Talk:Topkapı Palace

message: Would be nice to have an overhead shot to show the layout. Tfine80 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Found an image at an external website, added to links Afeeney 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: Cullinan I - also known as The Star of Africa is the largest diamond in the world, not the Turkish one that you mentioned. sorry to disappoint. The Unknown 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaşıkçı Elması is one of the largest diamonds in the world. According to a legend, it was the hugest diamond stone ever founded but after they worked on it to transform it into jewelry for the Sublime Porte, it was given the modern shape and size we know. See you, Deliogul 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest diamond 

message: Is the misspelling of "Topkapı" as "Topkapi" intentional or accidental? In the latter case, wouldn't a move to "Topkapı Palace" be in order with a redirect from "Topkapi Palace"? JeroenHoek 18:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 12March08: The article has become "Topkapı Palace" but the name in English is "Topkapi" since undotted "i" is never used in English words (which has just the 26-letter alphabet). The spelling as "Topkapı" is a foreign word, accepted due to a fluke in Wikipedia naming: not requiring English in the "English Wikipedia" is currently one of many wiki-spastic issues for debate.  Please do not be mad at anyone here: the Tower of Babel was built upon confusion centuries ago, so blame the ancients for why "Johnny can't spell Kat". -Wikid77 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, if that letter is an 'i' then why not simply make it an 'i'?    148.177.1.211 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: == WikiProject class rating==
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? Hoping to learn Topkapı from Aztech sources? --lardayn 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what respect the architecture of a palace built in Istanbul is not European? --89.97.35.70 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so unbiased I haven't even read the statements. but please delete extravagant adjectives like "sensible" for interiors and "prudent" for layout. This will probably force a change in the sentence(s) themselves and is probably a good thing. We should not be commenting on architecture, merely reporting it. Defer to other sources to do that. Pictures sometimes help. We are not supposed to be making up people's minds for them. Just giving them the basic facts so they may decide for themselves. Forcing them (or us) into a premature decision not only serves no useful purpose, but is annoying and POV. Student7 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics from 2007

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: What on earth do "sensible interiors" and "prudent layout" mean? The source is Turkish, and I suggest the sentence in which these phrases appear is simply a specimen of Turkish bias in favour of Turkish architecture and against European architecture. Greg Grahame 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? Hoping to learn Topkapı from Aztech sources? --lardayn 11:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what respect the architecture of a palace built in Istanbul is not European? --89.97.35.70 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so unbiased I haven't even read the statements. but please delete extravagant adjectives like "sensible" for interiors and "prudent" for layout. This will probably force a change in the sentence(s) themselves and is probably a good thing. We should not be commenting on architecture, merely reporting it. Defer to other sources to do that. Pictures sometimes help. We are not supposed to be making up people's minds for them. Just giving them the basic facts so they may decide for themselves. Forcing them (or us) into a premature decision not only serves no useful purpose, but is annoying and POV. Student7 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious statements

message: ==Faster gallery images==
12-March-2008: I have enlarged the tiny gallery-section images by placing them in wikitables (that fit within the page size for 800x600-pixel screens), and the enlargement made many images 3x faster to transmit/display.  It is another bizarre facet of wiki-formatting that enlarging some JPEG images into a wikitable causes them to be 3x-4x times thinner/faster to display (than the equivalent tiny thumbnails of a <gallery> section).  My main intent was to enlarge the gallery images and reduce spacing, but the wikitable format often makes the images 2x-3x faster to display, as in the case of ":Image:Topkapı Palace Windows.jpg" which enlarges to 233x186px as 14,400 bytes, rather than the tiny 120x96 gallery pic of 42,492b (42492/14400=2.95).  I thought this needed to be emphasized, since it may seem bizarre that larger images are 3x faster to display for each user, but this has been happening for months in other articles using tables for galleries. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--Cerian (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like a fine article. The recent addition about the shooting incident still needs checking and better sourcing. --JN466 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics from 2008

