This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Istanbul is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2019.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
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the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date.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)[reply]
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 Greekcity 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.
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)[reply]
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.
It's not exactly the prettiest image, but concerns raised about other images might make this the only acceptable one. Uness232 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The view of the Bosphorus Bridge and the modern skyline from Çamlıca Hill (2013) is outdated[edit]
The current Bosphorus Bridge image in the infobox is from 2013 and displays an outdated view of the city's modern skyline. This image from 2022 contains additional buildings. Many new towers will appear in the coming years.
These towers are clearly not among the timeless icons of the city. Very few of them are interesting in terms of design. Many of them will eventually be demolished and replaced by newer buildings in the future, similar to the redevelopment projects in New York, London, etc.
The Anadoluhisarı and in particular Rumelihisarı fortresses can be defined as the beginning point for the "Turkish" city of Constantinople (Istanbul). Rumelihisarı played an important role during the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It is one of the timeless icons of the city, definitely more so than some ordinary highrise tower blocks, the kind of which you can find anywhere else in the world.
My proposal is to replace this outdated image with the historical beauty of Rumelihisarı Fortress, combined with the emerald green hills of the Bosphorus, splendid yalı houses and mansions (such as the Yusuf Ziya Pasha Mansion with its unique design, visible in this image) and the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge in the background, named after the person to whom the Turks owe the privilege of owning what is arguably the world's most interesting city. Poppins Potter (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, and I do get that the skyline photo is very outdated, however nearly all city articles on Wikipedia use a general skyline of the city as image1:
Ankara doesn't use the Ankara Castle
NYC doesn't use- (well, they do use the Empire State, but a very panoramic image of the Empire State)
Berlin doesn't use the Brandenburg gate
London doesn't use the Big Bang
I think you get it. The point of Wikipedia isn't to flatter any city, its to inform the general public about it. ~eticangaaa (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am for adding the new image of 2022, and for replacing new images with old ones where possible. Our task is to inform readers about the current state of the city, not to preemptively censor the city's development in recent years. Istanbul in the last 20 years has grown enormously, often changing (and not always for the better) the ambience and scenery for which it was famous. The article on the city should reflect these changes. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the 2022 image when reading the talk page, my apologies. ~eticangaaa (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the top image, I'd prefer this [2]. It's from 2022 and is a valued image in Commons (there is also the cropped version). It shows more areas than this [3]. this also looks digitally altered, the colors are weird. For İstiklal Avenue,I'd prefer this [4] We need a night time pic Bogazicili (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would not necessarily oppose [6] being added. I do not see a problem with the old photo, and I consider it to be higher quality in terms of composition and color, but I understand the reason behind replacing it.
The İstiklal photo proposed by @Bogazicili is, however, of unacceptably bad quality in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the current İstiklal image which is almost 20 years old. It is better than the one suggested by Poppins Potter. Are you ok with this one? [7]Bogazicili (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate Hagia Sophia and its okay imo. ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can remove Ortakoy Mosque for either Topkapi or Dolmabahce palace. ~eticangaaa (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is updating the top picture. For the rest, I'm open to suggestions. But the new top pic already shows Hagia Sophia. Bogazicili (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the photos of Istiklal Avenue you provided, except the first, are not good quality enough to be placed in the infobox, but I think we all agree on the top image. And @Bogazicili you are correct, Hagia Sophia is shown in the top pic. Still, I think Ortaköy Mosque could be replaced. ~eticangaaa (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me a bit of Paris/Vienna and this reminds me a bit of London. Poppins Potter (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: Because the "Turkish" history of the city began with the Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses. Before, it wasn't a Turkish city. Considering the role of Rumelihisarı in the successful conquest of 1453 (Bayezid I, who had built the Anadoluhisarı, wasn't successful in his earlier siege), I thought it was a significant symbol (a starting point) for the "Turkish part" of the city's history. Poppins Potter (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For İstiklal images, I have 2 concerns:
1) People's faces shouldn't be too visible. This is technically not a requirement in Wikipedia rules. But, this page got 27 million page views since 2007 (Wikipedia:Popular_pages#Cities). I feel it's insensitive to put people's faces in a prominent page in the infobox without their explicit consent.
