Talk:Trabzon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

The recapture of Constantinople was in 1261, it fell in 1453. Is that BRIEF???

I removed the following paragraph from the main article. As it stands, it makes little sense, & I could see no way to improve on it:

Trebizond was an important center in the early history of Christianity, and a number of churches and monasteries were built. They became the center of the power structure of the city for some time, and were in constant battle with Muslim Arabs from 705 onwards. This period lasted until 1098 when they failed to maintain their independence from the growing power of Justinian, and became a part of the re-building Byzantine Empire.

(I could set out a line-by-line critique of this paragraph, but I leave it for someone else to do the necessary research to fix it & return it.) --llywrch 02:38 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about the first part, but presumably instead of Justinian they meant Alexius I. Maybe the last line refers to the expansion after Alexius, or maybe after the Fourth Crusade? Adam Bishop 02:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why is the greek in the accusative? Τραπεζούντα should be in the nominative.

Fine point, but I think Τραπεζούντα is actually genitive. Presumably it's to show how the English name drives from the Greek stem Τραπεζούντ- instead of the nominative.

It's simpler than that: Τραπεζούντα is the Modern Greek form of Τραπεζοῦς, since 3rd declension nouns regularly go to 1st declension. Opoudjis 13:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense... almost all nouns ending in ους are gone from Modern Greek by now. But there is something I don't understand. Τραπεζοὓς has an umlaut over the upsilon- Doesn't that mean it should properly have been Romanticized as 'Trapezoys'? Or is that not an umlaut?... -Panther (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

To all involved in this edit war over the name: I haven't blocked anyone for a long time. Don't tempt me. I've protected the page because I am sick of seeing it appear on my watchlist; coincidentally I also happen to think the current version I've protected is the best solution, but if you want to change it for some reason, please discuss it here first. Adam Bishop 19:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam,
I just wanted to say that usually on Wikipedia articles we state the former name in the 1st paragraph. (see Gdańsk example) Furthermore, Trabzon is home to a large Pontian Greek community, so I think it's very necessary to state the Greek name not in the history section but in the opening paragraph. --Khoikhoi 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khoikhoi
What is your source for the existence of "a large Pontian Greek community" in Trabzon? I lived there for 8 years and my family is still there, but I have never met anyone designating himself as "Pontian Greek". I do not say i have good references for nonexistence (other than my experience) but i would like to hear yours. Even if we assume such a community exists, do they still refer to the city with the old name?
Hi. Here's one for starters - [1]. It says, "The largest group speaking Pontic Greek lives in 5-6 villages in Tonya, Trabzon and in nearly 50 villages at the valley Yukarı Solaklı that is south of Of." Furthermore, there are people like Özhan Öztürk (User:Macukali) and Ömer Asan that we can ask. Both of whom are experts on the Pontus region. I'm not sure if they refer to the city by the old name actually. We'll see what others have to say. --Khoikhoi 22:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while, and I can't remember the exact source anymore, but I'm pretty sure it's true. The thing is, most Pontian Muslims don't claim a non-Turkish national identity. - Gilgamesh 08:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he interwiki[edit]

Could someone please add [[he:טרבזון]]? Felagund 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greeks[edit]

I removed the parapgraph which stated that Trabzon still has asizable Pontic Greek population "As Muslims were not deported afterthe treaty of Lausanne". This just isn't true. There are no Pontic Greeks left in Trabzon. Also Pontic Greeks are not Muslim-- they are Orthodox Christian. I suspect that whoever wrote this paragraph must have been thinking about the Laz, who are Muslim, and who speak Lazca-- and who certainly should be mentioned in this article. There are people who believe that the Laz are related ethnically to the Pontic Greeks, but my understanding is that this has been disproven.

