Talk:Thessaloniki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thessaloniki article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Thessaloniki as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Greek language Wikipedia.
Peer review Thessaloniki has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Wrong with the Byzantines vs Ottomans

Its a well known fact that the Byzantines held onto Thessalonika after the fall of Constantinople. In fact, if you look at Fall of Constantinople article and scroll down to the map, you'll see its under Byzantine control. Hmmm. Also, when constantinople fell, a Byzantine pretender took the city until it was lost in teh later half of the 15th century. Tourskin.

[edit] Size

This article is becoming very long. Perhaps we should move some of the content to subpages (like History of Thessaloniki), trim useless stuff, etc. See Wikipedia:Article series for more information. Khoikhoi 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VILAYET OF SELANIK SHOULD BE ADDED IN OTTOMAN ERA

OSMANLI The Osmanli Elayet of Selanik (Gr.: Thessalonike) was created ca 1846 out of parts of the Elayet Rumeli. It became a Vilayet in 1867.

In 1912, on the eve of the Balkan Wars, it included three Sandjaks :

- Drama (Gr. Dráma) (1) - Selanik (2) - Siroz (Gr. Sérrai)

In 1912 - 1913 the Vilayet was occupied by Bulgarian and Greek troops. After some strife most of it - except the Kaza of Dovlan (Bulg.: Devin) in the Sandjak of Dráma, which was assigned to Bulgaria - became part of Greece (Treaty of Bucharest of 1913).

(1) Included in the Sandjak of Dráma was the island of Thásos (T.: Tashuz)

   This island had become a Sandjak of the Elayet of the [[Djeza'ir-i Bahr-i
   Sefid]] in 1556, before being transferred to Selanik in 1902.

   In 1841 the island had been granted to Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the Vali of
   Egypte and his successors as a tributary possession.
   For a time the Egyptians ruled it very independently, but in 1908 direct
   Osmanli rule was restored and in 1910 the island was made a Kaza of the
   Sandjak of Dráma, the Egyptian rulers now only receiving its revenues.

(2) Included in the Sandjak of Selanik was the tributary and autonomous

   Monastic Republic of the Áyion Óros (Holy Mountain = Mount Athos,
   T.: Aynazoz)


No objection in principle but that is a whole Sandjak with a wide geographical reach, and this article is about Thessaloniki, it would make it spiral way out of its boundaries and its scope. It seems inevitable that people will want to add or remove, or apply similar criteria to other article of towns and cities. Politis 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Politis 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OSMANLI CHIEF ADMINISTRATORS

Vali

1868 - 1871 Sabri Pasha 1871 - 1872 Ismail Pasha 1872 - 1873 Ömer Fevzi Pasha 1873 - 1874 Mehmed Akif Pasha (3x) 1875 Reuf Pasha 1875 Midhat Pasha 1875 - 1876 Esref Pasha 1877 Abdi Pasha 1877 Ahmed Rasim Pasha 1878 - 1879 Halil Rifat Pasha 1879 - 1892 .... 1893 - 189. Zihni Pasha 1895 Hasan Fehmi Pasha 1896 - 1898 Hüseyin Riza Pasha 1899 - 1900 Haci Hasan Refik Pasha 1901 Tevfig Bey 1902 - 190. Hasan Fehmi Pasha (2x) 1904 - 1907 Ra'uf Pasha 1908 Danis Bey 1909 - 1911 Ibrahim Bey 1912 - 1912 Nazim Pasha

Shouldn't these be included under the sub-article, "History?" Perhaps as a forked list from there? I think all administrators should be included, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, whatever. But they may each need to be forked because of their size. Student7 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-organization of the Photos

I think that the photos need to be arranged in a better way throughout the article. Two photos (on the right or left side) for each section would be good, I think. I will try to apply some changes. Please, feel free to discuss or make the relevant changes you think that should be done. JFKennedy 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We now have two image galleries in the article. Jkelly 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Consulates & Sports Clubs

