Talk:Turkey/Archive 2004-2012

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


ToDo

  • recommended mobile package for a week-long stay: for SMS-only; for SMS+3G internet. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:27, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

non/existing destinations

An annonymous user claims the following destinations do not exist. I disagree. I have used the English names I know these places by. They may be known by something else in Turkey, but the English speaking world seems to use the names I have used. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:41, 4 Jun 2004 (EDT)

too many cities!

In my opinion, theres far too many cities in the other cities part that someone has put in the cities section. Most of these don't actually have pages, and it's far too confusing! It serves no purpose just to have a list with no description in a travel guide!

I have gone ahead and linked them all to pages, but we should cut these down to a list of the best/most interesting cities in Turkey. I would do this, but I have precisely no knowledge of Turkey, so if someone knows which of these smaller cities are worthy of a link then please put them in the cities section and we can delete the others. (WT-en) TSandell 19:19 3/3/06

We should indeed cut them down to around 5-10 cities. We should find places for the other cities that don't make the cut. Thanks for getting this started. --(WT-en) Evan 14:26, 3 March 2006 (EST)
As no one has edited the list (I proposed it 2 weeks ago), I have taken the initiative and deleted the whole list. I've put the links to the cities which actually had pages in their respective region articles. I'm figuring that when people make decent pages, they'll just put a link to them back up on the Turkey page.
Here's the original list of cities:

Adana, Adiyaman, Afyon, Agri, Aksaray, Amasya, Antalya, Ardahan, Artvin, Aydin, Balikesir, Bartin, Batman, Bayburt, Bilecik, Bingol, Bitlis, Bolu, Burdur, Bursa, Canakkale, Cankiri, Corum, Denizli, Diyarbakir, Duzce, Edirne, Elazig, Erzincan, Erzurum, Eskisehir, Gaziantep, Giresun, Gumushane, Hakkari, Hatay, Icel, Igdir, Isparta, Kahramanmaras, Karabuk, Karaman, Kars, Kastamonu, Kayseri, Kilis, Kirikkale, Kirklareli, Kirsehir, Kocaeli, Konya, Kutahya, Malatya, Manisa, Mardin, Mugla, Mus, Nevsehir, Nigde, Ordu, Osmaniye, Rize, Sakarya, Samsun, Sanliurfa, Siirt, Sinop, Sirnak, Sivas, Tekirdag, Tokat, Trabzon, Tunceli, Usak, Van, Yalova, Yozgat, Zonguldak

If anyone disagrees with this edit, revert it back and let me know why!(WT-en) Tsandell 15:26, 19 March 2006 (EST)
I think what you did was just fine, except some of the cites are now orphaned. They have infomation on them, but have nothing linked to them. They should be listed on the Region pages, sub-regions or maybe other city pages, but I am not sure I know where to put them. Thank you for your edits. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:44, 19 March 2006 (EST)
No problem! I've sorted the orphaned pages (WT-en) Tsandell 17:47, 19 March 2006 (EST)

baghdad and tehran by train?

no way there's a train to baghdad or tehran from anywhere in turkey...there used to be to Syria and Jordan and perhaps Tehran, though I don't even think there is a railroad between Turkey and Iraq. Also, given the bitter history between Armenia and Turkey from many years past, I doubt there'd ever be rail service (passenger or freight even) for quite some time. The only foreign destinations from Turkey now include Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania (as far as Bucharest), with onward services from there to Budapest and thus the EU.

To anonymous above: that's not what the Turkish Railways website says. Could it be outdated then? (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 15:39, 19 March 2006 (EST)
Well, not concerning Iran; I met a guy in Istanbul who took a train from Iran, had to cross lake Van Gölü by ferry, and enter Turkey with the next train --145.99.202.92 12:55, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Bus comfort

I'm translating parts of this article into Portuguese and came across the Get around/by bus section, which says "ask for the number of seats in the buses you compare. Roughly, a larger capacity implies a greater comfort." It's normally otherwise - a smaller capacity (less seats) usually means more leg room, therefore greater comfort. Or is it about bus sizes? Can someone please clarify? Thanks, (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:26, 29 March 2006 (EST)

I have edited the page to answer your question. What the seat number implies is you are getting a large, comfortable bus, possibly with an attendent who will offer tea, coffee and snacks, rather than sitting in the back of a bumpy Dolmus.

