Talk:Istanbul/Archive 1

message: I've just deleted other names than Istanbul. Other names should belong to an independent article.Mmorgil 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they don't, they belong here.  See the rest of the talk page and articles such as Delhi and Tashkent. --AW 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City Name

message: There is a big empty space next to the population growth table under "Demographics - Population growth", which doesn't look aesthetical. I suggest the image with the caption "View of Bosphorus Bridge across the Bosphorus from Bebek District of Istanbul" under the same topic be moved up under "Overview" subtopic, and the table relocated to the place of this image's current position. In addition, the image gallery and the list of places under "Places of Interest" topic gives the reader the feeling that it's the end of the article, and again does not look good. Is it possible to at least move the image gallery to the end of the article. Maybe a couple of sentences can be added to the beginning of "Museums, Monuments and Other Buildings" and "Markets, neighborhoods and places", or a single image under each topic to fill the empty spaces to the right of the lists would help keep the reader's interest. Cheers! DeliDumrul 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual

message: What is the point of mentioning Constantinople in Greek alphabet on the first line of the name of the city? Have you ever seen New York article with New Amsterdam? No, because it is hitorical and must be mentioned within its context: history. I especially I do not unerstand mentioning the name in Greek alphabet. Should we also write it in the first line of the text in Arabic alphabet? No. Regards. Ormands 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing information within the context 

message: The article Burgazada just popped up, and while cleaning it up I came across some confusion. Is it "Prince's Islands", "Princess Islands", "Princes' Islands", or something else entirely? Google test leads me to believe it's "Princess Islands". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Steven Runciman's The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign, they are called "The Princes' Islands". I don't have the book in front of me, but I think Isaac Deutscher, in his biography of Leo Trotskij (who was banished to this location in the early 20th century) called them either the "Prince's Islands" or "Princes' Islands". The later form makes best sense because it was where troublesome members of the Byzantine Imperial family (usually male) were placed. -- llywrch 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It is most unlikely to be Princess' Islands as the name originates from the Byzantine practice of sending old emperors and rival claimants to the islands as some sort of a prison after making sure that they are no longer physically capable of contesting for the throne, to the best of my knowledge there weren't many female claimants. The Turkish version of the name, "Prens Adalari" translates as "Prince Islands".
The islands are known generally in Istanbul (in both English & Turkish) as just 'the islands' however the literal translation of the Turkish is indeed 'Prince Islands'. Despite this the colloquial English name used in Istanbul to refer to these islands is "Princes Islands", although where the apostrophe goes (or indeed if there is one) is a matter for debate. Turkish doesn't always distinguish between singular and plural forms and thus it would not be wrong to use 'Princes Islands' - use of an apostrophe would suggest 'Islands of the Prince(s)' which they most certainly were not!! StuartJames 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is Princes' Islands, which actually even figures in the Redhouse English - Turkish dictionary and is translated as: Adalar, Prens Adaları, Kızıl Adalar. BTW, not a bad place to be banished to :-) Bertilvidet 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prince's" Islands? 

message: I'm concerned about a lot of material added in early December by Erginer. There's a lot of flowery and inappropriate language, for instance "It is not yet in the power of our science to know the origins of Istanbul. By what miracle it emerged from the depths of the sea like a pearl from its shell ..." and I suspect that it may be a copyright violation - indeed at one point it refers to "as I explain in the few pages of this book". Should we just delete all of this material? rossb 07:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it's all from a book that's referenced in an early section. It is dense, unencyclopedic, probably non-neutral, and just looks bad, and so, based on Wikipedia:Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources and other policies, I'm going to revert it. Blacklite 07:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should do this selectively - there have been a number of edits since Erginer's additions, which may be worth keeping. rossb 07:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate content

message: When was the Asian shore of the Bosphorus included in the city? 1930? In any case the article should say. Septentrionalis 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boundaries

message: Why not a regular "I?"  Does "İ" change the pronunciation?  Why, if it's usually written in Arabic letters, is it written in an altered form of Roman letters?  Citizen Premier 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC says Istanbul without an I-dot, so does the New York Times, The Guardian and virtually all the English language-media, so there's no question about it. NPOW 00:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's the same as Quebec, our articles uses the name without diacriticals. NPOW 09:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the official name of the article, in English, should use the English alphabet and therefore out to be Istanbul, not İstanbul. However, I think that in the first sentence the Turkish names İstanbul should be given. Why? First, for consistency. In the article on Brazil, the Portuguese name of Brasil is also given. Second, for those familiar with the Turkish alphabet, the Turkish word gives an idea on the pronunciation.Interlingua  talk email 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whence came the "İ?" 

message: User:Derek.cashman wants to change, and thinks, that all “Sister cities” lists in articles should be converted/changed to “paragraph” form. I don’t want to. Can you imagine a lists of 26 sister cities, like for Istanbul, and trying to read it in paragraph form? Please read my opinion and vote. WikiDon 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities: List or Paragraph...??? 

message: Someone suggested the following information on Wikipedia:Articles for creation.  It may be useful in this article:
Islambol
The name of the capital of Turkey named by the Ottoman Turks from 1453 right upto the beginning of the twentieth century. Islambol means (Islam Bound). Bol in Turkish means "a lot of" so Islambol meant "the city with a lot of Islam".
Currently now known to europeans as Istanbul, this is its former historical name.
-- Creidieki 00:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information from anonymous contributor on "Islamabol" name (from [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]]) 

message: I think Istanbul is also a sister city with Isfahan (city). You might wanna add that.--Zereshk 00:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another sister city

message: can someone move the page back to İstanbul? sorry about that. it was a mistake. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops 

message: :Add any additional comments
::The move discussion appears to be defunct; the article has been moved. Thus I am too late — but I'll leave a comment anyway: in cases where a standard English form exists, the Wikipedia uses it; hence for example Cologne not Köln; Munich not München. It could be argued that Istanbul (no diacritical mark) is a "standard English form." (It could contrarily be argued that it's not a separate form and that the only reason the diacritical mark is so commonly left off is technical limitations.) Of course many more obscure places *don't* have a standard English form; this does set up an interesting inconsistency — but I think it's one we can live with. Doops |  talk 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was pretty quick. --Khoikhoi 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far, far, too quick. Closing a page move discussion after one day? I object, not just because of that, but because the new character displays oddly on my system and it is not the most common spelling in English. Also, it looks like the page move was not done completely: some of the redirects were not changed. Jonathunder 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object too.  I completely missed this vote.  It should have been open for at least a week or so, and accumulated at least three votes.  I question the validity of the vote that happened as well as the move that followed because of it. - Gilgamesh 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The history of Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium appears twice and is not identical. This  duplication should be prevented. Andreas 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Andreas 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History already presented in the [[Constantinople]] article 

message: This is a trivial point in all the discussion of Greek spelling, but They Might Be Giants did not write "Istanbul Not Constantinople" -- It was written by an Irish fellow named Jimmy Kennedy and Nat Simon and first recorded by the Four Lads in 1953.
:Plus the whole mention of the song seems like trivia in the context of a serious discussion of the city's names.  Vote to remove or at least move to a less important part of the page. --Myke Cuthbert 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love the discussion so far about the orgins of the city's name-- that said, I agree that menting the song is really out of place and not appropraite for this article. 38.2.108.125 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [No Title]