Do we really need these lists in the article? The Consulates list would be appropriate for Wikitravel but not an encyclopedia article. The sports clubs list must be shortened (only the major teams) and have a paragraph about sports in general. If nobody objects I'll remove them tomorrow. geraki 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave them in there. The consulates give the city a sense of status or importance. Now for the sports teams, I don't really know what could be taken out. The teams from Thessaloniki must stay. As for the other teams, I guess there proximity to Thessaloniki should determine whether they should be in the article or not. El Greco 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar major non-capital city articles don't mention consulates at all: Lyon, Milan, Chicago, Osaka, Barcelona; New York does mention that it hosts "the world's largest international consular corps". Listing the consulates (or even saying how many they are) sounds like insecure boosterism. --Macrakis 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture

How come there is no architecture section. Surely, a city this great deserves one. 68.237.38.42 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osaka and Thessaloniki

An IP editor added Osaka and Thessaloniki to each other's list of sister cities. Osaka's official web page for such relationships does not list this relationship. If a reliable source states that Osaka and Thessaloniki have such a relationship, the information, including the reliable source, will be a valuable addition to the articles. Fg2 11:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jews of Thessaloniki

There are a few problems with this section. The Jewish population would have been some number less than 62,000 at the time of the fire. Source after source says nearly half the Jewish population was left homeless, yet this section says 50,000? I cannot find a single peer reviewed, google scholar, or any google reference whatsoever for the citation's author.

The issue of the blue law is complex. The port had been closed on Saturday. Certainly closure on Sunday out of context seems to be draconian, but such blue laws existed throughout Europe and this was a shift from Saturday, which favored one group dominant at the time, to Sunday to reflect the new majority population.

Also we have this: Many Jews emigrated to Turkey,[9] United States, Europe and Alexandria, Egypt. " Aside from the fact that the great majority stayed as the city became part of Greece, the bulk of the minority which left went to Palestine and the US. Very few went elsewhere. 72.75.2.67 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Could you point to some sources for the amount and destination of emigration? I, too, have heard that most Jews stayed after Greek annexation, but it would be good to have some figures. I am fascinated by the different currents in the Salonika Jewish community. For example, Emanuel Karasu was one of the founding members of the Young Turks and said he was "a Turk first and a Jew second"; he of course emigrated to Turkey. His nephew Isaac Carasso, the founder of Danone Yoghurt, emigrated to Spain. Both left just before the Greek troops took the city. Jean Ichbiah's mother emigrated to France, but I don't know when. --Macrakis 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I just cited the blue law claim, and added a bit about the Jewish electoral districts. Your point about the the blue law is interesting, but if you're implying that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article, I disagree. The fact that, as you said, it was a shift to favor the new majority is relevant- it shows that the Jews were losing economic power and the government was acting accordingly. We have to make sure that any attempt to use that fact to paint the government or Greeks with anti-Semitism has to be scrupulously verified, but as an explanation of the city's changing economic trends, I think it fits. 24.60.166.137 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is the use of the word "took over" used to describe the actions of the greek army. The correct statement should have been "liberated". Inspite the historical fact this is and was at that time the general notion in both Greece and at other European countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.18.160 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Salonika

Salonika deserves its own entry.

I have been writing a book about the last years of Salonika, and quite frankly, we're talking about two entirely different cities, two different populations, two entirely different cultures.

The Greek population of Salonika was only about 12 percent. Yet somehow, three years after the Greek occupation, the mayor was Greek, Konstantinos Aggelakis (1916-1920). Salonika died the day Greek troops conquered it. The Jews weren't losing economic power in 1912, certainly not to the Greeks. But by 1917, they were destoryed. There may be no documentation that Venizelos burned the city, but there is no doubt where his "Liberals" stood. These days, the local university, built on land extorted from the Jewish community during the Holocaust, doesn't even offer a course in Ladino, the majority language until 1912.

