Talk:Çandarlı Halil Pasha the Younger

message: The name of the article is Çandarlı (2nd) Halil Pasha . Why ? The article of the first Çandarlı Halil Pasha is Çandarlı Kara Halil Hayreddin Pasha. So there is no risk of confusing the names. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 2nd ? 

message: There are structural and grammatical mistakes in this article that should be fixed. (Critical M104 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Mistakes 

message: Hi Beshogur. Here's the thing: I don't have an eye to see if someone is a sultan from their picture. Based on what you claim that this is a sultan? I also think this isn't, at the very least, a contemporary portrait. But can you prove that this isn't Candarli? Whose picture is this then? I think that even if it is a later portrait is fine to include it because a picture improves an article very much.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: please stop insisting about fictional pictures. See this. It doesn't make him Çandarlı because some forum like websites says it. A fictional, plus a fictional portrait that isn't him at all doesn't improve the article, it simply makes it funnier. Also other notes on the infobox, we don't place the death reason as you've put and a flag beside the nationality. See infobox officeholder. Beshogur (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not put the reason of death and a flag there. I had searched  throughout google that picture and couldn't find matches. Hence, assuming that it was actually a modern portrait of him, I thought it was fine to include it, maybe with an appropriate caption, even if the pic came from "forum like" websites. It's fine to include a modern portrait, as long as it actually depicts the subject. However, its is now clear to me that this actually is Murat I. So thanks for clarifying things to me.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Beshogur, I possibly found a temporary solution. Based on the position close to Mahmed in Zonaro's painting, and possibly the hat, this should be a general or high ranking individual. With the caption I inserted, it is fair to keep the image. What to you think?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should you place a pic that isn't him? Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Beshogur, we don't know that it isn't him. If we agree that this  is a general, then it must be one of the chief ones, entering Constantinople right next to Mahmet. There were five prominent generals in the siege, including him, perhaps the best-known one. The picture actually shows two. We are not even stating it's him in the caption. Though it's possible. I think that this image improves the article and yet doesn't stop the research for a better one.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know who that person was, please read WP:OR. Why do you insist on pictures on the infobox, it doesn't require when there are not. Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a requirement, but it is an improvement. There's no original research. That is a Turkish general entering Constantinople. He was among those generals. I don't have doubts that the image may be included in the article. The only doubt I have is whether it can be included in the infobox, though I don't see why not. If not, we can place it outside of it in the top right corner.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Candarli