Frappe" was invented in Thessaloniki, but its not worth mentioning that the city was the birthplace of Slavic literacy? Really? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Not to mention insulting to almost 300 million Slavs.

If we look at the Athens article, in the first paragraph it says what the city is known for: A centre for the arts, learning and philosophy, home of Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum,it is widely referred to as the cradle of Western civilization and the birthplace of democracy. So unless you want to move it in the first paragraph, there is no excuse to take it out.

LOL you somehow thought it was worth taking out, but you wasted no time adding that Cyril and Methodius were "Greek".

Secondly, mentioning the Slavic settlements during the 6th century is relevant to the city's history and demography as the whole Thessaloniki region became known as "Macedonian Sclavinia" in Byzantine times.

I partially reverted your edits, so unless you can show some logical reasoning as to how deleting this information benefits the article and its readers, I will expect that this section of the article stays in its current state.

Forgive me but I cannot think of any other intentions behind your edits except for racist/nationalistic ones.

Bakersdozen77 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, first of all, watch the civility unless you want to end up getting reported. Now, in case you hadn't noticed the article is about the city of Thessaloniki, not the "area around Thessaloniki" or "Macedonian Sclavinia" (whatever that is).  The Slavs never took the city, and never settled inside the city in large numbers, it remained an outpost of Byzantine civilization throughout the medieval period.  Thus, no "major demographic changes" to the city itself.  The centers of Slavic literacy were places that Cyril and Methodius taught, e.g. Ohrid and the Great Moravia, not Thessaloniki itself.  It is true that they based the Glagolitic alphabet on the slavic dialects spoken in the area of Thessaloniki, but this has little to do with the city itslef.  Btw, why did you remove that Cyril and Methodius were Greek?  Care to explain? Also, keep your "thoughts" about what motivates me to yourself, unless you want me to report you for making comments like that. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cyril and Methodius did not only create an alphabet like you claim. The sources I provided explain that they translated the scriptures into an entirely new language known as "Old Church Slavonic". OCS was based on the Slavic dialects spoken in Thessaloniki. They then spread this language to the Slavs in Ohrid, Moravia, etc which became the foundation for all modern Slavic languages. So I don't know what you are disputing here. Thessaloniki became the birthplace of Slavic literacy because two brothers from Thessaloniki created a language in Thessaloniki based on the speakers of Thessaloniki. What part do you not understand? I even included a Greek source that explains the "Role of the city towards the enlightenment of the Slavs". You keep claiming that the article is not about Slavs etc etc... no one said it was! I am just including something that the city is known for internationally! I never said it was the "center" of Slavic literacy, it was only the birthplace of the Old Church Slavonic language.


 * Secondly, what difference does it make if the Slavs "never settled inside the city in large numbers"? They certainly settled in the outskirts of the city and that had a significant impact, for the prominent writers in Byzantine times called the whole Thessaloniki region "Macedonian Sclavinia". This equals to the Metropolitan area of Thessaloniki today! Why are you deleting this sourced fact?


 * Thirdly why are you keep adding that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks? No one here said that they were not Greek. And this article is about Thessaloniki, not about Cyril and Methodius, so why do you feel the need to describe them as "Greek" if no one is making the claim that they weren't?

