Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wikimania 2020
Bangkok, Thailand – 05-08-2020
End (optional)
Local Time

FAR for Rhodes blood libel[edit]

I have nominated Rhodes blood libel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass creation of village articles[edit]

Thousands of stubs, like this one, are currently being created by User:Lugnuts about the villages of Turkey. Though seeing the coverage expanded is good, the articles seem to consist only in a single sentence naming the district the village is in, and an infobox that gives the population. They're all sourced to, a private weather website, so I'm wondering how reliable is the information there? Is that overall a good idea? – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This one is supposed to be a stub. With future additions it will be improved. By the way, for population a more reliable source is [1]. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Some editors are unsure of its reliability. The source I mentioned at #Population looks more official; there is also where the most recent date is 2000, and for villages in some districts the sources are the same as in our articles but in others (for example Karapınar, Gölhisar and others in the same district) they are different. Peter James (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at ANI. It would make more sense to cover these within the District article; I started doing this for villages within Şenkaya, which literally consisted of "X is a neighbourhood in the Şenkaya District of Erzurum Province in Turkey" with no population or location data, but I was reverted by the editor who created the stubs. These were sourced to a table on a government website [2]. –dlthewave 17:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Stubs with no location and no population shouldn't be created, but redirects are no better. There are so many villages in these districts that when information is added to the list it will become too long and less useful. Anyone looking for information about a specific place is unlikely to be looking for the district page, or any of 67 other places in the district. Peter James (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Taking Şenkaya as an example, if the district has a population of 2,803 and consists of 66 neighbourhoods/villages, that's ~42 people per neighbourhood/village. Do we really need articles for every neighbourhood/village? Some of which may not be actual communities but what this book (admittedly from 1974 so things may have changed) refers to as "scattered patterned Mahalles"? Census tracts were explicitly excluded from being legally-recognised places under WP:GEOLAND and these villages/neighbourhoods seem to fall into the same category. Additionally WP:GEOLAND explicitly excludes "maps and tables" from being proof of notability since they include no more information than that the place exists (and hence that is all the information our article will likely ever contain), and the website used for these articles is basically just a map/table with names on it.
Even setting aside the above WP:GEOLAND concerns, does it really make any sense to start articles for every neighbourhood/village in Turkey? There are at least 16,803 mahalles and 18,214 köy according to our article on Villages of Turkey, for a total of at least 35,017 such units. Is the proposal to have an article for every single one of them consisting only of "X is a neighbourhood in Y district of Z province, Turkey"?
My personal preference is only to have articles for those neighbourhood/villages that pass GNG and redirect the remainder to district level. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
32,097 mahalles and 18,208 köy (as of 2020). Also Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
So, 50,305 such units. I fail to see how any systemic bias is overcome by creating one-sentence permastubs for such administrative units. For comparison this is greater than the total number of populated areas of any description (49,000 including those that automatically fail WP:GEOLAND, like census-tracts) in the UK, a country of comparable population to Turkey. FOARP (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The articles would already exist if these were US places; most would exist if they were UK places. The UK doesn't have census tracts; the equivalent areas are identified by numbers (including 171,372 output areas[3]), or have combinations of names and numbers, depending on the level, so it's unlikely that they would be in a list of places. Printed encyclopedias generally have articles much shorter than Wikipedia's articles, and some are one-sentence "permastubs". Peter James (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Having spent a good part of the past year, together with a good number of other editors, AFDing/PRODing mass-created US geofails, I do not agree that articles for what appear to be analogous to lowest-level US census units having average populations in some districts of a few dozen or less would necessarily exist. Please see, e.g., this list for the A-D range of a list of articles I prod'd, AFD'd, and re-directed. We also have the recent case of the mass-created Iranian “village” articles, many of which are (according to the overwhelming consensus currently in the discussion) going to be simply deleted in bulk, with potential sanctions for the creator also being discussed. Finally we also have the case of Dr. Blofeld’s attempt at creating geostubs by algorithm based on GEONET data back in 2008 or so - they got as far as the Cs before people told him simply to stop because there is just no way to ever properly verify so many single-source articles. Mass-creation of Geostubs based on a single source containing practically no information beyond the name of the location is always a bad idea. FOARP (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Do we really need articles for every neighbourhood/village?" is a loaded question. The answer of course, is yes, per WP:5P1. The problem FOARP relates to for creations done by Carlos (and others) in the distant-past is that the EN articles became the starting point for lots of other wikis to copy that same article, complete with mistakes. So lots of these places in California don't exist, or if they do, they are not "villages" or whatever California calls populated places. However, the Turkish places are the other way round. They clearly already exist, and have a population, so meet WP:GEOLAND. Some of these places in Turkey have 40 or 50 people living there, some have hundreds, even thousands. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is a great point too. Looking at some US places at random, what is the difference between New Union, Alabama, or Chestervale, Illinois, or Finchville, Nebraska, etc, etc. And please be smart and don't cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as that is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:5P1 says that Wiki is a gazeteer. It does not say that Wiki is a place to create tens of thousands of unimprovable micro-stubs consisting of the same cut/pasted sentence, regardless of notability or sourcing, spending ~90 seconds or less on each article (including rating it and creating a talk page!) so you can catch up with Encyclopedius/Dr. Blofeld on this table. And yes, all you're proving with your US geo articles is that this is a bad problem on Wiki that we should not be making worse. FOARP (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