After the Holocaust, just 30 Jewish families were able to reclaim their homes. If you want to get beaten up, just mention Salonika's Jews to local Greeks. Most don't know they were ever there. The rest simply get angry. Scott Adler 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there should be a separate article on Salonica. There is already some mention of the Jewish population and any sourced and creditable additional information on them would be welcome. This city has gone through many cultural incarnations, but to segregate the city's history into discreet channels does more harm to truth than trying to work here to incorporate the whole sweep of the story.Argos'Dad 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree. You can't have separate articles for different historical periods, different population constitutions, etc. of the same (at least geographically) city. If we did that for the period when Thessaloniki was mainly Jewish, why not have a separate article for Thessaloniki during the Hellenistic Era. Also, about getting beat up by mentioning Salonika's Jews to Greeks, that's just plain stupid. Alexhard 10:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I too think its a bad idea to have separate articles, if it was so articles for many cities around the globe would have to be split into new ones each time the population percentages changed more than a certain margin. i.e Rome in the classic era was nothing similar to today's rome and so on. Thelveres 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population war

One of you must be looking at something, preferably in English (!), that differentiates between metro and prefecture statistics for population. Can't you insert that as a footnote to end this war once and for all! Thanks. Student7 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Urban Area of Thessaloniki, or the ' ...continuously built-up area...' of Thessaloniki, is clearly defined by greek law (1561/1985, paragraph 14.A.1.3). The population sum of the municipalities that comprise this area is 800.764 (2001 census). What is called the 'metro area' of the city, although not clearly named as metro area, can also be found at same law (Thessaloniki Master Plan) - this extended area has a population of 976.575 (2001). The prefecture of Thessaloniki includes towns located 80 km away from the urban area, far away from its commuter belt (population of the whole prefecture: 1.057.825, area: 3.683 km2). It is clear that the metro area of a city of this size and population density cannot cover an area of 3.683 km2, twice as big as Greater London. The prefecture includes mountains, two lakes etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.244.1 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now can't you formulate that into a caret-ref-caret reference and put it by the statistic? Both to the law and the actual figure that you are using? Two references/footnotes. Thanks. Student7 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
But lets get one thing straight. The city is not the same as the municipality. Therefore its the city statistics and the metro statistics in the infobox, no need for urban. El Greco (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation for Macedonia