Bakersdozen77 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was prepared to go along with some of you edits (except the Macedonian Sclavinia bit, which I think is irrelevant), but this is completely unacceptable . You removed a whole bunch of sources, and, while pretending to "compromise", made sure to remove the fact that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks, which seems to really bother you.  So what if some Byzantine authors referred to the region around Thessaloniki as "Macedonian Sklavinia"?  Why is that important?  Because it contains the word "Macedonian"?  Do you really think you can brusquely edit a page mostly watched by Greek editors and force them to accept your POV-pushing while shouting "racism!"?  Do you really think that's going to work?  If you want your edits to remain, I suggest you adopt a very civil and diplomatic approach, because trying to force your way in here is only going to end very badly for you. Athenean (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You seriously have some problems. What's wrong with the the word "Macedonian Sklavinia"? Thessaloniki is capital of the Greek region of Macedonia. It's not a POV. It's a fact that Byzantine writers referred to the Thessaloniki area as Macedonian Sklavinia. Why does this bother you? Because it has the word "Sklavinia"? Bakersdozen77 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What bothers me is your lame excuses. First you said that it's not related to the city, than you seemed to agree with mentioning it only if we add that the brothers were Greek (how is this related to the city?). But I don't have a problem with this because it is sourced. But when I provide sources you delete it and say why is it important to mention etc etc. Let me ask you, why is it important to you to hide it? This is an article that we are trying to provide information to readers, that's the point of an encyclopedia. That's why I am putting back the part of "Macedonian Sclavinia". Bakersdozen77 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You said "Do you really think you can brusquely edit a page mostly watched by Greek editors...." (So this is the problem... you don't want non-Greeks to edit the article.) "and force them to accept your POV-pushing..." (I explained it's not a POV, it is sourced fact, that is what the Byzantines called it because of the settlements) "while shouting "racism!"?" (yes it is racism because you don't want the word "Slavs" or "Sclavinia" mentioned in the article at all.) Bakersdozen77 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof as to why "Macedonian Sklavinia" is relevant to this article is on you, and you have failed to do that. "Why not?" is not a reason to include something.  By the way, your scholarship is dated:  The purported Slavic settlement of the Balkans is much smaller than previously thought, as modern scholars make clear.  I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks, but will warn you that if you make one more incivil comment ("you seriously have some problem", "your lame excuses", etc...), I will report you, and since you are also edit-warring, it won't be pretty.  Btw I never claimed that I don't want non-Greek editors to edit this article, what I meant was that it is wise adopt a constructive and diplomatic approach if one runs into opposition, as opposed to the extremely aggressive approach you are now exhibiting.  You cannot and will not "force" your opponents to submit to your will, it won't work. And if you continue edit-warring, I will report you and ask that you be blocked, promise.