Ramadan in Turkey ...

Hi, this year Ramadan will start september the 24th, meaning ın about three days - should there be some kinda travel advice on Ramadan somewhere ie. on all islamic/arabic country pages a link to an page with travel infos on Ramadan? freeflo

Thanks for the warning. Please feel free to note that on the Understand section of the article, where that kind of information fits best. --(WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:00, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
I've added the {{ramadandates}} box, which is meant precisely for this kind of thing. Local info on how it's celebrated in Turkey should be added though, the details vary quite a bit from country to country. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:27, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
Hi, in the text, it was said that the most important holiday is the Ramadan Holiday. As a Turkish citizen, I personally do not believe so. Would you please tell me what is the reason that such sentence is added here? Thanks 85.104.254.132 16:42, 22 January 2007 (EST).
What is more important than Ramadan? And if you're objecting because you think "holiday" means "vacation", well, you're wrong -- it also means "holy day". (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:31, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

on Respect section

Pretty good article, and it looks like a Turk has written it. But "resting your hands on your hips" advice does not make any sense to me. I'm Turkish and never felt like that. Anyways good information for foreign people. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 85.96.14.80 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 December 2006

Money

Can someone give me an indication of the prices of living in Turkey? What does an average person spend on shopping in a month? What does, for example, a bottle of (real) Coca-Cola cost? What does a falafel (they eat that there?) on the street cost? I urgently need to know this information for someone else. If somebody knows more about this, please write it in the article also! --(WT-en) Daniel575 16:59, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Yesterday I went for shopping to a supermarket in Istanbul and a real Coca Cola in a 1-litre PET bottle was 1.19 YTL (less than US$ 1.00), so I decided to buy a Turkish-brand soda in a 1.5-litre PET bottle which was 1.20 YTL, and no, Turks don't eat falafel, most of them don't have any idea about what it is (except those living in the areas near the Syrian border probably), but 5.00 YTL (about US$ 3.00-3.50) should be enough to appease your hunger, plus a soft drink in a cheap restaurant (though restaurants owned by American-origin fast food chains are much more expensive). --85.97.117.160 12:57, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Who's your daddy?

Should we include Turkey in Mediterranean Europe or the Middle East? It's been on both pages at times, and is partially on the map for Med Europe, but that's not very traveler friendly. So let's make a decision on where we should put it, in whole. I would lean towards Middle East, but if it gets accepted into the European Union, then... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

It would be silly for either Mediterranean Europe or the Middle East not to include Turkey; both should definitely link to it. I suppose Turkey can only have one isIn tag, though, so we have to choose. I'd go for Middle East, but that is somewhat arbitrary and not something I feel strongly about. (WT-en) Pashley 03:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I just changed the isIn to Middle East for now, I think it swings a little more that way. If someone objects, let us know here! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The big disadvantage to changing Turkey's breadcrumb to the Middle East is that there will be an unending line of anonymous Turkish users who will put it back into Europe for mildly political reasons. For that reason alone, I would suggest putting it back into Mediterranean Europe--it will save time and won't needlessly offend anyone. But another good reason is that while the biggest chunk of Turkey is Asian, the most popular destinations for the traveler are decidedly European. While personally I'd rather hang out in Middle Eastern Kars or Van, most head to the very European Istanbul and to the very Mediterranean beach resorts... on the Mediterranean. Or, for that matter, they go to see the Greek ruins. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:39, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Good point(s) indeed, Mr Fitzgerald... I won't argue against that... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:32, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear (WT-en) cacahuate please visit to Eu offical(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm) web site and (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public.do?language=en) UN Regional Groups/WEOG/europe or nato in europe,please learn to hisory of ottoman empire(Turkey) and please dont edit Turkish stuited in europe,i am sure u know europe is not continent,europe is historical and cultural continent u can visit Council of Europe oficial web (http://www.coe.int/T/e/com/about_coe/member_states/default.asp) Turkey is member of Council of Europe since 09.08.1949 if its not enough for u please contect with Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey,European Council or with me —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 88.244.160.125 (talk • contribs)

