This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
There doesn't seem to be a standard here yet for local places. Some use "X, Turkey" to differentiate only from other countries. But there are multiple place names in various provinces. Could somebody give guidance as to local practice?
Noticing that "X, Turkey" form, I chose "X, P" without the trailing "Province", guessing that might be the way that surface mail is addressed (as it is in some nearby Balkans), and trying to conform to local practice. But it's not pretty as the article title.
Would "X, P Province" be better?
Or "X, P Province, Turkey"?
Or take advantage of the pipe hack: "X (P Province, Turkey)"? (Prettiest from the point of view of both naming articles and editting.)
I'm not sure what you mean by the letter P in your examples, but you know, this is a very good question. The standard for the doing this on Turkish Wikipedia seems to be "City, Province" if the city is not the same as the province. For cities that ARE the same name as provinces (iller), they distinguish between the city, calling it "center" merkez, or they will call it "province" il, for example Ankara (merkez).
I hardly think this is a good example to follow for English Wikipedia, where the standard seems to show that the city name should be used if it is well known in the Western World, for example see Tarsus will give you a disambig page, where you can choose Tarsus (city). Tarsus is not a province itself, and it is actually one of the largest cities in Turkey that does not have its own province; it is attached to Mersin. My best guess would be to follow the English that says to just name the city if there is no ambiguity about the name. If there is another city in the world with the same name, then calling it City, Turkey, would be best, and if there are more examples of such cities in Turkey, then City, Province, Turkey would be appropriate.
Thanks for bringing up the concern, it made me think a bit.
agree with Karma. But in some countries they avoid things like Ankara, Turkey and allways use the state/province name to disambig. In Latin American countries lots of places even within countries have the same name. So X, Countryname does not help much. Instead X, Statename is used. Tobias Conradi(Talk)23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have only recently discovered that Tobias Conradi is on a jihad to make every country's entries conform to his one-size-fits-all uniform template. I was asking the best thing to do for this country, based on local practices. Thank you for information about the Turkish Wikipedia.
Hi! As I'm a Turkish citizen and user of Turkish wikipedia, I can provide you some very certain knowledge: Administrative division of Turkey is so:
Turkish Republic > Province (İl) > District (İlçe) > Village (Köy)
(there are a few administratively different units which is called "belde" in Turkish language, a belde is smaller than "district" and bigger than a "village", "belde"s are rare)
Remember that Turkey is not a federal system like the USA, Turkey is France-kind administrative system... Now, the province Ankara is an administrative division, let me write an example:
"I'm going to Ankara 7 pm tomorrow" (This Ankara is the city, we never use the names for administrative divisions, and this is the point almost the names of all 81 provinces use some city's name which is generally the biggest city of the province)
Look at that picture on the right. When you or me talk about Tokat, it's just the city Tokat inside the map (it's written as Tokat merkezi, but we colloquially never use the word "merkezi" for center cities of Provinces, that's the point what makes some foreigners be confused), not the whole Tokat province. When Government talks about Tokat, it's the whole province sometimes, and sometimes it's the city Tokat. When you write a town of Tokat Province, it must be written as e.g. Erbaa, Tokat in Turkish Wikipedia. But when there is no other Erbaa...Then you again must name it as Erbaa, Tokat... :) In colloquial speech, you never say it as e.g. "tr:Dereli, Giresun". You just say "...Dereli..."
Now that the guidelines have finally been changed, how much effort should be put into moving the province pages from "P"rovince to "p"rovince? I see that Muğla province was done a month ago.
But when Muğla province was moved, they forgot to update the bold name. I fixed both the province and the city, and added sections and external links. Hopefully, more will be done in the same manner as time permits.
Example: the country has "oblasts" and its government officially translates them as "area", "region", or "zone", then they should never be renamed "province" to conform to another country or some master schema.
The testimony of locals and people familiar with the country should be considered above Google evidence....
Just trying to follow those guidelines. (But then, I helped write them.)
Forgot to mention that the dictionary translates il to both "province" and "county", and ilçe to "county". That's why I wanted to be extra sure that "district" was the best official word for ilçe.
Each district, ilçe, (including the central district) commands a specific area, each has boundaries, within the province. The area depends administratively to the district central (ilçe merkezi, not to confuse with merkez ilçe) where resides the appointed kaymakam, head official for that district, who is answerable to the governor. Central districts do not have kaymakams, they are administered by a vice-governor.