FYI, the Laz are a very sizable minority group along the Black Sea Coast, and their language is very widely spoken, though as a rule younger generations are bilingual. Ethnically they are not Turkic, but one has to understand that "Turk" in modern day Turkey is less about ethnicity than it is about national identity. You can be of Laz, Circassian, Greek or whatever ethnic background but still be Turkish. (One of my Turkish friends made the point that if ethnic purity were the criteria for being a Turk, very few Turks would be Turks-- this is what comes from living on the crossroads of civilization.) So yes, Gilgamesh, above, is right: the Laz do not claim a non-Turkish national identity. Cheers. 38.2.108.125 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More: The Wikipedia entry for Pontic Greeks states the following: "Some writers estimate that there are 300,000 people of Pontic Greek-speaking descent (Ömer Asan 1996) in Turkey (in Trabzon, entirely Muslim and a majority (225,000 - 250,000) speaking Turkish today)." Every other source I have read is clear that all Pontic Greeks left Turkey, however, it is entirely possible that people of Pontic Greek *descent* still live in Turkey. Their ancestors, however, almost certainly converted to Islam, learned Turkish, and identify as Turkish nationals. Nobody identifying as Pontic Greek would have stayed, or would have been permitted to stay. 38.2.108.125 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

People have been changing the names section, I think the way I have changed it is fair - it has the Turkish and Greek names at first, but is shorter than before because I moved the link to list of traditional Greek place names to the "see also" section. Thoughts? --Awiseman 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The greek name must be placed in the beginning, in the first line, as the turkish is on several greek articles (Chios, Kalymnos, Symi, etc). perhaps the link to the list of tranditional Greek place names fits better where u've moved it now. --Hectorian 08:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made clear Trabzon as Turkish name of the city. Because the city not located in Greece Zaparojdik 18:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What pains me is that this is one of the few cities that does not have its own article for Trebizond (Ancyra being the other that I see). Therefore, the earlier history of Trebizond needs a lot of beefing up, because a lot is missing. Monsieurdl 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

I'd like to thank Macukali for his work on the article, but it seems a lot of this information is about Trabzon Province, and is not specific to Trabzon city. If there are no objections I think we should move some of the info to the relevant article. —Khoikhoi 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up dubious content on the city's Armenian community.Hetoum I 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The link 'A Traveler's Guide to Turkey's Black Sea Region' is not in English. I think it should be removed as it does not belong in the English speaking wiki. Also, I am not even sure if it is a proper travel guide page. Just appears to be a whole lot of advertising links etc. PyrE 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will correct that, the url was typed in wrong. Fixed. PyrE 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages[edit]

What are the reasons to write the name of the city in Laz? How many Laz live in the province and in the city? The references should be provided, of course. Alæxis¿question? 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Pontus Community?[edit]

I have lived in the area when I was a kid, and never ever met or heard of a Pontus community. There is nothing wrong with there being one, but that is not the case. I am sure there are many there of Pontus origin, but no one identifies themselves as such. This claim seems to be politically and ethnically motivated at best. No surpise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Era Full of Armenian Propaganda[edit]

"Trabzon was a major Armenian extermination center during the Armenian Genocide"

Is this the way of presenting a city in wikipedia? What is the purpose of such a statement?

There are many other wikipedia pages, where the massacres committed against Armenians, and massacres committed by Armenians are listed. Bringing up such a politicized issue into Trabzon wikipedia page makes the page and the city look ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satabey (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the paragraph in question I tend to agree that most of it has very little to do with the history of Trabzon. I think that it can be shortened to several sentences. The part about names ("Following the Turkish War of Independence and the annulment ...") is imho useful and should be kept as is. Alæxis¿question? 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda? Give me a break. It has been well-documented.Dogru144 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian name[edit]

Why is the Armenian name of the city added to the intro? This is not an official or regional language of the city, it's not spoken by a significant share of its inhabitants. Historically it was part of several Greek states and Greeks lived there for a long time, so the Greek name is warranted, unlike the Armenian one. Alæxis¿question? 20:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