No problem my friend. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I think we have consensus. The isIn points to Mediterranean Europe for reasons above. The "Nearby Regions" section of Middle East covers the partial Mid-East-ness of Turkey. (WT-en) Pashley 23:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear (WT-en) Pashley Turkey it isnt in mid-east because mid-east is Arapic region and Turkey not even israel firstly Turks are secular and Turks dont have any religion and Turkish race belong europid/touran race accordingly Turkey isnt in mid-east please visit to http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_01_02.htm and United region page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) or official web(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf) or(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/) and Turkey official candidate contry for eu and will join 2015(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union), finaly Europe is historical,racial,cultural continent and Turkey is in Europe sice 3th centry,Turks and Hungarians have same race(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script) so Turkey isnt in mid-east regions.Thanks for ure understanding and for ure effort. by :(WT-en) aegeanfihter

Yes, Turkey is very much a European country. The isIn link to Europe is correct.
Turkey is also very much a Mediterranean culture; not just Istanbul or Byzantium which has always been one of the Med's greatest cities, but also the South coast and areas like Trabzon on the Black Sea which has been trading with the Med since before the Roman Empire.
However, as I see it, it is also very much a part of the Middle East. You could not talk about the history of the Arab states without mentioning the Turkish Empire. Or talk about the modern politics of the Middle East without considering Turkey as one of the important powers in the region. Or discuss the Islamicist/secular conflict in various countries without mentioning Ataturk's reforms as an example many consider important. The list could go on and on.
So I think mentioning Turkey in Middle East is quite appropriate. (WT-en) Pashley 04:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

There is just a small part of Turkey which is part of Europe. Most of it is in Asia Minor. It would clearly be more appropriate to put Turkey under Asia than under Europe. --(WT-en) Oddeivind 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

According to most of the Turkish citizens point of view, west part of the Turkey is mediterrian European, North of Turkey a little bit balcanian but mostly slavic, central anatolia is %100 balcanian, and east of Turkey, especially southeast of Turkey really middle eastern. From all aspect, cultural, ethnic, architectural. it's like north and east italy, both of them are totally different cultures, ethnic.

"Black Sea Turkey"

"Black Sea Turkey" is very awkward English. Could we just call this "Karadenız" and let the maps and articles speak for themselves (in letting readers know this part of Turkey is on the Black Sea)? Or we could call it "Black Sea (region)", but that might set us up for difficult disambiguations. I would even prefer a long-winded "Turkish Black Sea Coast" to the current title. Any thoughts? If no one responds in a couple weeks, I'll go forward with a move to Karadenız. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:00, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I'm happy with it as it is. The structure is parallel to "Agean Turkey" and "Mediterranean Turkey", does not seem all that awkward to me. Making Karadenız as a redirect seems sensible, but policy is to use the commonest English name. Do English-speaking travellers call it that? (WT-en) Pashley 00:10, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

The Turkish for Black Sea isn't "Karadenız", it's "Karadeniz". (WT-en) Runningfridgesrule 06:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Çanakkale absent

Çanakkale was taken out of both the cities and the other destinations lists. I think it should be mentioned one of these lists because it is the hub for both Gallipoli Peninsula and the ancient city of Troy, each of which thousands of people travel to. You may think it makes sense to mention Çanakkale in the seperate article of Marmara region but I guess there are many people around the world who plan or dream to travel to Çanakkale area but don't have any idea about which part of the country it is located in.

Armenia

Should this article contain a warning against attempting to discuss the Armenian Genocide, seeing as how the Government of Turkey has convinced its people that it never happened? Seems to me that a discussion could lead to anger pretty quick. I've never been to Turkey, but I assume its a sensitive topic. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:33, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"Convinced its people that it never happened", huh? You might wanna rephrase that, buddy, because there isn't any consensus on the topic, so how do you know that it really happened? You're not a historian, are you? Anyway, to answer your question, it depends on how you approach them about it. They would be willing to have a historical debate about it, but don't come down all Armenian-lobby on them. You seem to have been brainwashed by the Armenian lobby, have you actually studied the topic yourself? I didn't think so... (WT-en) Runningfridgesrule 06:47, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Nice tone there. And ah yes, that ever all-powerful omnipresent Armenian lobby... </snark> --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • OMGosh, Peter tried to make me look stupid by using fake HTML, ooh I'm so offended. </geek> (WT-en) Runningfridgesrule 19:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it should, but remain neutral in tone. Your wording should maybe say that people "should avoid discussing the killing of Armenians during World War 1"(the Turkish government DOES agree that many Armenians were killed, but they point out that even more Turks died during this period and that the deaths were not a genocide) and that this "is also known as the alleged 'Armenian Genocide' ". I think any discussion should also mention that while this is a sensitive subject for many Turks, relations have warmed between Armenia and Turkey in the past year or two. (Recently the Turkish president visited Armenia to watch a football game between the two countries and took the opportunity to meet with the Armenian president. A new road being constructed in eastern Turkey is believed by some to soon be a link to Armenia in the near future when the two have finally opened the border). Again, please be very neutral when discussing this. (WT-en) AHeneen 21:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Proposal for a small change at other destinations section