Disambiguation for Macedonia (or Macedonia or Macedonia) should only be done in contexts where there is a possibility for them to be confused with one another. Certainly, within the context of Thessaloniki, I'm sure there's no need for any form of disambiguation which contradicts the principles of WP:NCON (common, official, self-identifying name -all three). If the reader wants to see that this is a "region of Greece" (duh, while we already state "Greece's second largest city"), he may click on the link and see it. I refuse to accept that this encyclopedia will try to devise all sorts of tricks for inserting originally-researched qualifiers next to the (Greek) Macedonia, so as to leave every other instance of un-disambiguated Macedonia for the country. NikoSilver 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Three points. First, I've changed the text to indicate that Thessaloniki is the capital of Central Macedonia, which, in fact, is correct. Second, I must point out that we work by consensus, not 'refuse to accept.' That sort of language is unhelpful. Third, be careful when throwing around WP:Original Research - by omitting (Greek) from the article (but not from the talk page where you are trying to make yourself clear) you force conscientious editors to find other, non-irredentist, language. Jd2718 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Macedonia is referred to as a "region" consisting of a bunch of sub-regions in turn consisting of 13 prefectures or so. Thessaloniki is capital of this whole regional mess, whatever that means. The vagueness of what Macedonia is needs to be explicitly included. Further, it is hard to find anything more concrete in English. If you have anything at all to support your claim, why aren't you including it as a footnote? Student7 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well in Greece it called Macedonia, not Greek Macedonia. El Greco(talk) 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
References for the administrative units of Greece? Click the link for Central Macedonia, or google "Greek Administrative Units." There is not an administrative unit (anymore) called Greek Macedonia, which makes this edit warring rather silly. Jd2718 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Student, you have introduced a travel website - I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. Jd2718 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
On the Greece#Peripheries and prefectures, it calls Macedonia a "periphery" whatever the heck that is, and identifies Thessalonki as it's capital. Right? BTW, Technically, we're are not supposed to be using other articles as references directly. They could be wrong too! But based on Wikipedia, I agree that they aren't called regions anymore (assuming they are correct) BUT they are called "peripheries." (Is that an improvement?  :)
For the record, we don't care about population of the periphery or even prefecture. They have their own articles.
I do agree that travel sites are not appropriate. But (as I mentioned) it is hard to find anything in English. Student7 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The UN map section's map of Greece from selection list here clearly shows 13 administrative regions, of which Central Macedonia is one. Wikipedia's own articles on Regions of Greece and Prefectures of Greece make plain that the Peripheries are administrative subdivisions, but that the Regions no longer are. Jd2718 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(to Niko:) Don't give us red herrings here please. We don't force disambiguations on Greek Macedonia in order to leave the other Macedonia without disambiguation. The point is, we disambiguate both. And for heaven's sake, please stop thinking of disambiguation as if it was some sign of slight or disgrace. We use disambiguation because outside readers need it, it's an entirely practical matter. Overloading it with political implications like that is entirely inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "Greece" and the link constitute more than enough disambiguation. But in any case, no matter how you define Macedonia, whether in the narrow Greek or in the wider sense, Thessaloniki is its capital, so I don't understand the fuss. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, its being the principal city of the wider region is not what the sentence is meant to express. And speaking of a "capital" of such a region would be inappropriate too, because "capital" implies official political function. Just stop thinking for a moment about the sensitivities of Greek editors and approach the issue from the perspective of an outside reader. Like it or not, for the outside reader who may very well know about the existence of the independent state of Macedonia but possibly not about the existence of the Greek region of that name, the sentence "Thessaloniki is Greece's second largest city and the capital of Macedonia" is a stumbling block for understanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
God forbid we'd actually make them think, hey? Actually, they don't even have to think, they just have to click. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the responsibility of every writer to make reading as smooth as possible, and a text should be understandable without clicking links. Wikipedia texts are supposed to be capable of being transferred into other media, don't forget that. If the disambiguation is hidden in the link, it's not effective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
One more time for the ignorant - why can't the article say that it is the capital of a "periphery" called "Macedonia?" Is it because the word "Macedonia" has such political overtones that the word "periphery" can't be used? We have one article that already uses that term. Should that article be changed? Student7 02:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the Periphery would be "Central Macedonia", not just "Macedonia", a smaller unit. But I doubt Nikos' and Kekrops' objections are about such factual details, it's just that they want to demonstrate, for political reasons, that they can use the term Macedonia in "their" (i.e. Greek) article pretending no other Macedonia exists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You got me wrong, really. What I was trying to demonstrate is that if we're going to use the other Macedonia un-disambiguated in its related (or non-related) articles, then we have to do the same for this one. Nothing more than that, and it has nothing to do with "turfs", nor am I a fan of ostrichism to pretend another Macedonia doesn't exist. Actually, now that you mention it, the use of the country's name un-disambiguated deserves the same response: They/we pretend no other Macedonia exists! You get me now? NikoSilver 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
But that's not really true. The short form, Macedonia, has been informally banned from Wikipedia. It does not appear in the entire article about the country, Macedonia. Even the awkward phrase "the Republic" is used to avoid it. Jd2718 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
On these grounds I'd agree Jd, and case closed. My original concern was that when the ethnic Macedonians remove "offensive" qualifiers from their names then they are "self-identifying", while when the Greek guys are doing the same for their own then they are becoming jerks. I'll hold you on your comment above, and I find the present solution in the intro satisfying. NikoSilver 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Niko, I agree with you. Thanks to all for talking, and esp. to FutPerf for coming up with text that reads well, reads clearly, and does not offend. Jd2718 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant misunderstandings
While we are (again) arguing over where Macedonia "really" is, can we also state if Thessaloniki is the biggest city in population as opposed to area. I have a feeling that population is the issue here, besides attempting to pin down where Macedonia is. Student7 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Periphery/region etc

First off, the debate in the above was irrelevant to this section, but since it was mentioned, I think I should clear it out:

  • Greece has 10 historic regions ("geographic departments"). Of these, one is Macedonia (Greece).
  • Greece has 13 modern administrative "Peripheries". Three of those, partly comprise the historic Macedonia periphery: West, Central, and East Macedonia and Thrace. You will note that the sum of those three modern administrative peripheries equal the sum of two historic regions (i.e. those of Macedonia and Thrace).

