Jump to content

Talk:Thessaloniki: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 118: Line 118:
:{{u|SilentResident}} - You always create a picture like they have on [[London]] which IMHO would be better - If the area has more than one notable landmark then they should be highlighted as a picture if that makes sense, I don't see why that shouldn't happen so go for it, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|SilentResident}} - You always create a picture like they have on [[London]] which IMHO would be better - If the area has more than one notable landmark then they should be highlighted as a picture if that makes sense, I don't see why that shouldn't happen so go for it, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{u|Davey2010}} - Good point! Thanks. I am aware that the cities of the United Kingdom have such beautiful and comprehensive collections of pictures and I always wanted the same for the Greek cities... Of course, availability of landmarks/buildings/places/monuments is not the problem here; Thessalonica is a very rich city when it comes to featuring places of interest. Just, the previous editorial consensus opposed this idea and preferred a single landmark (White Tower only) instead. And I remember that any past attempts towards that proposed direction have been reverted... -- [[User:SilentResident|'''S<small>ILENT</small>''']][[User talk:SilentResident|'''R<small>ESIDENT</small>''']] 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{u|Davey2010}} - Good point! Thanks. I am aware that the cities of the United Kingdom have such beautiful and comprehensive collections of pictures and I always wanted the same for the Greek cities... Of course, availability of landmarks/buildings/places/monuments is not the problem here; Thessalonica is a very rich city when it comes to featuring places of interest. Just, the previous editorial consensus opposed this idea and preferred a single landmark (White Tower only) instead. And I remember that any past attempts towards that proposed direction have been reverted... -- [[User:SilentResident|'''S<small>ILENT</small>''']][[User talk:SilentResident|'''R<small>ESIDENT</small>''']] 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I remain opposed to the collage thing and very much prefer a good, esthetically interesting photograph of a single, well-known and representative landmark, the way Wikipedia articles used to have them in the good old days. Collages provide very little real information, tend to take up far too much space (pushing the actual, informative parts of the infobox below the screen), and reduce the visual landmarks of a place to the esthetics of a cheap picture postcard. Collages are a recent fad and nothing more; I find it intensely annoying to find people arguing for them on the basis of a mere "other articles are doing it, so we should be doing it too", or even that naive "more-is-better" logic of "if other places have many pictures, this place ''deserves'' more pictures too". What a braindead argument. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:47, 27 March 2017

Former good article nomineeThessaloniki was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Demographics section a disgrace, not enough neutrality

The section needs to be deleted and started from scratch.. I mean, you know this article has been completed infested when the population of Jews in Salonika in 1842 cites Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer as a source. What about the demographics graph of the city beginning in the 1500s just after the fall of the Byzantine Empire? Anyone reading this demographics section would think the city is a Jewish Turkish city with sporadic Greek influence. I don't think anything will happen or change because editors of Jewish, Slavic and Turkish origin have clearly got this article wrapped up, but it is sad that it doesn't give a more neutral picture of the city. The following sources are not neutral, yet they form the backbone of the demographics section:

Indeed you got a point here. --SilentResident (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thessaloniki is also known in English as" VS "Thessaloniki is also known as"

Can someone enlighten me why is the "Thessaloniki is also known in English as" used instead of the "Thessaloniki is also known as"? Aren't, more or less, the other languages (besides the English language) such as the Spanish, the Portuguese and French languages, sharing the same alternate names for that city with the English? Or am I missing something here? --SilentResident (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a custom practice on other toponyme pages to add alternate names. At least names of the place in local languages, different from the official one, should be added.

In this specific case you should add the Bulgarian/Macedonian name Солун, as well as the Aromanian name Sărună (or its Megleno-Romanian variant Săruna). I don't want to do it myself, because I see that someone placed an interdiction. And I don't want to enter an edit war, as I only accidentally visited this page and I am not especially interested in it.

But I think it is fair to inform about the existence of other local names and this doesn't make Thessalonike less Greek nor "Jewish-Turkish". --Sorin.Botezat (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Moreover in this case it seems that there exists a Greek version of the name Σαλονίκη (see the French page), which is at the root of alternate forms existing in many European languages (including Bulgarian and (A)romanian). --Sorin.Botezat (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New book

New book about Jewish Thessaloniki circa 1912: Jewish Salonica: Between the Ottoman Empire and Modern Greece by Devin E. Naar, 2016, Stanford University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English pronunciation

How do you pronounce the city's name in English? wikt:Thessaloniki doesn't include the pronunciation, either. --37.205.63.157 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture - a move comprehensive picture is needed

Hello. May I ask why the White Tower is the sole picture in the Infobox for Thessaloniki? It is strange that a symbol of the city's Ottoman past, a landmark known for being used during the Ottoman period for incarceration and torture and a place where many people died, to be the sole picture for a significant city of that level.