 * Macedonian Sclavinia is part of the history of Thessaloniki because that was the name used for the area after city's Slavic settlements. Let's keep it at the current state, that is, mentioning the name but also keeping the clarification that you added so it doesn't imply that the Slavic settlements were inflated. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, can we agree? Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for interrupting, but about this [] issue, apart from the relevant source which gives precise details about the link 'Cyril-Methodius-Thessaloniki-Old Church Slavonic', it's more suitable for an encyclopedia to claim that literature was created/written by a group of people (in this case 2). As for the specific dialect, per reference, we are talking about the dialect of the wider region, part of Macedonia.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how familiar you are with the English language but "hinterland" means "district behind a coast", so in this case it is just refering to the city because it is behind a coast. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear what is going on here. Greek users do not want the article to say that the city was the "birthplace of Old Church Slavonic" or that the O.C.S. was "based on the dialects of Thessaloniki" (even though these are internationally accepted facts) because it might give the impression that non-Greek people lived in Thessaloniki (Oh No!). But it's perfectly fine to say that Greek frappe was invented in the city. Or that Athens is the birthplace of democracy. The best excuse so far was by Alexikoua who said "cities don't create languages" LOL. Of course not, they create frappe Bakersdozen77 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored the specific part according to the reference. The main point is that: Saints Cyril Methodios created Old Church Slavonic based on the Slavic dialect probably spoken in Macedonia [], instead of 'Thessaloniki became the birth place of Old Church Slavonic, which was based on the Slavic dialects spoken in the city (?)'[]. Falsification of sourced content is quite obvious in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The source that you provided says that the language was based on dialects spoken in the hinterland of Thessaloniki, not the wider region of Macedonia. So why are you falsifying your own source? Bakersdozen77 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good article?
The article was promoted to GA in one WikiProject only, without any kind of peer review and not even an explanation, by Greco22. I've therefore demoted it to B-class to match the quality rating at the other WikiProjects. If you want to reinstate it, follow the proper procedure of nominating it at WP:GAN. Thank you. – Kosm  1  fent  08:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Macedonian Sklavinia"
"Traditional historiography stipulates that many Slavs settled in the hinterland of Thessaloniki, earning it the name "Macedonian Sclavinia". The way this is written implies that Thessaloniki itself "earned" the name "Macedonian Sclavinia".  No way.  Also, "Macedonian Sclavinia" as described by medieval sources, covered an area much, much larger than even the modern Thessaloniki and it's suburbs.  . Athenean (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Salonica
I believe the article should be renamed to Salonica. This is the traditional and historical academic form in English-language bibliography. All major Greek historic cities and regions had their names anglicised. Modern examples, Athens and Patras, Corinth, Sparta, Thrace, Attica. Historical examples, Smyrna, Constantinople, Halicarnassus, Adrianople. Others which are not so well-known and of little importance are referred to with their Greek name. But this is the second biggest city in the country and an important historic city (Byzantine and Ottoman empires). On the other hand, the name Thessaloniki is being widely used today (e.g. tourism and foreign news agencies). A solution to this problem could be the form Thessalonica. But something must be done, cause it's a bit odd that all other major Greek cities have their English literary forms as their article titles and not this one. Namely, Corfu, Chalcis, Heraclion, Rhodes etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.151.148 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article should be either Thessalonica or Salonica, since this city is internationally known for its rich history, culture and architecture from ancient to modern times. It is not just a local city, but one of the most historical and important cities of the Balkans, If we use Athens without any problems, then why not Thessalonica or Salonica for this city. --85.75.171.137 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I updated the whole article to use the international english naming standards (Thessalonica instead of Thessaloniki) which all other major Greek cities in English Wikipedia, such as Patras (instead of Patra), and Athens (instead of Athina) or Corinth (instead of Corinthos), etc, already follow. Really I don't see why Thessalonica has to be an excemption to this, so here we go.--SilentResident (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please wait. Don't continue changing this in all those other articles before you have a clear consensus here. This is a pretty radical change, and you are introducing lots of inconsistencies between the texts of articles and the current article titles. Please first do a WP:RM to gain a clear, formal consensus for an article renaming, then change the texts and links. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I apologize. I just tried just updating the name to the English since thats the English wiki, (not that the other one isn't correct too), so Thessalonica to be much like all other old cities of Greece which ALL have English names. Dunno that it needed a consensus for that :o But ok. Can you ask for the consensus as I am not sure how to do it myself... :S And since it took me a whole hour to do the updates to the english name, I better leave this tedious task to someone else if consensus is reached.--SilentResident (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I could do the paperwork of filing the move request on your behalf, if you wish, but maybe it would be better if we first clarified what empirical basis there is for this proposal. It's not enough to say that "Thessalonica" is an anglicised name and because many other Greek places have anglicised names we should use one here too. The question is, is "Thessalonica" really used more often in English than "Thessaloniki"? I am by no means sure that it is. It is most certainly not used as regularly and exclusively as "Athens" (vs. "Athina"), because there are many texts out there that use "Athens" and "Thessaloniki" together . My impression is that "Thessalonica" is used most often only in contexts of ancient history and biblical discussions (St. Paul etc.). "Salonica" would be another contender in contexts of more recent history. In present-day contexts (geography, travel, politics etc.) "Thessaloniki" seems to have in fact won out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't mind at all if we keep "Thessaloniki" over "Thessalonica" but since most historical records often refer the town as Thessalonica, alongside Constantinople (instead of Constantinoupolis) and Athens (instead of Athina), and I think I am not the only one here who has noticed this. Both