I propose to replace Beypazarı with Gallipoli at Turkey#Other_destinations.

Why?

  • Gallipoli is much more famous around the world.
  • We already have another “old town with Ottoman architecture” in the list (Safranbolu, which is also better-known than Beypazarı, and also not very far from Beypazarı).
  • Beypazarı is already listed in Ankara, which is the most likely place where a trip to Beypazarı originates, and also at Central Anatolia. Gallipoli is also listed at one or two region/subregion/city#get out articles, but I guess many people don’t know anything about Gallipoli’s geography except that it’s in Turkey, so they have to click quite a few times until they find it down in the hierarchy.
  • Beypazarı article is nothing more than a couple sentences at the moment, while Gallipoli article, although I accept is not very good either, at least gives more info.

Why not?

  • Only argument I can think of against replacing Beypazarı with Gallipoli in the list is that Gallipoli is important especially for travellers from Australia, New Zealand, and maybe a little from UK, but, although interesting, it isn’t that much important for people from rest of the world. This can somewhat be balanced by the fact that this is English-language WT, and those countries are predominantly English-speaking.
  • And maybe the list will be too much western Turkey (i.e. Marmara and Aegean Regions) oriented (well, it already is).

Opinions, please.--(WT-en) Vidimian 07:03, 21 November 2008 (EST)

So I'm implementing the change. Opinions are always welcome if anybody has a thought either way.--(WT-en) Vidimian 09:37, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Sounds like a good change to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:48, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Bird flu

There haven’t been any reports of bird flu cases since Feb 2006, so I’m hiding relevant info from stay healthy section for now.--(WT-en) Vidimian 12:09, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Region borders

In order to have a regions map of Turkey, region borders should first be clearly defined. This shows exact semi-official region borders with some of the provinces straddle the region borders, while this is how it looks like when whole provinces are moved to the region in which their capital cities are located. I'm not sure either is exactly what Turkish regions at Wikivoyage should look like since we try to serve travellers. Here is a list of the problems I see at those maps: (And here is a useful Wikipedia article on semi-official Turkish regions with maps showing whole provinces in one region or the other, and this is a blank Turkish provinces map without names)

  • Both Afyon and Kütahya provinces are shown in Aegean Region. However, they are far from the sea, very cold in winter, and have mainly conservative folk, which means they have next to nothing to do with the Aegean, and they are essentially not any different from Central Anatolia. (Kutahya's breadcumb already shows it in Central Anatolia by the way)
  • Balıkesir Province's northern shore is in Marmara Region for sure, but its western shore is actually what many people think when they hear the word "Aegean". And so is Çanakkale Province's southernmost coast. I think Balıkesir Province should be divided in two, with central and northern two-thirds going to Marmara Region, and the western one-third to the Aegean. (I also think we should scrap Balıkesir Province from the hierarchy altogether by the way, with its messy content reshaped and moved to the appropriate region articles. I also have an idea on how to divide Marmara (region) into subregions without using provinces but that's another discussion's issue).
  • Kahramanmaraş Province is shown in Mediterranean Region, but, like Afyon and Kütahya, it too has nothing to do with Med as how travellers see it. It geographically more resembles Southeastern Anatolia (similar climate), while culturally more aligns with Eastern Anatolia (not many Arabic or Kurdish-speaking minorities, for example). Both would do well but I'm more inclined to put it in SE Anatolia.
  • Çorum, Amasya, and Tokat Provinces are shown in Black Sea Region, but again they have nothing in common with Sinop or Trabzon for example, and are a natural part of Central Anatolian Plateau (similar/same climate, culture, and the Hittite sites for that matter, which are remnants of a Central Anatolian civilization).
  • Gümüşhane and Bayburt Provinces are likewise problematic, but rather than being a part of E Anatolia, they may best stay in Black Sea Region. (although away from sea, there are many historical Pontic Greek sites there)
  • Isparta and Burdur can also go into Central Anatolia instead of Med, but can also stay as a "continental" section of Med Turkey. They are generally defined as "Lakes Districts" section of Med Region locally and we may use that too (when we have articles for those).

