Jump to content

Talk:Antalya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.31.58.127 (talk) at 19:59, 24 December 2021 (→santa: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Guidelines for editing the Antalya article
  • Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Antalya as a whole, or official Antalya links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • Please use the correct WP:CITE format when adding references. If you are not sure what citation format is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Comment

it was copied from here http://www.antalya.gov.tr/eng.htm ILovePlankton 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian occupation of Antalya.

The Italians, supported by the armoured cruiser "Regina Elena", occupied Antalya on March 28, 1919. The goal was to establish an Italian "sphere of influence" in Anatolia. The Peace Treaty of Sèvres set two spheres of influence, an Italian ("Zone of Antalya") and a French ("Zone of Adana) but the revival of the Turkish patriotism hindered these imperialistic projects. So the last Italian troops left Antalya on July 5, 1921.

Ataturk's "Claim"

"Atatürk claimed without doubt Antalya is the most beautiful place in the world." isn't this a bit funny, i mean inappropriate for the article?? Where and when did he claim that? 85.235.91.68 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google it, its true. 85.97.40.61 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Antalya.png

Image:Antalya.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Census

I would prefer to see a national census reference used rather than a local one even though the figures may truly be derived from national ones. Historically, localities (elsewhere) have tended to inflate populations. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military

The phrase "There is a military base in the city." was deleted, no edit summary given. First, there should be an edit summary. Second, the fact of the military base should be accounted for somewhere. The original entry seemed to suggest that the military was under local control which did not seem credible. But the military should provide some sort of positive financial gain for the city which should be accounted for somewhere. Unless it isn't within the city limits of course.Student7 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government

The current article mentions something about a governor running the city. Is he appointed by the national government or elected locally? The "Greater Antalya" was also confusing. Is there a government for each of two levels: the "inner city" of Antalya and a "greater Antalya" including burroughs? Needs a few more words a a bit more clarity. Student7 (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government is as provincal, not about the city. Greater I meant as Metropolitan. Which one should you prefer, "Greater Muncipaltity of Antalya" or "Antalya Metropolitan Muncipality"? Smaller muncipalities in the main city aren't "district", They're borough or sub-muncipality. I don't have enough English for clare it. OnurTcontribs 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing fine. "Antalya Metropolitan Municipality" is fine in one place only (government). The rest of the time it is simply "Antalya". "Greater" implies that there is something different. Okay to refer to "communities" or neighborhoods within Antalya. Just needs to be clear from context that they are not independent cities. "There is a military complex in the Villea area..." It is clear from the context that Villea is not a separate city.
I need to look again, but Provincial government should be separate in my opinion though the headquarters here can be mentioned briefly. The provincial government can also be started here if listed separately. Then forked to a separate article later. This article should be restricted to the city and city government itself. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need Antalya Province as a separate article eventually. Student7 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rated down C-Class?

What should we do for improve the article, like better photographs? OnurTcontribs 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at things, I think the writing needs to have more depth. Many of the sections are just a few one-sentence paragraphs. Filling those paragraphs out with more information would be good. A good copy editor might also add a lot to this. For example, in the population section, there is just a table. How did the city grow so much? What drove the growth? Where did the growth happen? Was it by annexation, development within the city, or immigration? I think the pictures are great, but there should be more text developing what they are and how they fit into the culture of the city. There is probably a bunch of context that could be added that would round this out. --Chrispounds (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Have an old census reference from 2000, just as a baseline for any other guesstimates someone might come up with. http://www.geohive.com/cntry/turkey.aspx. We really need a footnote for current data as well.Student7 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it's too detailed, but here's some stats from TÜİK: 1970 1975 1980 1990 2000 and 2008 (at bottom). Notice Aksu and Döşemealtı has added to Metropolitian Municipality after the Municipality code early 2000s OnurTcontribs 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retained Reference

The following reference does not support the associated material, but may prove of value elsewhere:

//www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp

|accessdate=2008-08-25 |title=A Walk Through Antalya's History |work=Antalya Web Site |publisher=On-Line Servis A.S. |location=Antalya/TURKIYE }}