names (Thessaloniki and Thessalonica) really are the same - just its the trend. The name Thessalonica can be used better in Wikipedia for obvious reasons, but this doesn't mean that Thessaloniki isn't the name to go. Maybe the Thessalonica was more widely used in different time periods of international history, while Thessaloniki beats it in modern usage, but this does not means that the Thessalonica is secondary... I just believe that in long-term, the proper could be Thessalonica even if the Thessaloniki is the term used more in modern times. And the Wikipedia's article about this city includes all data from ancient times (when it was founded) until today, for which Thessalonica in my opinion still is (slightly) better than the Thessaloniki, much like with most of the historical cities in Greece and the world. Most of the historical cities and places in Greece in the international have their english names used instead of the local one (such as Chalkidice instead of Chalkidiki). --SilentResident (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree to all of the above; it's a non sequitur. WP:COMMONNAME applies, as does current usage; tourist books and int'l media use "Thessaloniki" as does the Canadian consulate there and I'd venture all others.....Thessalonica and especially Salonica are archaic usages that NO ONE uses any more. For Wikipedia to do that, given its influence on the language as a major reference in English nowadays, is very wrong. There are various foreign names, such as Yangon for Ragoon, which are now in wide use, not always for diplomatic reasons. Again, WP:COMMON should apply, and current WP:V. Of which Wikipedia should not be the arbiter. Each case is individual, and as with Kolkata and Beijing the int'l standard in each case DOES change. Wikipedians should not presume to try and change it; that's the last thing they should be trying to do. BTW most guidebooks now use Iraklion instead of Heraklion, and Izmir instead of Smyrna, and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Thessalonica and especially Salonica are archaic usages that NO ONE uses any more" Really? Are you sure? Then how comes I do use name Thessalonica? How comes the newspapers too use the name Thessalonica? And what of the city's international significance (which, if I am not mistaken, was greater -and lasted longer- than Sparta's or Corinth's, as those 2 cities were long forgotten since Roman times already, while Thessalonica wasn't. Sparta was all time up to 20th century forgotten, when Laconophilia rose in the West and Sparta became more popular and is still used instead of the local Sparti. Thessalonica was popular internationally as one of the richest cities of the Byzantine Empire (and thus, of Europe at a time), and was the second most important of the empire, after Capital Constantinople. Thessalonica remained important and strategic city in 20th century, as proven in the Balkan Wars. And the maps of that period used this name instead of the local Greek name such as Thessalonike or Thessalonica. Same applies for many other towns and places in Greece - in English wiki the historically known international names are more appropriate - for example Corfu (instead of Kerkyra), Pireus (instead of Peireas), Rhodes (instead of Rodos) or Chalkis (instead of Chalkida).  Its pointless to note that Thessalonica was much older than most of the aforementioned Greek Cities, as she was founded hundred of years before Christ... My opinion is strongly of the name equality for all Greek cities and places. Just I can't read in English wikipedia's articles that blend Thessalonica's greek name with the English names of all other Greek cities, in texts like "Athens (note - its the English name) is Greece's capital and largest city. Other large cities include Thessaloniki (Greek name), Patras (English again!) and Heraklion (English again)..."  Why all of Greece's large cities to use have their english names but Thessalonica not? Please can someone answer this? And to NOT mention that several of the Greek cities (besides Thessalonica) are internationally known today by their local names as well (except Athens perhaps).--85.75.156.239 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: In Google Books search write "Ataturk was born in (put city name here)"; it helps... --E4024 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Thing is whatever is there, I haven't tried that, I'm in a webcafe on pay-for time, the form to use would be the period "Salonica (Thessaloniki)" or "Salonica ("Thessaloniki today") or some such; not sure if it's Salonika in in Turkish; it wouldn't be the 'c' form as that's an English 'j' in Turkish. Takabeg is right though, it's Thessaoliniki today.  There are other examples in Greece; Elefsina for example is no longer "Eleusis" though that was the standard English form a century ago.Skookum1 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply I was talking about English common name. The Turkish name of the city is in the "Ottoman period" section. The paragraph that follows the one which begins with "brutally sacked and pillaged"... (I added some CN tags for you to find the place more easily. :-)  --E4024 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment (tangential) I just saw the "brutally sacked and pillaged" line transformed to "looted" - "no need to emphasize that" was the edit comment; but that's POV and the way things are put and indeed is what happened......Murad wasn't the only one to do so, the French and Venetians in 1204 did a rather fine job on Constantinople in 1204 and "looted" instead of the full meal deal and the way the sources put it is POV in nature; perhaps that should be another section, but it was in the course of looking for that line I realized the edit and looked at the historySkookum1 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GoogleBooks Ngram Viewer comparison. Although Salonica is frequently used in historical context (even today), it had been the common name in English till 1979. Now Thessaloniki is the common name of this city. Takabeg (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Questionable citation
I have restored a "dead link" from Haaretz, which relates the experience of a concentration camp inmate from Thessaloniki: "Auschwitz inmate who survived by boxing dies aged 86". www.haaretz.com. Retrieved 16 August 2011. I noticed that the article is not itself about the statistics quoted from the article, but rather about the boxer and his experiences, so perhaps a more reliable source of these statistics should be found.Fconaway (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sister cities etc
This section should be organised either alphabetically or chronologically... --E4024 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
My argument for changing it to the "Greek Dimos" template (which i do not understand how it can be "amateur looking" when it has headings and is not overloaded with info, that can be later found in the article) was that it is clearer for people wanting to have a quick browse, having urban, metropolitan and municipality populations/areas/densities in order, under a heading, as there is for government info, other info and website. Instead of now again, where you have areas/densities, then elevations, and after that populations, with no headings. Also do people really think there needs to be information like patron saint and GDP (when its not actually for the actual city, but for the regional unit) on the infobox of the city?