  Lesser Armenia 211.138.124.208 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Quoting from that article:


or from Western Armenia


Trabzon is not in these provinces or vilayets, it was not in Roman Armenia I or II provinces. Armenian Kingdom included Antioch and Damascus during Tigran the Great, it doesn't mean that the names of these cities in Armenian should be present in the lead, same thing with Trabzon. Alæxis¿question? 07:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably are mistaken, because Lesser Armenia was given by Tigran to Pontus as a "present" for the ally. During the Eastern ROman Empire Lesser Armenia was divided among several Armenian provinces of the Empire. the same article sais: After the downfall of Bagratid Armenia in 1045 and resulting subsequent losses of Byzantine Empire in the East in 1071 after the Battle of Manzikert, Lesser Armenia fell to the Seljuks and then was parts of Mongol Empire for 92 years and Ottoman Empire for the entire duration of the latter's existence, as "Western Armenia" after the acquisition of Eastern Armenia by the Russian Empire after the Russo-Turkish War of 1829. More info? Aregakn (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing any of these facts, but how is this related to Trabzon? Alæxis¿question? 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mean you want to delete the names Constantinople or Byzantium from the Article of Istanbul, do you? Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I believe I have already explained clearly why I think that Armenian name should not belong to the lead. Let's wait for others' input (or you can request a third opinion/comment). Alæxis¿question? 18:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason was "Greeks lived there for a long time, so the Greek name is warranted, unlike the Armenian one. " which is untrue as you can see from the articles pointed. ANy other reasons? Aregakn (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent deletion of the same information[edit]

What are the proper reasons of the latter blanking by IPs and some (new) users of referenced information? Aregakn (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern History[edit]

Now that the latest POV deletion activity in the Modern History section has subsided, can we consider whether the genocide text might be better off in an article of its own, named something like 'Armenian genocide in Trabzon. That new article would be referenced from this one by a sentence or two. As things are now, the amount of text about the genocide, compared to the smallish amount of other modern history text, gives the genocide undue weight. I am not proposing any text deletion; only a new article. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely! Could you make a draft, perhaps in your userspace? Alæxis¿question? 16:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it has not stopped. I agree that it has comparatively more information than other issues but I don't see any more notable "Modern Era" stories either. If such can be found and developed, probably this can be agreed on. Aregakn (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poor and backward Ottoman Empire had difficulties in supplying "shoes" to its soldiers, let alone "experimenting with expensive chemicals" like high-tech and wealthy Germany, which is obvious nonsense. There is an undisclosed attempt of trying to establish a connection between the Ottomans and Nazis, with false stories (based on Armenian references) which is too cynical and pathetic. Plus, the article is about the City of Trabzon, not the genocide. More than 2 sentences in that section for a single topic covering only a 1-year period in the city's history (Trabzon was controlled by the Russians between April 1916 and October 1917, i.e. during much of the Armenian deportations; plus, the city's involvement in the deportations/massacres was limited in comparison to other cities like Sivas or Erzurum) is simply too much. Asparagas (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is very important:

1) Trabzon was controlled by the Russians between April 1916 and October 1917, i.e. during most of the deportations.

2) The Russian Navy dominated the Black Sea and literally "blockaded" the Turkish ports such as Sinop and Trabzon, so the stories of "boats dumping Armenians into the Black Sea" aren't very realistic to me. Nobody would dare to venture into the Black Sea under heavy Russian presence, when it would be much simpler to kill the Armenians on land, instantly.

Asparagas (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Original researches are not encouraged, to put it mildly. Aregakn (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New image for infobox template[edit]

I hope you like it. :) -F.Mehmet (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of Colchi[edit]

Some users insist on deleting the sourced info I add. Here are some sources on Colchis you might be interested.

  • Book: CHRONOLOGICAL ANTIQUITIES OR, THE ANTIQUITIES and CHRONOLOGY of the

Moſt ancient Kingdoms, from the creation of the world, for the Space of five thouſand years.