All (central or not) district centers have municipalities (belediye), headed by an elected mayor, who administers a defined municipality area (usually matching, more or less, the urban zone) for defined municipal matters. A growing number of settlements, which are not district centers, have municipalities as well, usually because their population requires one. These are called belde. They haven't (yet) become district centers because there is one too close by, or due to some other reason. So, a belde has a mayor (responsible for its municipal zone), but not a kaymakam, and depend administratively on the district center within the boundaries of which it is situated.
At the bottom end, there are villages, who have elected muhtars taking care specific administrative matters. Furthermore, each quarter (mahalle) of a district center and belde has a muhtar as well, also for specific administrative questions. The designation slightly differs (köy muhtarı for village muhtar, mahalle muhtarı for quarter muhtar) and also the tasks, which are similar but adapted to their locality.
In some cases, a belde can be larger that the district center it depends, and a district center can be larger than the central district it depends, and many other district centers. One final note is the büyükşehir belediyesi, larger municipalities for megalopoles like İstanbul or İzmir, which have at their top an elected head mayor who oversee a number of municipalities and mayors.
26 provinces of turkey are KURDISTAN. They have Kurdish population and are an undivided parts of KURDISTAN. The history has proven it, if you look at ethnic maps or map of Kurdistan, you will see that 29 provinces of Turket are parts of Kurdistan. The Northern Kurdistanian provinces (occupated by Turkey) are: KARS, IGDIR, AGRI, VAN (WAN), HAKKARI (COLEMÊERG), SIRNAK, SIIRT (SÊRT), BITLIS, MUS, ERZURUM, ERZINCAN, BINGÖL (CEWLIK), BATMAN, MARDIN, DIYARBAKIR (AMED), TUNCELI (DÊRSÎM), ELAZIG (ELIH), MALATYA (MELETÎ), ADIYAMAN, SANLIURFA (RIHA), GAZIANTEP (ENTAP), KILIS, HATAY, OSMANIYE, KAHRAMANMARAS (MERES) anD SIVAS (SÊWAS) - THEY ALL ARE KURDIAN, PARTS OF KURDISTAN. Look at the histry book, ethnic maps and the map of Kurdistan - that the Kurds haven't done by themselves - you will see they are all KURDISTAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.141.25 (talk) 2007-04-29 11:59:32 (UTC)
You are the same guy at the talk page of Sivas. We formed this country with blood, steel and self sacrifice. We defeated France, the symbol of the imperialist west, at Gaziantep, Kahramanmaraş and at Şanlıurfa. All three cities were given the honour to carry the titles of "Ghazi", "Hero" and "Glorious" in front of their names. France thought that Şırnak would surrender immediately but the people of the city united against the invasion and forced the attackers to change their plans. Mustafa Kemal united the nation in Sivas which marked an important point at the Turkish War of Independence. The parliament of Hatay itself decided to join Turkey. We can find uncountable number of data to show how the people of Anatolia are united. All cities that you count are the free and glorious parts of the Republic of Turkey. Deliogul19:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Mersin was officially named as İçel and so would fit the pattern of alphabetical province names for the licence plate codes until Zonguldak? 92.9.132.114 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table displaying population of provinces and of province capitals is providing incorrect numbers. The reference, 2009 Turkstat website, does not respond. Bursa city is NOT the 3rd largest city in Turkey. No matter what criterion is used to define the "province capital" (city proper, metropolitan municipality or agglomeration), Izmir has a greater population than Bursa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.151.87 (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the information from the table is very mixed, some figures being from old censuses and others being more up-to-date statistics, without any clarification as to which is which. The second problem is the use of different definitions as to which "agglomeration" calculations should be used.
I have replaced all the "agglomeration" figures by those for the cities themselves (figures on agglomerations righly belong in the individual articles on those disparate cities) and I have inserted the date "2000 Census" at the pop of the provincial population column (altering the more recent figures to the 2000 Census figures so that all statistics are chronologically compatable; I have introduced a second column for provincial populations showing a more up-to-date year (2007), although of course I am happy that someone can update this column, PROVIDED that they update ALL the populations in that column to one single year. I have also corrected the area figures to include recent remeasurements, and recalculatred the population density figures. Finally, the column for the population of capitals is now showing the data from the 2000 Census for ALL cities (not agglomerations), so all figures in this column are directly comparable. Please note ALL the figures used are taken from the State Institute of Statistics, Turkey (SIS) published statistics. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am aware of a PDF file on a Turkish government website, which appears to have area sizes different to the ones here, but I have no idea about the accuracy of the numbers used by both the government and Wikipedia, due to the lack of references.
Someone needs to dig deeper to verify which area values are true for both the provinces and districts, and if necessary, consolidate the sources for the area data for Turkey.