Hmm, I think that's it. This climate map can also be useful, especially regarding where to divide Balıkesir and Çanakkale Provinces between Aegean and Marmara.--(WT-en) Vidimian 01:27, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I almost forget this, eastern parts of Sivas Province more resemble Eastern Anatolia rather than Central Anatolia. Do we really have to follow the provincial borders to define regional borders by the way?--(WT-en) Vidimian 01:35, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
I drafted an (unacceptably) ugly map to see whether I understand your proposal correctly. Unfortunately, the selection of Turkish provinces maps on Commons is very poor, and none of them are compatible with our license. Hence I won't publish the image here, but rather here [1]. I am only familiar with the northeast and northern coastal regions of Turkey, but I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal re: the regions I am familiar with. We don't have to follow administrative divisions, and when they make little travel sense it is indeed good to choose different boundaries. It is important, however, to come up with some sort of well-defined borders, so it is clear where cities/towns will belong. I find that overlaying translucent region colors onto an image from OpenStreetMap [2] can be a really effective way of doing this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:00, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
How it looks when Mugla Province is divided between Aegean and Med
I meant something like the first map to the right.
However, I see a problem with that one, too. There, Muğla Province is completely shown in Aegean Turkey, but locally the boundary between Aegean Sea and Mediterranean proper is considered to lie on Datca Peninsula (the northern shores of it is on the Aegean, while the southern coastline is on Mediterranean proper), so Bodrum is on the Aegean coast (thus in Aegean Turkey), while Marmaris is on the Med (i.e. in Med Turkey) (see the second map). But this division carries the risk of messing Mediterranean Turkey sub-regional hierarchy, because currently its westernmost subregion is Antalya Province, so to include Marmaris, Fethiye, etc in Med Turkey, we’ll need a somewhat-arbitrarily-named subregion, such as Southern Mugla Province or Southwestern Mediterranean Turkey or Western Lycia (historically this and the adjacent areas in Antalya Province was called Lycia, but we can’t name here simply “Lycia”, ‘coz it partially overlaps with Antalya Province, already an article).--(WT-en) Vidimian 10:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Both Southern Mugla Province & Western Lycia sound acceptable (Southwestern Mediterranean Turkey starts to seem convoluted)—I'll follow your lead on choosing one. Kudos on finding that PD map—I could make a SVG map out of that one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I guess this is all I can say on borders for Turkish regions, so let's wait for some time (a week?) to see whether there are any other ideas/objections. I think Western Lycia is recognizable enough for travellers, as all of the towns located there have remarkable Lycian sites such as rock tombs, and we can simply mention in the artice that it corresponds to the southern part of Mugla Province administrively. Then, had it any objections, we still have the chance to move that to Southern Mugla Province.--(WT-en) Vidimian 06:10, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Other destinations

We need to come up with a better other destinations list for Turkey, as currently none but three of the places in the list are ODs in the typical Wikivoyage-sense (i.e. they are towns, some even can be argued to be cities). So here is my other destinations proposal:

Of these, I only have hesitations about Ayder and Cappadocia. While I haven't been there, so I can't be sure of the character of the place, Ayder may be a town that disqualifies, or it may be count as "summer meadow" (yayla), which allows it to be an OD. I could propose Sürmene instead of it (and Sürmene is actually already up there on country map), but it's currently just a short sentence at Trabzon#See (and I don't expect it to grow into a full article any time). About Cappadocia, it may be argued to be more of a region rather than an OD, but I think it's exactly a "destination" in itself—people head specifically to Cappadocia, but not Göreme, for example.

I think this is a fairly well-balanced list both geographically (Marmara and Aegean Regions—i.e., two of Turkey's most well-travelled regions— each has 2 representive destinations with the other regions has one each) and subject-wise—the list is neither too much history- nor nature-focused.