So apart from your own dislike of stubs, where does it say that "It does not say that Wiki is a place to create tens of thousands of unimprovable micro-stubs consisting of the same cut/pasted sentence, regardless of notability or sourcing, spending ~90 seconds or less on each article (including rating it and creating a talk page!)..." is not allowed? Which policy is this? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
And the bit "...of unimprovable micro-stubs..." is quite obviously bollocks, per the creation of Babakale, Ayvacık, which got a DYK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
That would be WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND (which explicitly excludes maps/tables from being used to establish notability) and also WP:MEATBOT (which explicitly says that bot-like human editing is covered by the same policies as covered apply to mass-creation of articles by bot). Actually WP:V also applies. DYK is explicitly NOT an indicator of page-quality, no-one is saying that a GNG passing community shouldn't have an article, and if I were you I would not be trying to take credit for the work that CeeGee did in fixing that particular stub. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
These all meet WP:GNG/WP:GEOLAND, and, of course, by that meet WP:V. "DYK is explicitly NOT an indicator of page-quality" True, but again another false claim by you stating that these articles are "unimprovable". Anyone can see that Babakale, Ayvacık has indeed been improved. And I'm not taking credit (where did I say I was?) It shows that it was improved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no way an article with a single reference, where the reference is a single line in a table with a name in it, meets GNG because GNG requires multiple instances of SIGCOV. Similarly, they don't meet GEOLAND because GEOLAND explicitly excludes bare-mentions in tables/maps from being used to show notability. dlthewave's point that this is like throwing a phone-book at other editors and saying "some of these people are famous so let's write an article on every single one of them" is entirely relevant - you know what, I think writing articles about the notable ones and not writing articles about the non-notable ones is a better way to go? WP:V is in doubt because the sources you are using do not actually state that these are even neighbourhoods/villages, much less legally-recognised ones - they simply list these names with no further data. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the phone book comment that you state - did you make that up as well? Anyway, a "phone book" equivalent here would be every single individual house, which isn't the case. The notable ones are already identified as being populated places, so meeting WP:GNG, GEO, V, etc, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
DLthewave made this comment over on the ANI thread, which I really, really would read carefully if I were you. I note you haven't engaged at all with the WP:MEATBOT point.
You've had two trips to ANI recently related to mass creation of stubs, one of which is still open. I really would take these as a flashing amber warning, not simply as indications that you've done nothing wrong and business as usual should carry on. One thing I think the 2000's mass-creators need to reckon with is the subsequent generations of editors have had to spend a lot of time cleaning up these stubs and so are much less favourably inclined towards creation of them. You might think "well, FOARP's just an annoying, wrong, guy who has a problem with me for some reason" but I'm far from the only one who has a big problem with these mass-created perma-micro-stubs. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The first one was closed, as I'm working within the guidelines (per the closer's notes). Again, another false claim by you above - "the sources you are using do not actually state that these are even neighbourhoods/villages" the Turkish source from their website states "Mahalle Sayısı" on each page. Translated as "Number of Neighborhoods" which then collates to the list of places. Sorry son, I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not go round the houses with you and your multiple false claims. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've encountered this before - it's really unhelpful - and quite inconsiderate - to create masses of microstub articles (they're not even worthwhile stubs) in the hope that other editors will come in and expand and improve them. Not only does it clutter the encyclopaedia, but it also causes unnecessary confusion and follow-up work where disambiguation is required while adding nothing to the sum of human knowledge that could not be achieved by listing village names under the district (or equivalent) article. That's what is done elsewhere. Be aware that at least one other editor that did this was subsequently banned permanently. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye was closed as redirect. Is there consensus to redirect the various other microstubs created as part of this, as well? I'd certainly endorse that, they don't seem any different than the case brought up there. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@SnowFire - The other "village" articles are no different and I would take this as read. Absolutely the same logic applies. The above discussion is also pretty clear that there was no consensus in favour of the mass creation of these pages as required by WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT (which are policy - I don't know why anyone object to their being cited other than because there is no reasonable counter to them) so redirect is a perfectly appropriate response. Only exception is for those "village" articles that have been expanded to non-stub-status. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that Lugnuts is still reverting dlthewave's redirects of these stubs, against the consensus here, at ANI, and at AFD regarding them, and has refused to discuss this issue on their talk page. I invite them to discuss here why stubs of exactly the same nature and sourcing as led to their being sanctioned at ANI with loss of autopatrolled, and which there was a consensus to revert en masse at AFD, and which there is a consensus against above, should not be redirected. Alternatively I suggest they consider other means of dispute-resolution (e.g., discussing with the AFD closing admin Barkeep49 on their talk page, and opening a DELREV case for the AFD if this discussion does not resolve the issue). FOARP (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion between two people, MEATBOT-FOARP and one other user now becomes a consensus? FOARP - are you going to redirect all the stubs for Turkish villages, or just the ones I created? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I imagine dlthewave, whose edits you keep reverting, may also make their thoughts known on this, though I believe their views are also clearly against these stubs. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I really want hear from that guy. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, at this point I do think it's appropriate to redirect the stubs based on the spirit of the linked ANI and AFD discussions. This is currently being discussed at AN which is heading toward the same conclusion. –dlthewave 12:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)