Can users please come to a conclusion on which infobox may be better. I stand for using the "greek dimos" one for reasons stated above and as this is also the one used for all other Greek cities, including Athens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.9.94 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Population figures

 * (moved here from misplaced posting at Category:Thessalonikis 2011 final population cencus results. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC))

Hello

The Hellenic Statistic Agency has released the final demographics statistics after 2011 census. The total population is for 2011 1,110,312 and not 1,006,730 inhabitants as you mention. Also the contiguous built up area forming the "City of Thessaloniki" has a population at 840,450 inhabitants and not 790,824. Last the municipality of Thessaloniki has 325,182 inhabitants and not 322,240 as you mention.

You can check it at the official report at

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE

or go directly at

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE

on column number 07

Please try to correct your information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpatsi (talk • contribs)

Just to note that 1,110,312 is for the whole peripheral unit of Thessaloniki which also includes municipalities that are not part of the metropolitan area (etc dimos volvis). I would make the effort to change the numbers but I'm on my phone atm and wont be able to reference properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.9.94 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thessaloniki picture
I think the picture that shows the White Tower only needs to be changed. This picture here is much better and of good resolution and shows 6 Thessaloniki landmarks/monuments.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thessaloniki_collage.jpg

If you see the Wikipedia page about Athens it contains a picture with many landmarks instead of just, the Parthenon for example.


 * Please have a look at the previous discussion at Talk:Thessaloniki/Archive 4. Last time this came up, the prevailing opinion was that editors preferred a single image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I insist though that it's better to use an image with many landmarks. Thessaloniki has many other nice locations and in my opinion as a Greek/Thessalonian who lives in Thessaloniki the White Tower isn't as good as the others. Aristotelous Square for example and the church of Hagios Demetrius which is one of the oldest churches and a Unesco World Heritage site. Or the city walls {also Unesco World Heritage sites} Another great one is the statue of Alexander the Great which is the tallest statue in Greece.

This image style {many locations, landmarks} is used in most other known cities. Paris, Rome, Sofia, Athens etc


 * I disagree about using many images. First of all, you cannot possibly compare Thessaloniki's looks with Paris, Rome or even Sofia. These cities have kept their beautiful architecture in contrast with Thessaloniki which has systematically wiped out almost all its pre-60s heritage. The choice of the White Tower was not because it is *the* most beautiful structure in the city but rather because it is symbolic of the city itself. With regards to Alexander the Great, that one seems to me like a case of "my penis is bigger than yours" with the Skopje page, which also displays a statue of Alexander. Alexander the Great had absolutely no relation with the city, he died years before Thessaloniki was founded, and the inclusion of his statue in the gallery section is good enough in my opinion. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. We're talking about a city with 15 Unesco World Heritage Sites. There are the walls, the Upper Town (isn't that heritage of Thessaloniki? the upper town? It's perfectly preserved and along with the walls it makes a fantastic atmosphere) Arch of Galerius and Rotunda, Aristotelous Square, the Byzantine Churches and monuments, the Roman archeological sites, hundreds of statues and of course the White Tower with the huge promenade. Although I agree that the Statue of Alexander the Great seems a bit like it {the penis theory} in truth that statue is important because it's the tallest statue in Greece and a symbol of the city and Macedonia (Greece). Thessaloniki is the capital of Macedonia. As I live in Thessaloniki I can tell you that most tourists go under the statue to get a picture. And they know about it, it's on their places to visit list. Anyways, I'm good with using it in the galleries section but still, I can't see how the English Skopje page can have it since historically (officially, since we're talking about Wikipedia) they have no link while we can't have it front page when he was the brother of Thessalonike of Macedon. But anyway, as I said I'm good with the galleries section ;) At least they use it as "warrior on horse", the official title they gave it.

It is our duty as citizens of the world to remember the Jewish population of Thessaloniki and honor the thousands of people who lived there for hundreds of years.
46.12.109.70 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)I strongly agree, but  I'm  not  sure that  this statement belongs in an encyclopedia.

