Talk:Istanbul

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1920727061}}

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the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date.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

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

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

:I think the introduction should be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last year, we discussed returning the lead largely back to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istanbul&oldid=518023605 FA promotion version]: Talk:Istanbul/Archive_11#Too_much_toponomy_and_history_in_the_lead?

There was agreement, but it seems none of us got around to it. Is there still agreement to revert back to the FA promotion version, followed by several changes to update the text (and various other changes)?

Pinging people who have commented on the now-archived topic: {{ping|Chidgk1|Licks-rocks|Remsense}} Bogazicili (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:It should be mentioned that it was founded by Greek settlers from Megara, as that is not "too much history and toponymy". On the other hand, the mention of the attempt to host the 2020 Olympics is really lede material. Khirurg (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Mention Constantine the Great and that he moved the capital of the Roman Empire there is also probably due. Khirurg (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don’t have an opinion on that but given the size and wealth of the city maybe someone who lives there might have the time and energy to make some improvements to the whole article and then nominate it as a good article. I find good article reviewers almost always make excellent suggestions. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::I might start improving this article for GA status later this year or next year after I'm done with Turkey.

::But restoring sections to FA version would make the work easier, as it establishes a good template in terms of WP:DUE etc. Updating parts of the article is easier than writing from scratch. Bogazicili (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Changes made. Bogazicili (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The lead is now much more in line with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADREL. Entire sections were previously ignored in the lead, such as climate, earthquakes, education, etc

:::I used large parts from the FA promotion version.

:::I also looked at WP:Tertiary sources for MOS:LEADREL and WP:PROPORTION, such as [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0517 the Istanbul entry] in [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118568446 The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies] Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless no objections, I'd like to change the citation style of this article to match Turkey. Short inline citation format for books and long reports with {{tl|cite book}} and {{tl|cite report}} templates. Full inline citations for everything else, such as newspaper articles. {{tl|harvc}} for book chapters.

Turkey has much better sourcing than this article that can be used in several sections, such as history. Bogazicili (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed the part that mentions that the city is vulnerable to earthquakes on the lead section. Not only does it not fit there due to the fact that it suddenly goes from sports clubs to earthquakes, its also due to the fact that no other earthquake vulnerable or natural disaster prone cities, like Tokyo, Los Angeles and Athens, have anything mentioned on their own lead sections like this here. Its already fully writing down below at the Geography and environment section. Woxic1589 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Woxic1589}} see WP:otherstuffexists.

:The relevant policy here are MOS:LEADREL and WP:PROPORTION. Earthquake risks are mentioned in considerable length in WP:Tertiary source, [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0517 the Istanbul entry] in [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118568446 The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies].

:The lead is supposed to repeat what the body says, so not sure what you mean by "Its already fully writing down below at the Geography and environment section". Everything in the lead should be explained by the body in detail. That's not a reason for deleting parts of the lead.

:Per WP:ONUS, consensus is needed for adding material. However, if you want to remove sourced material, you still need a valid reason per WP:PAGs. "Its already fully writing down below at the Geography and environment section" is not a valid reason.

:Do you have a valid reason per WP:PAGs for removing the first row? Then you can remove it per WP:ONUS. However removal of sourced content without a valid reason could also be problematic. If you disagree, you can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t think you get my point at all. You suddenly go from ‘’The city hosts a large part of Turkish football and sports in general, with clubs such as Galatasaray, Fenerbahçeand Beşiktaş.’’ to ‘’ Istanbul is vulnerable to earthquakes as it is in close proximity to the North Anatolian Fault.’’. Thats NOT a great lay out at all and makes the lead look forced. As if you try to prop in as much as information as possible.

::It needs to be either moved to somewhere else or just deleted like how I did it. You also didn’t explain why the pages of Los Angeles and Athens don’t have anything like that mentioned on their own lead sections. It just makes no sense. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)