message: 12-March-2008: I have enlarged the tiny gallery-section images by placing them in wikitables (that fit within the page size for 800x600-pixel screens), and the enlargement made many images 3x faster to transmit/display.  It is another bizarre facet of wiki-formatting that enlarging some JPEG images into a wikitable causes them to be 3x-4x times thinner/faster to display (than the equivalent tiny thumbnails of a <gallery> section).  My main intent was to enlarge the gallery images and reduce spacing, but the wikitable format often makes the images 2x-3x faster to display, as in the case of ":Image:Topkapı Palace Windows.jpg" which enlarges to 233x186px as 14,400 bytes, rather than the tiny 120x96 gallery pic of 42,492b (42492/14400=2.95).  I thought this needed to be emphasized, since it may seem bizarre that larger images are 3x faster to display for each user, but this has been happening for months in other articles using tables for galleries. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Faster gallery images

message: 12-March-2008: The article spans 73kb, and large articles need continual cleanup, so I lowered the copyedit-tag box.  So far:
* moved sentence periods before ref-tag footnotes: ".<ref>";
* numbered bullets using prefix "#" to generate 1/2/3;
* per WP:GUIDE, put section titles as Notes/References (had been "References" and "Literature");
* reduced intense words: put "extensive" for "vast";
* added commas between main clauses;
* unlinked common words palace/museum: anyone not knowing can type "palace" and look it up; WP is not a dictionary for each word;
* added some implied words such as "from" or parallel verb "were";
* lowered the copyedit-tag into section "Third Courtyard" to avoid a grandstanding vanity-box: "Aaah! This article needs editing!!".
* added top footnote for pronouncing Topkapi ("Tope-kah-py");
* noted formerly larger complex "with long shoreline";
* noted "expanded over the centuries" renovated for earthquake/fire;
* linked close-up image for Tower of Justice listed as "tallest".
The wording is sophisticated with elliptical phrases and afterthoughts, but I don't think this article is of interest to 10-year-olds, so I added just a few words to reduce ellipsis.  Mainly, the article seemed ok, not in dire need of copyedit frenzy.  However, perhaps the article should be split into a few sub-articles to avoid excessive size. Those are the basics. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup March 2008

message: 12-March-2008: I have retrofit the subheaders "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to help emphasize the dates of discussion. Replies can still be added to older issues, but the year titles just help to focus on more current concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrofit topic-year headers

message: Done minor cleanups, wiki references, but it's in pretty good shape.  There is one word missing I've marked XXX and I can't work out from the context
Chasnor15 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: I believe we should nomnate this article through the good article nomination process Topkapi4 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--Cerian (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like a fine article. The recent addition about the shooting incident still needs checking and better sourcing. --JN466 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA?  

message: There's no such thing as a Baş Haseki. It's either Baş Kadın or Haseki. Letempsviendra (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Road

message: We have an editor without an account insistently changing the transliteration of the Ottoman word cedid (جديد) to jadid. Jadid is the Arabic transliteration of the word, while cedid is the Turkish/Ottoman Turkish transliteration (as any Turkish-speaker can confirm). What he's doing is the equivalent of changing English words of French origin to be spelled as if they were French. Whatever his motive may be, it's disruptive. Should this transliteration need a source, the word جديد/cedid can be found on page 218 of the 14th edition of the Redhouse Turkish/Ottoman-English Dictionary (2011), or by referring to basically any academic system of transliteration for Ottoman Turkish, like that found in the back of any quarterly issue of the International Journal of Middle East Studies. Chamboz (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jadid vs. Cedid 

message: Might be of use. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  EI article 

message: An outline map of the complex would give an idea of the whole.
Claverhouse (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: This page should be moved to Topkapi Palace in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. English language sources like UNESCO (Using Topkapi 3 times and Topkapı once) and even the Turkish government website (Using Topkapi 17 and Topkapı 8 times) prefer this spelling, "Topkapi Palace" yields 4.700.000, "Topkapı Palace" 2.490.000 Google results, "ı" is not a letter used in English, WP:OFFICIAL means the official spelling is irrelevant in naming this article.  Pari Sarcinator (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be retitled as "Topkapi Palace" in accordance with [[WP:COMMONNAME]] 

message: Should it be referred to as "Topkapı Palace" or "the Topkapı Palace"? Is the mononym "Topkapı" acceptable or not? There is inconsistency both here and in other articles where the Palace is mentioned. I think a discussion would assist editors. Harfarhs (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article