The article Oltu has "Urban" and "District" statistics from 2012, but the site seems to have been deleted. tr:Oltu only has one population, from 2020, but doesn't specify whether it's the town or the district. The source is but that isn't the page with the information, it only links to the tables. The tables with titles that suggest they could contain this information only have the population of provinces - which table do I need? Peter James (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've found it - and click the blue button labelled "Favori Raporlar". Peter James (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Urban and rural pop. figures for the so called 30 metropolitan municipalities are hard to find. Oltu (in Erzurum Province) is one of them. For the other 51 provinces there is no problem Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red Europe contest[edit]

After successfully completing our Asia and Africa contests over the past six months, we now welcome contributions to our Women in Europe contest which runs for three separate months from April to June 2021. To qualify for the contest, articles have to contain at least 160 words or 1,000 characters of running text and participants need to be members of Women in Red. We look forward to lots of new biographies of women from the European districts of Turkey.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?[edit]

Anyone any ideas about reliable sources in Turkish? If so please could you reply at

Talk:Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey#Are_these_Turkish_sources_reliable_please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Derby football games[edit]

It doesn't look that active around here, but if there are any Turkish editors around they maybe interested in the AfD discussions at Fenerbahçe 6–0 Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe S.K. 0–7 Galatasaray S.K. It may help to shed some light how notable they are in Turkish football. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Highest railway in Turkey?[edit]

If you know the answer, make sure to add it to relevant wiki pages, especially to List of highest railways by country. Thanks! Zach (Talk) 21:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor Turkish Settlements and geocoordinates[edit]

I've noticed quite a few Turkish minor settlements (by that I mean location with typically <200 inhabitants) are tagged as missing coordinates. I am currently going through Category:Turkey articles missing geocoordinate data and was wondering what is the policy of this project towards said settlements, are they to be redirected and merged into lists named after their provinces or is adding geocoordinates to them welcome? Sadenar40000 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There's community consensus to merge/redirect these stubs to the District article, e.g. Karaçoban. I started that process a few months ago but haven't been very active. I do copy the coordinates over so you're more than welcome to add them anytime before or after the merge. You might want to check with Deor who has been adding/refining coordinates as well. I have a list at User:Dlthewave/Turkey cleanup, completed merges are at the very bottom with Deor's comments in parantheses. –dlthewave 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The said community consensus concerned a set of several thousand stubs which were created by the same user earlier this year and consisted of only a single sentence, and even then the consensus was more qualified and situational. My understanding is that:
  • If it's one of those articles and it says it's about a neighbourhood (rather than a village), then the preference is for redirecting;
  • If it's one of those articles and it's not about a neighbourhood, then it's up to editor discretion, without any particular objection to redirecting at scale;
  • If it's not one of those articles, then the preference is against redirecting (though obviously that's subject to editor discretion in individual cases).
If there's any recent discussion that contradicts the above, then please let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's my understanding as well, I guess I spoke too broadly since I'm mostly focused on those mass-created "neighborhood" stubs. Would you agree that it makes sense to add coordinates to all of them, since they'll be preserved through any merges/redirects? –dlthewave 22:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, adding coordinates sounds useful. Although maybe some caution is necessary for those stubs that are not reliably sourced. If I'm not mistaken, there are still quite a few that are based on or other similar websites, so if coordinates are added for these, then it's probably worth double-checking they're watertight. – Uanfala (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)