Thessaloniki is:

  • "Co-capital" of Greece ("symprotevousa"), the capital being Athens
  • Capital of the historic region of Macedonia (Greece)
  • Capital of the modern Central Macedonia administrative periphery

And some other honorary titles, like:

  • "Capital of the Greek immigrants"
  • "European Cultural capital for 1997(?)"
  • "Capital of the Greek North" (Protevousa tou Ellinikou Vorra)

When I said I agree with the current intro, I meant with the inclusion of the historic region of Macedonia (Greece), since this is by far the most notable, and since the Greek Macedonians self-identify as "Macedonians" (and not as "Macedonia and Thracians" [sic], which would correspond to the administrative mess up North). Any other opinions? NikoSilver 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We musn't forget that, peripheries aside, Macedonia as a whole is still an official subdivision in its own right, as expressed by the existence of a Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace, headquartered - you guessed it - right here. So it's not just an "historic" (i.e. administratively obsolete) region. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and to give one more apparent example, notice that the Peloponnese is also messed up in terms of modern administrative "peripheries". Most of it (Central and South) is on its own, and its Northwestern part is along with the Westernmost part of Central Greece. Like Macedonia, you can't make up the Peloponnese from the new peripheries, but it certainly is separate geographically (being surrounded by Sea and the Corinth Canal), and in terms of regional self-identification (the Peloponnesians). NikoSilver 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that NikoSilver had furnished a reference to it being a periphery, but there was no footnote/reference to the reversion. I like the "three capitals" idea although the "historic" one looks obsolete. If it is obsolete, maybe it should be under "history." But maybe the other two can be included (with a footnote). I appreciate that it is confusing when refering to "partial Macedonia." Whatever the government has declared it to be and is really treating it that way, should be listed in the opening paragraph, I would think. Should Macedonia (Greece) and/or Greece#Peripheries and prefectures be changed? Student7 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
But that's the point. If you notice the names of the new administrative divisions, they refer to the names of the original ones, which are distinct geographic entities. The entity on the East is by the name "East Macedonia and Thrace", which means that it comprises of an East Macedonia (therefore there is a Macedonia) and by a Thrace (therefore there's also a Thrace). Same with the ministry. I'd agree with you if the name was irrelevant, but it is not. NikoSilver 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol, plus the reference I furnished calls it a "province". [1] (My aim was to help cite the word "capital", not "of what exactly") --NikoSilver 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not disagree with Jd's modification of capitalizing "R" in the link for "Regions of Greece", thereby hinting to the officiality of the term.[2] Given the opportunity, my thanks to Jd[3] and Fut.Perf.[4] for helping preserve the consented version. NikoSilver 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section too Loooong

Usual story ;-) history section too long. Needs to be cut by half. Politis 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous

Οσον αφορα τους αθλητες μπαινουν αυτοι που ειτε ειναι διακεκριμενοι σε ατομικα αθληματα η ηταν σημαντικες προσωπικοτητες που φεραν πρωταθληματα στην πολη.Οχι ο Λουμπουτης ο Κουης και Αλεξιαδης.Ο Ζήσης ναι ο Κουδας ναι η Δανιηλίδου ναι αλλά ως εκει.Α και δεν ειναι site για να διαφημιζονται πολιτικοι που δεν τους ξερει η μανα τους εδώ.Ελεος.