Some other places that I may propose could be:

  • Troy (though too close to Gallipoli)
  • Bozcaada (again either Gallipoli or Uludağ should go)
  • Olympos (less known than Ölüdeniz, but might be more interesting to feature it on country page)
  • Bogazkale (another town, but can count if listed as [[Bogazkale|Hattuşaş]], the Hittite capital)
  • İshakpaşa Sarayı (again, a short description Dogubeyazit#See, but a famous sight on the overland way to India)

Since towns should be removed from other destinations list, I think Bodrum—the most famous of them all—should be moved up to the cities list. Although one of the biggest cities of the country, the city to go should be Bursa in my opinion, it's very close to Uludağ, there are an excessive of three cities in Marmara Region and one of them should go not to upset geographical spread in the list, and the one to go is not Istanbul.

I'd like to hear opinions on these.—(WT-en) Vidimian 20:16, 25 January 2010 (EST)

Ayder is definitely more of a town than an other destination (IMO it's also a little overrated), and I think it would be good to replace it with Sümela (which is what I think you meant—isn't Sürmene a town?). Sümela could potentially be a separate article, but for the time being I should just get around to writing up a full subsection of Trabzon#See. It would of course be nice to have a destination from the Kaçkar Mountains, but unless we link directly to such a region page, I don't think there is any single destination there worth calling out.
Otherwise I think this looks very good, and I think it is both OK and right to include Cappadocia in the list. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:11, 25 January 2010 (EST)
Right, I was actually referring to Sümela when I was typing Sürmene. If Sümela will have its own subsection, then of course it can be on the OD list (though I must admit that I haven't been there either—nor anywhere east from Zonguldak on the Black Sea coast—so my help on Sümela would be limited, if it's ever needed). We currently do not have an article for Kaçkar Mountains, the nearest it gets is Eastern Karadeniz and it's a region and thus not qualify in my opinion (and it already has its fair share of a link up there in the "understand" section).—(WT-en) Vidimian 21:26, 25 January 2010 (EST)
What about Myra? I know its near Demre, but I think it could feature as an OD by itself. And maybe Didim/Didyma with the statue of Medusa, though its rather small (and there is no article yet on Wikivoyage). I do feel that Troy should be included, it is a separate OD article, so it definitely qualifies as being on the list. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:37, 25 January 2010 (EST)
You're right that Didim/Didyma doesn't yet has its article—so we can't put it in the list, not yet at the very least. Also Ephesus does a well job at representing the Roman ruins along the Aegean, I think. Myra also suffers from the same problem some of the places I proposed above have—it's currently just a short sentence at Demre#See. It would be nice to feature one of Lycian ruins—which I admire so much—though doing that would upset the balanced spread of the list both geography- (i.e. too much Mediterranean destinations close to each other) and subject-wise (i.e. too much ancient history). Yes, Troy qualifies, but we should sacrifice nearby Gallipoli for it—which I think has a better (outline) article than Troy—and that may make Aussie and Kiwi travellers a little pissed off. And I also think it's nice to have a World Wars-related OD rather than a complete list of destinations of ancient history.—(WT-en) Vidimian 22:02, 25 January 2010 (EST)

I plunged forward and copied the above list to the article, except that Ayder was replaced with Sümela. I linked Sümela as Trabzon#See for the time being, I will adjust the link once a subsection (or a full article) for it on its own gets written.—(WT-en) Vidimian 11:49, 4 February 2010 (EST)

I suggest you take a look at Göbekli Tepe (literally translatable as 'the hill with a belly'), because "Göbekli Tepe is the oldest human-made place of worship yet discovered." (excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe). Maybe Sümela and Göbekli Tepe could be exchanged. Any opinions? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 78.169.150.177 (talk • contribs)

These sections are meant as a shortcut for "big" attractions that are popular, so users don't have to go through region articles to find what they are likely looking for. This is the main policy regarding this. Göbekli Tepe, while archaeologically greatly important, is nowhere near as popular and widely known as Sümela, so I'd rather prefer the list stays the way it is. We also try to have these lists to be geographically spread over all parts of the country if possible, and removing Sümela would make Black Sea Turkey unrepresented. However, that being said, if you feel like it, you may elaborate on Göbekli Tepe at Urfa#Go next, and then perhaps put a link from "see" section of this article. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:58, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Visa question

