Talk:Istanbul Canal

Article name

The phrase "Canal Istanbul" is obviously unidiomatic in English. Apparently, the planners have chosen "Kanal İstanbul" (spelled with "K" and with "İ") as the proper name of this project, in Turkish, but if you're going to anglicize it, the natural syntax "Istanbul Canal" seems to be the only option. So, which title is it going to be, Kanal İstanbul or Istanbul Canal? The present version Canal Istanbul is neither the official name of the project nor proper English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I know this is a very late reply but I just wanted to mention that I changed the title of the article. Ironically, the phrase 'Kanal İstanbul' also doesn't make grammatical sense in Turkish, since it should be 'İstanbul Kanali' instead. With that being said, a few companies and projects tend to have strange, unidiomatic names in order to add some sort of "coolness", according to what I've been told. Naturally, however, Turkic languages behave much like Germanic and Uralic languages in their way of modifying a head/noun; that is, these languages use pre-modifiers instead of post-modifiers. Anyway, I think the new article name is more appropriate than the previous title. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"greater autonomy"

I'm not sure what this means: "attain greater autonomy with respect to the passage of military ships". Does it mean "greater control"? Why would the Hellespont not still be governed by the Montreux Convention? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanal İstanbul. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430073318/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223806-istanbul-canal-project-to-open-debate-on-montreux-convention.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223806-istanbul-canal-project-to-open-debate-on-montreux-convention.html

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Purpose of canal - apparent contradiction"

"analysts have speculated the main reason for the construction of the Kanal was to bypass the Montreux Convention".

"The main purpose of the project is to reduce the marine traffic through the Bosphorus and minimize the risks and dangers associated particularly with tankers".

Zin92 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a contradiction, as such. The Turkish gov't says one thing (minimise risks etc.), critics say another (gain control). I think the article as it stands gives a reasonable idea of both sides, leaving it for the reader to decide which claim is more likely true. FWIW, I do see the rationale behind the Turkish regime wanting to build an access route that they have full control over, alongside something they don't. If, say, the USA or NATO one day wanted to send more and/or bigger naval assets (than what the Montreaux Convention currently allows) to the Black Sea, letting them through would be entirely in the gift of the Turkish gov't, which could be quite a bargaining chip in certain circumstances. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2020

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: Page moved. There was support for the alternative target "Canal Istanbul", but those who supported it never actually elaborated as to why "Canal Istanbul" should be the new title. Those supporters only WP:VOTED which isn't suitable for building consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Kanal İstanbul → Istanbul Canal – The current title is the Turkish name given to this project. Obviously, for an English reader it doesn't make any sense. It is also important to mention that all the other articles about similar structures and buildings in Istanbul exit here under their English name, unless there's a proper noun which cannot be translated (Eurasia Tunnel not Avrasya Tüneli, Great Istanbul Tunnel not Büyük İstanbul Tüneli, Osman Gazi Bridge not Osman Gazi Köprüsü, etc). Keivan.f^Talk 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support many reliable source like DW, Foreign policy, The Arab weekly, use this name Istanbul Canal. However, many other web sites like Anadolu agency, Financial Times use flipped name Canal Istanbul. Although Istanbul Canal seems okay to me, it was grammatically incorrect. I would Rather support It moved to Canal Istanbul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, it doesn't matter for me whether it's called Istanbul Canal or Canal Istanbul. As long as the title is in English it's fine. Users can discuss the options to see which one is common. Keivan.f^Talk 18:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to Canal Istanbul (but oppose move to "Istanbul Canal"). Khestwol (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Canal Istanbul 173.68.56.32 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Istanbul Canal. "Canal Istanbul" is neither the official name nor proper English. But as user:Nadia pointed out, 'Kanal İstanbul' also doesn't make grammatical sense in Turkish, since it should be 'İstanbul Kanalı', but companies and projects can have strange, unidiomatic names in order to add some sort of "coolness". That said, for the average English speaking global citizen, this project will be remembered the same as Suez Canal, Corinth Canal, Panama Canal et cetera. Therefore, Istanbul Canal is the most suitable. Randam (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Istanbul Canal per WP:UE. And oppose the "Canal Istanbul" move per Randam. That appears to be some weird hybrid of the Turkish name, but with English spellings, and isn't at all the COMMONNAME. Stick to proper English.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable. That's why I suggested Istanbul Canal in the first place. I'm glad some users are supporting it. Keivan.f^Talk 00:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One way?

The info-box on the right says: "Direction: One-way; Start point: Black Sea; End point: Sea of Marmara"

But the notion of the canal being "one way" is not mentioned anywhere else. This could also have relevance for the strategic importance, e.g. if it does not change which military ships can *enter* the Black Sea.

Is "one way" a mistake?

goes one way at a time - that is other direction waits Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

How long will it take to finish the canal?

Is there a predicted opening date? 2A01:C22:D135:2100:B960:5596:9E37:E8FD (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

cancelled altogether afaik Tahatamer0 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)