Just for future references, can we get that in English next time? Not everyone on English Wikipedia can read Greek, so for those it would be very helpful if it was in English. El Greco(talk) 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all nice of you to shorten the page by making a separate one from the notables.Secondly i meant that we can't include any mediocre player in the list cause is about notable ones,those who have been instrumental in bringing a championship(in team sports) or are famous and successful in individual sports like Daniilidou.I said that because someone had included dome laughable names.In the end i said that this isn't a site for someone to be advertised cause they had included a totally unknown politician who had a stub in wiki which was a regime in fact and was far from being notable.Just an advertisement.Eagle of Pontus 07:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, they must be notable and people you have heard of. It obvously can't be everyone. The list kept growing and really it was better for the page the list be removed, given its own page and a wikilink be placed on the Thessaloniki page to the list. El Greco(talk) 13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

The economy section is too short. This is the second largest city in Greece, it should have something more to show. I'll try to improve it. Energon 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Article too long

Reaper7 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

is way too long.That's an encyclopedia it supposed to summarize things.Hellenistic - Byzantine - Ottoman and Modern era shall be one article of medium length. See how we shaped history in Greece page.The same thing can be done here. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Thessaloniki was called Sulun, by the slavic speakers of the Thessaloniki Area. The accent is in the second u. I 'll add this in the name section.Hansi667 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Article

We have all said it is too long, but all we get are new sections. I will now list what i think can go.

  • Under Sports, all that is needed is a short list of the teams, not essays on PAOK.
  • Architecture section? For Salonika? LOL. Not exactly a hidden gem of architecture. However this should be made into its own article and removed from this article.
  • Under the name section, it stupidly lists the name in many different languages, yet there is nothing on what the name means and how it was named which is famous. Why is that?
  • Is there anyway to block people adding to this article until it has been condensed?
  • Also there are 7 festival sub articles. Again, why not create an article on the Saloniki Festivals like was done with notable people from Saloniki?

Reaper7 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs some cleaning up:
  • I agree about the essays on teams in sports, and frankly just mentioning what sports take place in the city would be better than listing the histories of each team which can be articles on their own.
  • Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the architecture. I concur that the majority of the post 60s buildings are bland to say the least, but there are some gems hidden throughout the city. And it boasts several neoclassical structures as well as a couple of art deco buildings. Also the old town in Ano Poli has some interesting architectural finds.
  • The name section in this article is a joke. Pointing out how the name came about would be a good start.
  • I would actually rename the festivals to events and yeah, every single thing doesn't need to be mentioned. Again maybe have a seperate article on it, this is the web people, hyperlink.Mapimapi (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are some wonderful examples of the beaux-art style in thessaloniki: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gichristof/sets/72157604907476328/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapimapi (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture and Jews of Thessaloniki

Architecture section isn't summarizing.It's too big.For the Jews (as far demographics of the city are concerned) we could have a summarizing article about them specifically with a connection to a more expanded full of details article about them.From 1492 till 1942.Because the whole article about the city is very very extended.

Also Music stations and stuff could be a small paragraph which would have a connection to a more specific article and etc. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In favour of Jews of Salonika in their own article and keeping a small summary here?

[edit] In English people from Thessaloniki are called Thessalonians

Look at the bible for verification. There is no English word "Thessalonikaians" it just does not exist. Here is a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians 70.107.168.8 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reopen disambiguation discussion

In late September there was edit warring over the use of "Macedonia" in the lead. A compromise was reached, in which myself, NikoSilver, and Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Student7 seemed to agree all concerns had been reasonably satisfied. See agree, thanks by NikoSilver, and agree with Niko by myself, and changed my mind by Student7.

This edit a month later broke the compromise. I didn't notice until the arbitration case, where I mentioned it, but did not revert (edit warring is bad. Edit warring during an arbitration of the issue is more bad). And I forgot about it, until today. I'm not going to boldly move this back, but I am notifying all those who had discussed the compromise in September/October that I have reopened the discussion. Jd2718 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we return to the compromise version, favorably referred to in the diffs, just above:

Thessaloniki or Salonica (Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη) is Greece's second-largest city and the capital of Macedonia, the largest Region of Greece.