--Mavigogun (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I propose making Etymology a sub-section of history- where most of the information is duplicated.--Mavigogun (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe WikiProject Cities agrees with your organization. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Characterization

The below expert from a single article in no way warrants characterizing Antalya as "the European Dubai":

At least, that’s how most Brits are viewing the country. Turkey’s tourism chiefs see things somewhat differently. They are busy transforming a section of its southern seaboard into a European Dubai. The object of their attentions is Antalya — an hour’s plane ride from Istanbul, down on a ragged cliff edge of the Mediterranean and piled high with the sort of bleak tower blocks that we spent the 1960s building and the 1980s bulldozing. Granted, not the most promising launch pad for a razzmatazz resort, but then you need bifocal beer goggles to declare most of Dubai pretty, too. And Antalya is already home to several hotels that seem to rely more on steroids than star ratings.

I have removed the characterization from the lead. Mavigogun (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only source. It's a common point of view. See also [1]. I'm readding that statement. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to provide citations for the conclusion that it is a 'common point of view'. No Turk I have spoken with has ever heard of Antalya so characterized. The purpose of the talk page is not merely to post justifications for an autocratic edit, but to allow for discourse and collaboration; posting what amounts to 'is so' without supporting citation does nothing to address the conflict.Mavigogun (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any sources which support your point of view? I provided sources but you removed them lots of times. Removing sourced info is a certain kind of vandalizm. Please refrain from doing that. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a poorly cited edit (with its citation) is far from vandalism. There has previously been no plurality to the citation in support of the edit. The second source indicated today says in its title 'How Antalya became the new Dubai' but then provides nary a supporting word (in no way supporting the assertion that Antalya is known as such); the characterization is also different from the bazar contention that this Asian city is, as described in your other post, 'The European Dubai' -a google search (used not to qualify, but as an example) for 'European Dubai' results in only recent edits to these wiki pages, the single article you cite, and a publicity piece reposted verbatim on multiple pages- hardly credible. It seems that any place experiencing a boom is being described in some way as Dubai-like- which is not the same as saying it is KNOWN as such. Actually, many other locations are attributed the same title; at the very least, use of the direct article is not supported; the conflict between the sources provided also needs to be addressed (New Dubai vs European Dubai).Mavigogun (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New or European Dubai, it doesn't matter. But Antalya is referred to as a city like Dubai. The official tourism portal of Turkey, goturkey.com, also published a story about this issue. [2] And you said Antalya is an Asian city. Yes, geographically Asian, but Turkey is in the European branch of the World Tourism Organization. That's why Times Online called it European. --Turkish Flame ☎ 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, how it is characterized- and if that characterization amounts to common usage -is exactly the issue. Obviously it HAS been referred to thusly- but that isn't what you assert in the lead: you state that it is KNOWN as such- a different, and judging from sources and peer consultation, unwarranted assertion. While the rational you give to the reason the author of the Times article used the wording may be correct, it is mere supposition, and, more importantly, not relevant to the issue at hand (that is to say, membership in the aforementioned organization does not change whether Antalya is KNOWN as, or has just been described as, The European or New Dubai).Mavigogun (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something by a derivative name is not helpful. This encyclopedia is WP:NOTTRAVEL. Does "second Dubai" mean that there is a local Emir calling the shots? Drinking not allowed? Too hot to visit? What? An area is what it is. We will describe it here in such terms that a reader will understand it - that is our job. Giving it names of some other area does nothing for this article except confuse a reader. Please stop. Student7 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template districts

The template Districts of Turkey has been prepared for provinces and it is used in all provinces of Turkey, except Antalya. Instead, it was used in the city of Antalya. I moved it Antalya Province where it properly belongs. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus

Is Antobus a corporation owned by the city OR, is Antobus run by the city with the drivers, then, being municipal (government) employees? Student7 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't understand what do you mean as "owned by city" but municipality. And yeah, 'Obüses are run and owned by Transportation subsidiary (Antalya Ulaşım A. Ş., found after the launch of modern Antray) of municipality on 7 routes.
Second, the other public transport corporations "Minibüsçüler Odası"(Chamber of Minibus driver/owners) and "Özel Halk Otobüsleri"(People's private bus) are run by drivers and not directly by municipality but price and infrastructure advices. OnurT 13:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antray is also owned by Antalya Ulaşım. The first "classic" line was built in 1999 and second "modern" was done in 2009 which made the "Antray" name officially (Actually, this name is also written on drainage covers on classic line).
Unfortunately, there's no official website belongs to Antalya Ulaşım. OnurT 13:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an understandable model. One corporation, Antalya Ulasim, is solely owned by the city. The corporation owns Antobus and Antray. Minibuses are privately, individually owned and regulated by the municipality. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit and veg

Is it really true that "Antalya Metropolitan Municipality’s covered wholesale food market complex meets 65% of the fresh fruit and vegetable demand of Turkey."? The reference link cited is not there. Maybe it was once true but is no longer. For example I guess a lot of the veg consumed in Ankara must come from here in Samsun province. Jzlcdh (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim seemed a bit much. I could not see anything about percentages when I went to link. I don't read Turkish so could not step to "correct" page, if indeed, there is a correct page. Reference may need adjusting. In the meantime, I changed to 65% of province which doesn't seem to overstep. Of the country seems a bit much IMO. Trucks and trains would be going in and out constantly with no letup. And to Istanbul? It doesn't seem credible. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hours of sunshine?

This is so unusual as to garner comment. Really needs to be changed to "days" of sunshine. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yivli Minare and mosque mistake

Yivli Minare refers only to the thick minaret. The mosque itself is called Alaaddin Camii (Alaadin Mosque) or Ulu Camii (Grand Mosque). There is confusion because the mosque is famous for its minaret than its core building. I am from Antalya, so you can trust me on this --Bozaltan (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope you are right. I just went through a bunch of changes to effect this. Yivli Minaret still points to Alaadin Mosque. I am trying to delete Yivli Minaret Mosque (request for deletion) which, BTW, has a LOT of links to it. Ouch! Student7 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Yivli Minare" simply means "Grooved Minaret" in Turkish. It is not the mosque, but only the minaret which is part of the mosque. A good solution is to have 2 pages. One for the mosque itself and another for the minaret which is famous on its own.--Bozaltan (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek alternative name

I approve in the discussion Talk:Lesbos#Turkish alternative name. Greek alternative name must be removed from the beginning. We can use it in the history section. Takabeg (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NCGN. Antalya was founded as a Greek city and had a large Greek community until 1923. Unlike Lesbos, which never had a asignificant Turkish community and is never referred to as "Midilii" in English sources. Athenean (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If nothing else, it is well known as "Attal(e)ia" in the West due to its occurrence in the Bible. Constantine ✍ 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be considered after the Turkish names are added to places in present day Greece that were Turkish for 500 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dervecsk (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lupus-Collage Antalya.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lupus-Collage Antalya.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunay Akın

Student 7, you initially deleted the mention of Sunay Akın because he was not-notable. When I reverted that for good cause you reverted my edit indicating "we" don't populate place articles with people. If the Museum was founded by Sunay Akın to include his 4000 or so toys why is it wrong to include that piece of information and make it a interwiki? Additionally we would butt heads less if you stated more clearly why you are doign things in the first place instead of coming up with a rationale after the fact. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I should have been clearer. Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th most visited city

The link to Tourism#Most-visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals no longer contains a city section; only countries. I'm not able to find a list of visited cities on Wikipedia so I'm just going to remove the link for now. This talk section is here to hopefully return the link to a cities list one day.Sudopeople (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tourist capital"?

This article, like most articles about the Turkish coast and tourist sites inland, is often hyped well beyond credibility, resembling articles from no other country. A recent good faith addition (not intent on WP:SPAM apparently), added the "nickname" "Capital of tourism." The citation http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=754 states that "it is well known as the “tourism capital” of the country." It does not suggest that the name is a "nickname" but simply furnishing information about the city.