As far as I know, Thessalonica is a metropolis of almost 800.000 citizens, and one of Europe's oldest but continously-inhabited cities, with a very rich and diverse history spanning 2.300 years and is blessed with lots of landmarks and monuments from various historical periods.

Thessalonica was an important commercial and administrative center already since the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and even served as the co-reigning capital of the Byzantine Empire. Now it is the third largest economic and educational center after Athens and Istanbul. I can't help but wonder how a significant cultural city isn't given a more comprehensive collection of pictures in the infobox. A collection of pictures that reflects its rich heritage and prominence.

I'm fully aware that the White Tower is today the most notable landmark of the city in the same sense the Parthenon is for Athens, or the Colosseum for Rome, or the Big Ben for London, or the Eiffel Tower for Paris, etc. However, this insistence in displaying only a PARTICULAR landmark and nothing more, despite it being a prominent city in the region, and one of the most important historical, logistical and cultural centers in Southeastern Europe, can not be justified.

This has bothered me a lot. I looked to the issue in depth and I have conducted some research on the Wikipedia, just to see if this strange case of "One-Picture policy" is adopted for other cities and metropolises in Europe, America and the world. Checked cities that are not capitals, but still are too significant for them to be represented in their infobox with mere single pictures. And so, I have discovered that they display more comprehensive collections of pictures in their infoboxes. All of them except Thessalonica. Here are their links for everyone's convenience:

Turkey's Istanbul, Italy's Milan, France's Marseille, USA's New York and Los Angeles, United Kingdom's Manchester, Germany's Hamburg, Spain's Barcelona, and Portugal's Porto. Notice how all these metropolises or cities are either the largest, or second largest cities in their respective countries, and yet every one of them has multiple pictures on their infobox.

I went a step further and checked even some of the smaller (but still significant) cities and towns in Southeastern Europe, such as Serbia's Novi Sad, Bulgaria's Plovdiv, Albania's Durres and Cypru's Limassol, and in my surprise, even these got comprehensive image collections on their infoboxes! I fail to understand why Thessalonica's infobox has to stick with a mere picture of a former Ottoman Prison and ignore its Roman, Byzantine and modern landmarks. I am aware of the past consensus, I read the talk archives, but, to be honest this is very problematic.

I shall clarify that I am not asking for the removal or replacement of the White Tower. We should keep the White Tower in the infobox picture, but we should expand it to include other notable landmarks as well. What do you say? Some suggestions by me include: the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda, the Thessaloniki Concert Hall, the Thessaloniki Science Center and Technology Museum, the OTE Tower, among others. But of course, if anyone here has any better suggestions, feel free to share them here. Any? -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident - You always create a picture like they have on London which IMHO would be better - If the area has more than one notable landmark then they should be highlighted as a picture if that makes sense, I don't see why that shouldn't happen so go for it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 - Good point! Thanks. I am aware that the cities of the United Kingdom have such beautiful and comprehensive collections of pictures and I always wanted the same for the Greek cities... Of course, availability of landmarks/buildings/places/monuments is not the problem here; Thessalonica is a very rich city when it comes to featuring places of interest. Just, the previous editorial consensus opposed this idea and preferred a single landmark (White Tower only) instead. And I remember that any past attempts towards that proposed direction have been reverted... -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I remain opposed to the collage thing and very much prefer a good, esthetically interesting photograph of a single, well-known and representative landmark, the way Wikipedia articles used to have them in the good old days. Collages provide very little real information, tend to take up far too much space (pushing the actual, informative parts of the infobox below the screen), and reduce the visual landmarks of a place to the esthetics of a cheap picture postcard. Collages are a recent fad and nothing more; I find it intensely annoying to find people arguing for them on the basis of a mere "other articles are doing it, so we should be doing it too", or even that naive "more-is-better" logic of "if other places have many pictures, this place deserves more pictures too". What a braindead argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thessaloniki&oldid=772429217"