2) I'd prefer a night time image but open to a really good day time one. Bogazicili (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No to both, people's faces are too visible if you zoom into pictures. Among your suggestions, I'm only ok with this [8] (most people have blurry faces). This was my suggestion [9]. I'm ok with eticangaaa's suggestion [10]Bogazicili (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy rules do not apply in public spaces such as streets, squares, etc. If someone takes a photo of you when you are walking at a street, you legally don't have any privacy reservations (you can't complain about it). But if someone takes a photo of you while you are inside your home, or inside your garden, without your permission, you may sue the photographer. Poppins Potter (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bogazicili, he mentioned that it isn't in Wikipedia rules nor is it a law, yet it is insensitive and it's really not that common to use photos with peoples faces in wikipedia, especially not in the infobox of an article that gets 5000+ views daily. ~eticangaaa (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your preference is to keep the nostalgic tram, I think this image is perfect, and it doesn't reveal the face of any person. Poppins Potter (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a recent photo of the nostalgic tram on Istiklal Avenue (Tünel Square), taken in May 2023Poppins Potter (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the agreement with the top pic, I changed it. As I mentioned in above sections: "I checked Level 3 vital articles for cities, Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Cities. There are no FA ones, but there are Good Articles: Mumbai, London, and Paris. They all use 1-3-2-1 format in the infobox (top and bottom large image, 3 images in second row, 2 images in 3rd row)."
So we can also switch to 1-3-2-1 format. We can replace the Hagia Sophia picture with something else. What do you guys think of this pic [11]? It'd look like this: User:Bogazicili/sandboxBogazicili (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basilica Cistern is a good suggestion! But now you have 3 pre-Ottoman historical sites in your second row. I think we can add Topkapı Palace, it's not visible in the top image. This is a [13]quality image in Commons. This [14] is also from 2012. How about this User:Bogazicili/sandbox3? Bogazicili (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited your talk page, (hope you dont mind, lol), what do you think of that layout? ~eticangaaa (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mind. I'm fine with the proposed images. My priority are top and bottom images. You prefer Maiden's Tower to Ortaköy Mosque? Ortaköy Mosque has Ottoman Baroque architecture. Poppins Potter, I'm ok with this [15]. At least only 2 people are visible. Or something like this with blurry faces [16]. But I'm also ok with eticangaaa's suggestion [17]. This [18]is from 2008, so it's a definite no. Bogazicili (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ortaköy Mosque is barely visible in the bottom image btw. Instead of Basilica Cistern, we could also consider Galata Tower [19]Bogazicili (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an Istiklal Avenue photo with no faces, and the new pavementPoppins Potter (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eticangaaa, this image got deleted [20] due to copyright violation. What do you think of this User:Bogazicili/sandbox3? İstiklal image is too wide for the second row and will need to be cropped (we can crop from the right). Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili Jumping in here; as I still think we are moving way too fast for consensus to form, I do not have the time to argue in favor of or against every change. I will say, however, that I strongly oppose that specific FSM bridge photo. It is of poor quality, especially color-wise. Uness232 (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the sad incidents in recent years, maybe it's better to keep the current image of Istiklal Avenue with the policeman, also as a warning to potential troublemakers that the area is well-protected. Poppins Potter (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original image, with an improper file name and improper caption.Poppins Potter (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a beautiful image of Istiklal Avenue in the "Leisure and entertainment" section of the article, but there isn't a single image of Taksim Square. Perhaps this image of Taksim Square with the nostalgic tram may be a good substitute. Poppins Potter (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
View of Istiklal Avenue from the entrance of Galatasaray High School (this is the Photoshop fine-tuned version, with clearer facade details and higher resolution. I also gave the file a proper name and a properly written caption.)