Jd2718 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's monopolising the name Macedonia.....BalkanFever 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't what sides anyone is on, but my last take (thanks for the reminder) was that counries get to choose what they call themselves and their internal sub-regions. If the state of New York decides to rename itself "Macedonia" that is what it is. And if Athens decides to call itself "New York City," that is what it is (in articles about that city or that state). Fine for current use. Historically, there is obviously overlap. The state in the US should really admit that it was New York before it was Macedonia, I suppose. But it doesn't have to admit that the name was once "owned" by another country or region. That would be superfluous and irrelevant to the article. Student7 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really see much of a relevant difference between Jd21718's preferred version and that installed by Kekrops? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be trying to appropriate that "Macedonia" is the nation's (possessive). BalkanFever 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That strikes me as a bit far fetched. "of Greece", in the other version, is also a possessive. I shudder to imagine the cold, sarcastic putdown we're going to here from Kekrops when he sees this discussion... ;-) Of course, we could debate the subtle grammatical differences between an expanding apposition and a defining disambiguation.... There's something there subtly avoiding the implication that there is more than just this one Macedonia. But it's not really worth sweating too much over in this case, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be far-fetched, but no more so than any other Macedonia related dispute. Although it does beg the question, why did Kékrōps change it in the first place? BalkanFever 08:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean why did I change "the largest Region of Greece" to the awfully POV and sinister "the nation's largest region"? Because I'm an aesthete, perhaps? I give up, FP; I'm sick of arguing over even the most basic matters of good taste. Make it as ugly as you want. But Macedonia stays. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose "Second-Largest City", "Capital of Macedonia" and "The Largest Region of Greece". You can never have enough capitals. A few more mentions of the word "Greece" in the sentence wouldn't go astray, either; we wouldn't want anyone to confuse this Macedonia with the other, more important one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you look at that, Future Perfect can tell the future. I never knew there was a crystal ball admin tool. BalkanFever 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No crystal ball required. We go way back. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What I still don't get is why we have to reiterate Greece twice in the first sentence alone? We establish it's Greece's second largest city (and a city in Greece) and we need to reestablish again that it's the capital of Greece's largest region, by using Greece again? That just seems unnecessary. Don't the readers see the nation's largest region, obviously referring back to Greece? The way it is now seems fine. El Greco(talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also the largest city, economically most important, etc etc of the geographic region of Macedonia. The ambiguity is implicit. Perhaps the opening sentence needs to be broken or reworded. Jd2718 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps then we should revert to the prior version that defined it simply as Greece's second-largest city and the capital of Macedonia, and leave it at that? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Jd, I'm sorry. I don't understand why "the largest Region of Greece" can be viewed any differently from "the nation's largest region". I _really_ cannot imagine what's wrong with it. I think I'm with Fut.Perf. in this, when he says it's "far fetched", and with Kekrops when he says it is better aesthetically. Care to explain what the (well-)concealed evil is in that sentence? (btw, I couldn't have agreed to Kekrops' proposal back then because it simply hadn't been put forth yet...) NikoSilver 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. this "tweak" [5]: I very much prefered the previous version. Cross-national geographical regions don't have "capitals". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. When it was just "the nation's largest region", I was, rather typically, accused by a Frankish administrator of "subtly avoiding the implication that there is more than just this one Macedonia", and by a Balkanian, even more typically, of promoting a (non-existent) Greek claim on the wider region. When I try to accommodate the wider region, I get this. Hasn't Thessaloniki been the historic capital of geographical Macedonia for centuries? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I never seriously objected against your previous version. I don't like "capital" because, to my mind, it implies formal administrative function, not just being the largest or most important place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But the city's "formal administrative function" really applies only to the obscure level of government known as the Periphery of Central Macedonia. The city's role as the capital of (multiple definitions of) Macedonia in every other sense is arguably far more important. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Then we are operating with different definitions of "capital", simply. For me (and for our wikipedia article), a capital just has to be the center of government. Interestingly, we have another article on primate city, a term I've never remember seeing in use, but which might fit what you wish to express somewhat better. Or perhaps "metropolis"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Does hauptstadt have a more restricted meaning in (the more precise) German, perhaps? Interesting that the Greek translation of "capital", πρωτεύουσα, means precisely what you suggested as an alternative, i.e. primate city. Feel free to revert me, as I'll probably be blocked until the next big Messenian earthquake if I do it, even if it is only to myself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And of course, Thessaloniki as the capital of "every other sense" of Macedonia doesn't quite ring true. There is at least one referent of the term "Macedonia" whose capital is Skopje, like it or not... But that's really just a sidenote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again; I was very careful with my wording, precisely to avoid nasty suspicions like those. But alas, I can't win, no matter how hard I try. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I did something. Happy now? NikoSilver 12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. El Greco(talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps my initial concern was petty - but the result is positive. Thanks to all for entertaining the discussion, and especially to Niko and Kekrops. Their edit makes the opening sentence, the one that most people read, better than it was. Jd2718 (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New editors