  • Author:John Jackson, Rector of Reſſington in the county of York
  • Year:MDCCLII
  • London

.....We may alſo nearly fix the age of Seſoſtriſ from his expedition againſt the Scythians and Thracians, and founding the kingdom of Colchis near Pontus along the river Phaſis. The account of Herodotus is "that Seſoſtris having ſubdued the Scythians and Thracians in his Return homeward, when he came to the river Phaſis he either left a Part of his army to people that country, or else a Body of his Soldiers who were weary with their expeditions, choſe to ſettle there.....

  • Page 246 Black Athena: The archaeological and documentary evidence By Martín Bernal

It is undoubtedly a fact that Colchis are of Egyptian descent

[4]

  • African presence in early Asia, Volume 7, Issue 1

Ivan Van Sertima, Runoko Rashidi EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION IN COLCHIS ON THE BLACK SEA RA Jairazbhoy The Greek historian Herodotus makes extraordinary assertions about Colchis on the eastern shores of the Black Sea, the same where Jason sailed with the Argonauts. ... [5]

"...That the Colchi were Egyptians Herodotus makes no doubt; and adds, that the Colchi remembered more of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them ; who, notwithstanding, thought they were a Part of the Army of Sejojlris...." -F.Mehmet (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still makes no sense why Colchis and Egypt is related to Pontus or Trapzon. Books such as Black Athena series can't be qualified as rs, same stuff in 18th century works. Also the fact that Herodotus claimed something doesn't mean that this is approved today (he also claimed that the earth is flat surrounded by Ocean).Alexikoua (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable natives[edit]

Is the list of notable natives? It doesn't appear to be alphabetical. Is it chronological according to their year of birth or death or something? I don't want to "fix" it by putting it into alphabetical order if there it's in some sort of order already but I don't see it myself.

Also - is there an English demonym for people from Trabzon? Trabzonians? Luzzy fogic (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CevdetSunay.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CevdetSunay.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ortahisar2.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ortahisar2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ortahisar2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danishmendids between 1080 and 1098?[edit]

Does anyone have a citation to support this sentence in the History/Ancient and Medieval section?: "It was also ruled by Danishmendids between 1080 and 1098." It isn't that I disbelieve it, but I have seen the opposite said elsewhere (that the port city remained Byzantine while the Danishmendids controlled most of the surrounding area) and I think we should find an authoritative published source to support or refute it. TheCormac (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek exodus/expulsions[edit]

This area was one of a sizable Greek, as well as Armenian community. It left under force in the early 1920s. How did this evade representation in the article?Dogru144 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ortahisar, the new official name[edit]

