Talk:Constantinople

Requested move 18 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is definitely consensus against closing. (non-admin closure) History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

---

• Constantinople → Template:No redirect
• History of Istanbul → Template:No redirect
• Byzantium → Template:No redirect
• New Rome → Template:No redirect

– Additional suggestions which are not moves: splitting History of Constantinople into multiple articles to be sub-articles of the main History of Istanbul (324–1453 AD) article, and merge Tsargrad into Names of Istanbul.

The reason is that most casual readers will not be immediately aware that Istanbul had several names historically, so using five of those names (Istanbul, Constantinople, Byzantium, New Rome, and Tsargrad) as titles for different articles isn't really in line with WP:AT policy about using easily-recognizable and consistent article names. Also, the names "Constantinople" and "Istanbul" were both used at the same time for many centuries, which means that the division of historical periods based on city name in use at the time, rather than on explicitly stating the historical period in the article title, is quite unclear (as can be seen by the level of overlap in content between several of these articles). The historical name could be introduced in the lede rather than being used as the title, with something like Between 324 and 1453 AD, the present-day city of Istanbul was generally known as "Constantinople". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've just noticed there's a sixth name for the city as a separate article title! Merge Semystra into History of Istanbul (pre-324 AD) too... Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. Support History of Istanbul → History of Istanbul (1453–present). Leave the others as they are. Also move History of Constantinople to History of Constantinople (330–1453). The names Istanbul and Constantinople were used interchangeably from the Ottoman conquest until 1930, even in Turkish sources. But before 1453 it was commonly only Constantinople or Byzantium. These moves would add clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp I struggle to see why do we have Constantinople and History of Constantinople? This article is pretty much about the history of the city that stood where Istanbul today stands 324–1453 AD. Those should be merged into one.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's another issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Part Oppose as proposed, per Necrothesp. Plus New Rome should probably not have its own article, and didn't the Russians later self-describe that way? Merge that to one of the other articles, & set up a disam page. "Istanbul" should not be used for articles covering pre-1453, even though that name was not invented them. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that standard practice is for "history of X" articles on Wikipedia to cover the entire history of a place, including before it received its current name. See History of Wrocław, History of Eswatini, History of New York City, History of Bratislava, History of Beijing, History of Prayagraj, History of Tbilisi, Timeline of Almaty, Timeline of Volgograd, etc. Using previous names of cities as article titles is uncommon. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  But the city is so famous as Constantinople that that would be seen as utterly anachronistic. It was the greatest city in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city has had many names under its considerably long history. "Byzantium", "Constantinople" and "Istanbul" are all equally valid historical names, although only "Istanbul" is in use nowadays. JIP | Talk 22:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose does not help users -- imposes terms not in common use among reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose moving Constantinople and Byzantium as proposed. There is precedent of the current approach. See Antioch, Königsberg, Edo, Londinium, Tenochtitlan, Aelia Capitolina, Eboracum, Thebes and Chang'an. —Srnec (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as historical revisionism. "Istanbul" was virtually unknown and unused in the west until the twentieth century, and is still all but unknown in mainstream historical scholarship. I could get behind using "Constantinople" for the entire period from Constantine to recent times, but the common name remained "Constantinople" until the twentieth century. Also oppose the dating format "337 AD", etc.; it should be "AD 337". P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm obviously the minority here. But mainly supporting because the proposed naming scheme is more WP:CONSISTENT and less likely to confuse readers. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Istanbul was Constantinople, so this page should stay at Constantinople. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. It just doesn't sit right with me to change the names of these articles to refer to it's current one. The names of these articles are more popular then simply calling it the "history of Istanbul," so that's why I oppose. Quincy2293 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statues

The story of statues taken to Constantinople from Rome, Athens, Olympia is interesting. They stood then for many centuries in the Byzantine capital. Revery (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)