I fine tuned the image with Photoshop, gave it an appropriate file name, and fixed the caption. Poppins Potter (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poppins Potter I would prefer the Taksim Square photo you proposed. The one you ended up editing into the article looks completely artificial color-wise. Uness232 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poppins Potter I am not sure that fixed the fundamental issue, which exists especially on the left side of the photo, and might not be easily fixable. Uness232 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the light of the Sun during the early morning hours. It also exists in the original image. I reduced the color saturation and now it looks good. The details on the building facades are now much clearer compared to the original file. Poppins Potter (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poppins Potter I am still not convinced of the quality of that image; I think it has to do with the exposure of the camera when it was being taken. I'd still prefer the Taksim Square photo you proposed. Uness232 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili: What do you think about [22] this instead? It's not perfect by any means, but it might be a good compromise. Uness232 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lovely pic - support using it here Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too dark, and the surrounding buildings don't look like İstiklal Avenue at all. It looks like an ordinary street in a small Anatolian town. I would prefer maintaining the current image. Poppins Potter (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Istiklal Avenue special is its grand historic buildings, not the nostalgic tram installed in the early 1990s. You are concentrating on the wrong detail. Poppins Potter (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poppins Potter I do not have any real insistence on the tram; my concerns are mostly photo quality. Uness232 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an fyi: I dipped out of this discussion because the multiple threads got too complicated for my little mind to handle. If it makes any difference, still i think it should be this. ~eticangaaa (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer images where faces are blurry like this [23] or the empty one [24]Bogazicili (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "empty one" was taken during a curfew (sokağa çıkma yasağı), which is the only time you can find İstiklal Avenue so empty. The curfew was probably due to COVID-19, but people may think other things (e.g. civil unrest due to political instability, a terrorist attack, etc.) so I don't think it's a good idea. It also doesn't reflect the true nature (crowded and busy) of İstiklal Avenue. The other image is too dark, I prefer daylight. Poppins Potter (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
İzahatli Maarif Takvimi: Curfew was actually the joke: "If you want an image of İstiklal Avenue without faces, you need a curfew." Poppins Potter (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was ok with the empty one because it was your own suggestion. I'm ok with this too [25]. Or anything from this set where all faces are blurry [26][27] (more images here [28])
We also need to change the Hagia Sophia image since it's already in the top image. Bogazicili (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any response to this. Uness232, do you object to 1-3-2-1 format used in Good Articles such as Mumbai, London, and Paris? Bogazicili (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ugh yea you're right my apologies, i've just been busy due to school as of late (which is ironic because i usually do this while i have free time at school ~eticangaaa (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili I think we need to start things over and talk it out one image at a time to come to a meaningful consensus, and that would mean that on practical grounds I oppose a change to the format unless enough photos are changed. Uness232 (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this thread is super messed up, it would be impossible for a newcomer to come to any consensus as there are so many branches ~eticangaaa (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232, we are already going one image at a time? Not sure what you mean by "start things over". Uness232 and eticangaaa, currently we need to replace the Hagia Sophia image because Hagia Sophia is repeated twice (both in top image and has its own image). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, we need to aim for variety. We should also aim to show Istanbul adequately. That's why I'm suggesting replacing Hagia Sopia image with a wide image which would show a larger area. Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili We are not going one image at a time; that would involve different subsections and different discussions for each photo in those subsections. We are, as of now, a few editors trying to achieve consensus on this highly visible page, and we have a "structure" that no previously uninvolved editor can understand. Uness232 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232: I am going one image at a time, but the talk page can be restructured. I'm closing this subsection, as I believe we have achieved consensus on top image [29], which was already changed? Is that correct? Bogazicili (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the lighting on the far plane is quite overexposed/oversaturated, but it's fine. As long as we do not come across a better photo of the historical peninsula, I do not see a need for it to be changed. Uness232 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that is the photo i contest the least. I think it is very fitting, more than the bridge. ~eticangaaa (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That photo has faces that are far too clear. Reverting for now, we can discuss and come to a new consensus as necessary. Uness232 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least it looks like "Istiklal Avenue" and not a dark, ordinary street in a small town (the current image). Poppins Potter (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are seeking absolute perfection, it doesn't exist. Luckily so, because if everything was perfectly balanced and symmetrical, nothing would move and the universe wouldn't even exist, as Stephen Hawking once said. It is thanks to the "imperfections" (variances, imbalances and asymmetries) that the universe exists (and keeps moving) today. Poppins Potter (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about absolute perfection. We just reached a consensus about the earlier set of photos, and part of the discussion was about the clarity of faces. Discuss first; if this image is favored by others involved here, I am perfectly willing to concede. But for now, WP:QUO stays. Uness232 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is having "faces" in a photo so bad? Who came up with this absurd fixation? In public places, there is no privacy. Only in private places (owned by a person) you can complain if someone takes your photo without your permission. This is taught in all schools of media and journalism. Poppins Potter (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Bogazicili and @Eticangaaa argued that having visible faces in the infobox of a highly visible page is problematic. It's not about whether someone can legally complain. It's a preference; to avoid such photos out of sensitivity. Uness232 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the vibe in the current pic. But I'm ok with something like this too [31]. It's from 2023 Bogazicili (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark and dull street flanked by ordinary buildings in a small town"
The current picture in the infobox gives the impression of a "dark and insufficiently lit, unimpressive and dull street flanked by small ordinary buildings, in a small town". It's one of the worst and most unfair pictures of Istiklal Avenue I have ever seen - as if you want people to avoid the place. Poppins Potter (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings in this photo look a lot more like "İstiklal Avenue" and it also contains the tram.