Merge proposal: Natural History Museum (Thessaloniki) to here
I couldn't verify that this museum meets WP:NOTABILITY, but it could be a useful section here. Sending WP:APPNOTE to and. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714070939/http://www.lpth.org/en/ to http://www.lpth.org/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110820104815/http://www.thpa.gr/files/general/portthess7.pdf to http://www.thpa.gr/files/general/portthess7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111117082211/http://www.amth.gr:80/english/vr_museum_2_makedonia.html to http://www.amth.gr/english/vr_museum_2_makedonia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111117082459/http://www.amth.gr:80/english/vr_museum_2_xrusos.html to http://www.amth.gr/english/vr_museum_2_xrusos.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111102181204/http://www.amth.gr:80/english/vr_museum_2_proistoria.html to http://www.amth.gr/english/vr_museum_2_proistoria.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714070939/http://www.lpth.org/en/ to http://www.lpth.org/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516081547/http://www.cev.lu:80/mmp/online/website/main_menu/volleyball/european_cups/indesit/119/6470/5881/5883/4260_EN.html to http://www.cev.lu/mmp/online/website/main_menu/volleyball/european_cups/indesit/119/6470/5881/5883/4260_EN.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080526210032/http://www.seegames2007.org:80/site.php?&file=index.xml&lang=el to http://www.seegames2007.org/site.php?&file=index.xml&lang=el
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150702080028/http://www.alexanderthegreatmarathon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=40&lang=en to http://www.alexanderthegreatmarathon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=40&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041209224801/http://www.ana.gr:80/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=2203508&service=8 to http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=2203508&service=8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050414005033/http://www.hplct.org:80/tap/cultural_exchange/sister_cities/hartford_sister_cities_internati.htm to http://hplct.org/tap/cultural_exchange/sister_cities/hartford_sister_cities_internati.htm#Thessaloniki%20Sister%20City
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080201224702/http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=7717 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=7717

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Demographics section a disgrace, not enough neutrality
The section needs to be deleted and started from scratch.. I mean, you know this article has been completed infested when the population of Jews in Salonika in 1842 cites Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer as a source. What about the demographics graph of the city beginning in the 1500s just after the fall of the Byzantine Empire? Anyone reading this demographics section would think the city is a Jewish Turkish city with sporadic Greek influence. I don't think anything will happen or change because editors of Jewish, Slavic and Turkish origin have clearly got this article wrapped up, but it is sad that it doesn't give a more neutral picture of the city. The following sources are not neutral, yet they form the backbone of the demographics section:
 * The 1890 demographic figures tabled are from a Bulgarian source that specializes in the Bulgarian nature of Macedonia. http://www.promacedonia.org/vk/vk_2_01.htm
 * The 1842 demographics figures are from Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, a famed racist and revisionist. Read his wiki page..
 * The main demographics graph in the section conveniently starting in the 1500's was added by a Jewish user User:Ori~ and it is not sourced. Reaper7 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed you got a point here. --SilentResident (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150213024145/http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE to http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721080738/http://www.fm100.gr/portal/index.php/company/histcom/67-histcom to http://www.fm100.gr/portal/index.php/company/histcom/67-histcom
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120220024127/http://www.thpa.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=95&lang=en to http://www.thpa.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=95&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New book
New book about Jewish Thessaloniki circa 1912: Jewish Salonica: Between the Ottoman Empire and Modern Greece by Devin E. Naar, 2016, Stanford University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Thessaloniki is also known in English as" VS "Thessaloniki is also known as"
Can someone enlighten me why is the "Thessaloniki is also known in English as" used instead of the "Thessaloniki is also known as"? Aren't, more or less, the other languages (besides the English language) such as the Spanish, the Portuguese and French languages, sharing the same alternate names for that city with the English? Or am I missing something here? --SilentResident (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a custom practice on other toponyme pages to add alternate names. At least names of the place in local languages, different from the official one, should be added.

In this specific case you should add the Bulgarian/Macedonian name Солун, as well as the Aromanian name Sărună (or its Megleno-Romanian variant Săruna). I don't want to do it myself, because I see that someone placed an interdiction. And I don't want to enter an edit war, as I only accidentally visited this page and I am not especially interested in it.

But I think it is fair to inform about the existence of other local names and this doesn't make Thessalonike less Greek nor "Jewish-Turkish". --Sorin.Botezat (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Moreover in this case it seems that there exists a Greek version of the name Σαλονίκη (see the French page), which is at the root of alternate forms existing in many European languages (including Bulgarian and (A)romanian). --Sorin.Botezat (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

English pronunciation
How do you pronounce the city's name in English? wikt:Thessaloniki doesn't include the pronunciation, either. --37.205.63.157 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)