Until last year, the name of both the city and the province were Trabzon. After the province has become a metropolitan municipality, they changed the name of the city to Ortahisar (no change in the name of the province). Bulgu (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe we should merge Ortahisar with this article, keeping the name of the article as Trabzon, and redirecting Ortahisar. I am adding the info on Ortahisar here as a section. Bulgu (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted referring to the Turkish wikipedia articles, but this page for a Turkish city has no associated Turkish version at the moment (actually it should have, which is tr:Ortahisar). Trabzon Province does, and rightfully so. No name change etc. happened to the province, but the official name of the central ilçe, the 'capital' of the province (as mentioned on the article Trabzon Province), is changed to Ortahisar (which is also mentioned on the Trabzon Province page). The change is only recent, and it is not adapted much by the world, not even by Turks (I don't know if it ever will be). Therefore, the name of the of the article should stay Trabzon. My reverted edit (or an improved version) should stay. The capital city of almost every Turkish province has the same name with the province. Trabzon is the fourth exception (among 81 provinces), as far as I know, the others being Sakarya Province, Kocaeli Province, and Hatay Province. Bulgu (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joke. You can't rename a city that has had the same name for thousands of years. There are dozens of local versions of the name as well in many European and Middle-Eastern languages. In Italy and Greece they even still call it Trebisonda and Trapezounta after nearly a century. Trabzon is the English name for the city, and it will remain that way, because there is a lot of history and literature connected with it. Maybe the AKP does not like this history.NeoRetro (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the motivations behind the renaming, Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENG, i.e., it reflects common use in English. If and when this change in the name sickers through to broad and even predominant usage in English, the article will be moved. Constantine ✍ 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of-course, but for that to happen it will first have to change in the local vernacular, which is unimaginable. What makes the whole thing more ridiculous is the fact that Ortahisar is actually the name of one of the historical neighborhoods of the city.NeoRetro (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No argument with that. To me too this change seems odd and I can only think of a (rather idiotic IMO) political motivation; I merely wanted to point out that whatever the official name is, Wikipedia policy requires us to use the common name in English. Constantine ✍ 20:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These answers/comments are barely relevant to my suggestion. I would oppose a move, as well. My edit ([6]) aims to do two things, 1) to merge Ortahisar to where it probably should belong, and 2) to keep the article more up-to-date by reflecting the official change in the name of the city, which should be important enough to be in the lead paragraph. If there is a reliable source indicating the motivation behind the name change, it can be incorporated to the article. The reason behind the change is probably associated with the metropolitan municipality law, which was enacted for Trabzon, after Trabzon became a metropolitan municipality. In the past, Trabzon did not have enough population to be a metropolitan municipality. I will probably be bold and redo the edit. Anyone can, of course, improve on it. Bulgu (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the city has not changed and will not change. NeoRetro (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement[edit]

In my opinion, the current placement of images is displeasing to the eyes, especially with so many images present, with so many zigzags, and some squeezed text. I believe, we should move the gallery and the large image below, and keep all the other images (except maybe one) in the right side, preferably with similar width. Let's make this article more reader-friendly. Maybe, we should also check the mobile version. Bulgu (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Humans are mostly visual animals, so we take up much more information when it is presented visually. I think removing or grouping images is a very bad idea NeoRetro (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I haven't removed any images. About grouping, if you mean that, I made one more gallery from three nearby images. If it is a bad idea, you can undo that. We should also rename/reorder the sections, in my opinion. Also, many city articles have several other sections (such as Cityscape) not present here. Bulgu (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am sorry that my previous comment was a bit harsh. I thought you were one of those persons who want to remove all images from Wikipedia. There are a few out there :) I agree with you that the page should look structured both on desktop and mobile devices. Feel free to add or remove images, move them around, etc. On Wikimedia Commons there are hundreds of paintings, postcards and photographs of Trabzon, so you might find something there.NeoRetro (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph[edit]

At present the opening paragraph calls the city by the name "Trebizond" twice without having first explained that that is the historical English name of the city. There is a link to the later "Names" section of the article, but I'd say that's not good enough; I'd recommend starting the article "Trabzon (historically known in English as Trebizond) is...." Not to make this explicit is, in my view, to do a disservice to the reader. For comparison, see the article on Istanbul, which begins, "Istanbul, historically known as Constantinople and Byzantium...." 206.208.104.20 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trabzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trabzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image of old Trebizond for the commons?[edit]

Servet-i-Funun has an iamge of old Trebizond that may be good for the Commons? https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/173/PFSIF9180228A053%20(1918-02-28).jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes, feel free to upload it. Do you think it could be used to illustrate something in this or other article? Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: FRwiki has a dedicated article for the Ottoman era city under the name fr:Trébizonde, so it could be used to show how the city looked in WWI. Also there's a photo of the customs house so it could be used to show the city received goods from abroad. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have probably noticed that there are plenty of images in the article already, including for the Ottoman period. However if you believe that this image would be more helpful that one of the existing ones for the reader, go for it. Alaexis¿question? 19:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trabzon&oldid=1220132758"