Besides, what makes you think that the people who appear in the photo that I shared would be disturbed to be among the "faces of Istanbul"? I'm sure many of them would feel proud and happy about it. It's no different than being selected among the "faces of Paris" or "faces of London". "You" are being unnecessarily disturbed, not "them". Don't make decisions on behalf of other people. Poppins Potter (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take your own sentence into account, Poppins Potter. Just because you would be honored, and others might be as well, because we're nerds who argue over images in Wikipedia infoboxes, but others may be offended. Additionally, you were not present in the later discussions before we finalized the infobox images for the time being. It is aesthetically not pleasing to have visible people in the infobox of an article as browsed and as relevant as Istanbul, maybe fine for smaller articles, but with so many images available, it is quite silly to opt in for a bad quality one, just because it shows a more "modern" version of the street. That is all. ~eticangaaa (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person who thinks that the "dark and dull image" doesn't look like İstiklal Avenue at all? It looks more like one of its side streets, but not the avenue itself. Poppins Potter (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing in Turkey can surprise me anymore. Some Turks claim the world is flat, others claim that Christopher Columbus saw mosques in Cuba, that Shakespeare was actually Sheikh Pir, that high interest rates will generate high inflation, etc. Poppins Potter (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232 and eticangaaa, currently we need to replace the Hagia Sophia image because Hagia Sophia is repeated twice (both in top image and has its own image). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, we need to aim for variety. We should also aim to show Istanbul adequately. That's why I'm suggesting replacing Hagia Sopia image with a wide image which would show a larger area. Bogazicili (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232 and eticangaaa, what do you guys think of this image as a wide image to replace Hagia Sophia image? [32]. It'd look like this User:Bogazicili/sandbox. It shows Bosporus and 2 bridges and Ortaköy Mosque. Bogazicili (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. It is recent and of high quality. I'm perfectly fine with it. ~eticangaaa (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me; it's a nice photo. We would have to think of a caption, however. Uness232 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, after the above changes, the infobox would be like this: [33]. I might have to resize the bottom pic a bit though, it may be too wide. Now that Ortaköy Mosque is in the bottom pic, I'm going to suggest changing it below. Bogazicili (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or should this be replaced with Basilica Cistern[34], while retaining Maiden's Tower and Galata Tower? This is what it would look like (I changed Galata with a Quality Image in Commons) [35]. If we change Ortaköy Mosque with Topkapı, we can also change either Maiden's Tower or Galata Tower with Basilica Cistern. Bogazicili (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galata tower is nice, however i am unsure about the Basilica cistern, maybe its my weird way of thought, but the color palette doesn't quite match nicely ~eticangaaa (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: User:Bogazicili/sandbox4? This one is a Commons quality image too [36], so we would improve the quality of infobox images with new Topkapı and Galata Tower images Bogazicili (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with this palette. ~eticangaaa (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coyotes do not appear anywhere in Turkey. I am unable to edit to remove coyote from the list of mammals in Istanbul, so thought I would bring it to the attention of someone who can. No idea about the other animals cited, but I guess I am suspicious now. 134.243.253.241 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the whole paragraph as Daily Sabah is not a reliable source. I suspect there was a mistranslation of whatever Esra Dağlı said in Turkish. If anyone has a reliable source they could put some animals back in Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Daily Sabah not considered a reliable source for you? I understand the fact that they are very pro-Erdoğan but that article had nothing to do with politics? ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eticangaaa: After the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#RfC: Daily Sabah an example of a wildlife problem (cannot find the discussion offhand but could probably dig it out if you need it) was a mistranslation of ‘’kızılçam’’ as “red pine” which misled me into making a stupid link to an American tree article whereas it should have been Turkish pine. Are you able to find what Esra Dağlı actually said - presumably she gave the interview in Turkish? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar. First sentence "Istanbul, is" -> "Istanbul is" there doesn't need to be a comma there. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
_-_420.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_Street_tram_in_January_2024.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatihistanbul.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul,_Turkey_(November_2023)_-_122.jpg){kind=link}
_-_420.jpg){kind=link}
_-_124.jpg){kind=link}
_-_479.jpg){kind=link}
_-_478.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Istanbul%2C_Turkey_%28November_2023%29_-_124.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatih_Sultan_Mehmet_Bridge_from_Otagtepe_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosphorus_Bridge_-_Istanbul.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Topkap%C4%B1_Palace_from_the_Galata_Tower,_Istanbul,_Turkey_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilica_Cistern_in_2012_5831.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beyo%C4%9Flu_Tramvay_May%C4%B1s_2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Galata_tower_01_23.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bondinho_de_Istanbul_(2893156868).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Istanbul%2C_Turkey_%28November_2023%29_-_478.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galatasaray_Square_and_Ist%C4%B1klal_Avenue_during_a_curfew.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Beyo%C4%9Flu_Tramvay_May%C4%B1s_2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul,_Turkey_Bosporus.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cisterna_Bas%C3%ADlica,Turqu%C3%ADa.jpg){kind=link}