Please indicate WHY you are making the changes you are making so other editors may understand the reasons. Otherwise they may assume that you are just vandalizing. Please see format for cities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. Each editor does not have to re-invent the wheel. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jews of Thessaloniki

This is a great subsection. It needs to be integrated down into the supposed main article which is nearly incomprehensible. I tried reworking the sentences of that forked article. Anyway, the material from here could be helpful. Student7 (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thessalonica

After watching many Greek vs Turk language fights, I would hate to start another one! But the name of the city in English (the language of this article!) has never been Thessaloniki. That is the Greek version. The English version has always been Thessalonica. (Tell me when you change it, so I can stop "watching" it for a few days until the dust settles!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that has always been the Latin version. The English version has fluctuated over the years, from Thessalonica to Salonica or Salonika, and seems to have settled on the Greek version, hence the current article location. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My error. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, my personal preference would be for Thessalonica in English, but that would be too katharevousa for most. And besides, nobody listens to me anyway. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Layout

Here is what I suggest for an improved layout for the article:

Intro
1. Name - add how the name came about
2. History
3. Geography and Administrative Divisions
3.1 Location - Where is it located in reference to Mount Hortiatis, Axios River, Gulf of Thermaikos, etc.
3.2 Municipalities - name the municipalities
4. Urban landscape
4.1 Architecture
4.2 Landmarks/Places of Interest
4.3 Archaeological Sites
5. Climate and Seismology - the current geography section would go here
6. Economy - needs more info, like what percent of greek gdp
7. Demographics - place the notables in this section
8. Transportation - keep subheadings
9. Education - where is this section? is there no education in thessaloniki?
10. Politics and Government or just Government - what is the political setup of the city? how do people participate in local government? this is a very important section, in my opinion
11. Life in the City
11.1 Art and Culture - museums might go here?
11.2 Media
11.3 Recreation
11.4 Sports
12. Twin Cities
13. Photo Gallery
14. References
15. See Also
16. External Links

Of course they do not necessarily need to be in this order, one could make a case for the demographics to be a bit higher, but I'm guessing this is a start in order to organize the article a bit more neatly.

Again the current subsections are fine, but I think these cities have better layouts, and we should look to them for inspiration: Tokyo, New York, San Fransisco, and Istanbul which I think does a spectacular job laying out the article. I'd be willing to go ahead and make some of these changes, but was wondering what other people thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapimapi (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking before reorganizing!
One guideline that Wikiproject Cities had was:

1 History 2 Geography 2.1 Climate 3 Demographics 4 Economy 5 Arts and culture 5.1 Annual cultural events 5.2 Museums and other points of interest 6 Sports 7 Parks and recreation 8 Government 9 Education 10 Media 11 Infrastructure 11.1 Transportation 11.2 Utilities 11.3 Healthcare 12 Notable natives and residents 13 Other topics 14 Sister cities 15 See also 16 References / Notes 17 Further reading 18 External links

Notables definitely should not be under demographics. At the end is fine. All forked. The idea with most of these articles is to get enough stuff in the main article, then fork them. Sports may be in this category. Stuff should be in their article, but national championships and beyond might be summarized in the main article.
Sports/Athletics should have their own subsection. Media the same. Climate goes under geography. I feel uncomfortable with "Recreation." Wikitravel maybe?  :) Transportation under a new Infrastructure. "Life in the City" becomes Arts and Culture.
Layout needs to be standardized so that readers can see that there is a pattern to reading the articles though written by many different editors. There needs to be a Wikpedia "feel" to make the reader comfortable. S/he knows where stuff is going to be. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)