I want to travel from eastern Europe thru Turkey and then into the Caucasus. I have visa-free travel for 30 days. I was wondering if this 30 days get reset once I get out of the country and back in? Maybe the article should explain this better, because some countries work with that reset law, but others is "x time every z months". (WT-en) Daniel32708 23:12, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Website of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [3] mentions citizens of some countries are subject to the "x time every z months" rule, while for citizens of some other countries there is not a specific mention of that. I guess—but only guess—you can exit and re-enter the country within that 30 days since you first enter Turkey at the very least. If you are not a citizen of those countries with a mention, 30 days can even reset (though remember that these are only wild guesses). I think you can have more comprehensive information if you get in touch with the nearest Turkish embassy/consulate, a list of which can be found here: [4]. I'll take a look at what I can do/add about that in the article. – (WT-en) Vidimian 06:10, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Cities list

I won't propose a full new set of cities list here, as the list seems more or less accurate. However, currently there are two representative cities from Black Sea coast and one of them (Sinop) is neither an important city nor a principal tourist destination, and there are no cities listed from both eastern and southeastern regions. I suggest we replace Sinop with either Erzurum or Urfa (in Eastern and Southeastern regions respectively), both are major cities, hubs for visiting their surrounding regions, and can do a good job of representing their respective regions. While I haven't been to Erzurum, I'd prefer to list Urfa, which I've found very beautiful, interesting, and "different" (I am not sure how to describe this, but something between "atmospheric" and "exotic") despite being a native of the country. – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Doesn't Diyarbakir deserve a mention in the cities list? It's the largest city in that region and the main city of the Kurdish culture in Turkey. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:42, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Yes, it's the largest regional city but its Wikivoyage article in its current state does not really look good (I'm not saying Urfa's is perfect, but at least it's better) and it is not as much a tourist destination as Urfa is, in addition to being a somewhat rougher city in regards to personal safety (at least parts of it). And Urfa has as much Kurdish culture as Diyarbakır has, and more (like local Arabic culture or Persian Shia pilgrims). – (WT-en) Vidimian 09:04, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
I believe the state of the article is not an important criterium for the 9 cities list, but being an important tourist destination of course is. So I'm fine with listing Urfa. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:17, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Go figure, I only knew it as Şanlıurfa. It would be a good replacement. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:58, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Done. – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:10, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

If the matter is to be a tourist destination or not, I suggest Mardin, due to geographical and cultural criteria. The city is home to Yezidi, Shia, Sunni Muslims and Assyrians who are Semitic Christians. Therefore, there are amazing buildings belonging to each culture. Midyat could be mentioned as well. For some photos from Mardin to have an idea whether it is touristic or not: http://www.mardintourism.net/ —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 78.169.150.177 (talk • contribs)

Like I said in the "other destinations" discussion above, these lists are shortcuts to better-known places. Mardin, while undoubtedly a very beautiful place, is not on par with the number of tourists/travellers visiting Urfa. In addition, Mardin is a substantially smaller city as well. However, we already have a link to Mardin at the "see" section, so the city won't go unnoticed by those reading the article. (And as an aside note, that would be great if you could start an article for Midyat, if you know the area well.) – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:58, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Asia

Would it not be more natural to group Turkey under Asia. After all, only a relatively small part of the country lies in Europe, most of it lies in Asia. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 83.109.164.158 (talk • contribs)

It's both in Europe and in Asia, so I think it should be listed in both. --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 03:20, 27 January 2012 (EST)


Like Russia and Cyprus Turkey should be classified as "Europe: Turkey" not "Asia: Middle East: Turkey". --(WT-en) Nitrium 13:57, 02 July 2012 (EEST)

We have discussed this above, and came to a consensus that the breadcrumb trail at the top of the page should direct back to Europe, but that Turkey should be included both at Asia and Europe. I recognize that not everyone likes the idea of including Turkey in the category of "Middle East," as that has some pejorative undertones among some Turks (as well as some geographical problematicy , but it is the term Wikivoyage uses for Western Asia, and I don't see a reasonable way around it.
You might notice that there are two {{isPartOf|}} tags at the bottom of this page. The hope is that we will at some point have the functionality to better manipulate breadcrumb trails to show dual paths, in the case of regions that have more than one parent, most notably in the cases of Turkey and Russia, which straddle two continents. That would get rid of absurd paths that show, say, the Kuril Islands as being in Europe! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:48, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_2004-2012&oldid=2511186"