We do have a few "nicknames" around the world. Paris is the "City of Light(s)," New York is the "Big Apple" for some obscure promotional reason, Philadelphia is almost sarcastically "The city of Brotherly love" because that is what the name means in Greek. Izmir is the "Pearl of the Agean" which is obviously promotional, but what can I say? There are only a few in every country. Some large cities have no nickname. There are even some in Japan, but they are lost on the ear of those not of Japanese culture. Antalya is not among them. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with your reverts had as much to do with process as content. You reverted the item again when the rational you provided for the first revert was satisfied.
I don't actually care if Antalya is the Capital of Turkish Tourism. I also don't see the harm since it is supported by notable sources. I have seen a list that shows when both domestic and international visits are included it is 4th in the world as a tourist destination. When considering just international visits it drops behind Istanbul. Regardless, I just read the article again to see if there was merit in your criticism of the article's content. Perhaps having spent weeks in and around Antalya I am biased, but I see little in the way of unwarranted editorializing you accuse the editors of having. Certainly not to any degree that would place it at the bottom of such rankings for "hyped well beyond credibility". Slamming the article as a whole as a debate tactic to win on this point is inappropriate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the article is hype and WP:SPAM for the city. There is no statement about government, crime, no history that admits that Ionian Greeks inhabited the area for a very long time. Hype may have a place in WikiVoyage or WikiTravel. We need facts here. There is no "official" title for Antalya.
BTW, stretching to make a point looks funny to readers who see a number of articles. There is no reason to be in any haste to attach a label to a city when the outcome. I could claim on my talk page that people have said I am the fourth best looking man in the world, just behind Brad Pitt. Would this be believable? Would anyone think better or worse of me, having read this? I think they would (at best) pity me for making that claim! When claims don't do any good, it is best to omit them or at least tone them down to encyclopedic level. The current statement should be tweaked IMO for that very reason.
Chicago and Atlanta have a lot of people changing planes as well. By itself, doesn't make them "tourist attractions." Student7 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, your baseless commentary only proves the point you make uninformed changes to pages then use persistence to bully your position on the matter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis?

I am aware there is the city of Antalya and the province of Antalya. The city in and of itself might be classed as a metropolis, but I have never heard of a surrounding metropolis. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antalya&diff=prev&oldid=594098539 A simple check of Google Maps shows very little urban type development outside the city limits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article it states that information includes the metropolitan community. This is apparently "official" to some degree, unlike elsewhere. I was just trying to emphasize that this was legitimately a two subject article - the city itself and the "official" metropolitan community. I cannot furnish boundaries for it, but apparently "the state" has done that so it is (hopefully) not vague like it is in the West. Student7 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but a metropolitan area and the surrounding metropolis are not quite the same thing. That aside, I think the fault lies with the article itself for even trying to introduce either of those terms for the City of Antalya. The metropolitan area only includes an additional 40K souls, and looking at the hi-res satellite imagery indicates outside the official boundaries of the city is mostly very rural. This is consistent with my recollection of the place. The transition from highly urbanized to farmland/nature was quite dramatic. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with having them as separate articles if there is a citation(s) that back this up. I don't care for two-placed articles! It confuses both readers and us editors. Student7 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick read of the article and other than the info box I see no other references to these confusing terms. The only supported census number is reported by the Turkish gov as Antalya (Metropolitan Municipality)= 1.041.972. I would harmonize the article around that term. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page calling Antalya a beach resort - it is definitely not ! Antalya is a proper city of over 1 million people and a diverse econonmy . it even has factories and a big port. While Antalya does have tourist attractions like the old city, when people talk of "Antalya" as a holiday destination, they actually mean the Antalya region (Belek, Kemer, Alanya, Side etc). There is confusion because tourists enter the resort region through the airport which is in the city of Antalya.

"Citation needed" removed

The template Refimprove is historically ignored. After it has been there a year, you can bet that it will be ignored nearly "forever." They are less likely to ignore a "citation needed" template. Why? Because after a period of time, I start removing the material with the edit summary "removing uncited material!" Normally, this results in interested editors replacing the material with stuff that actually has a cite. I would be unlikely to rm a lot of material under a "refimprove" section. Other editors don't seem to have the guts either. I have erased short sections with ancient refimproves.

I replaced this long-ignored template (since 2008) with specific "cn" where needed. A well-intentioned editor reverted all of them! I hope the editor will a) ensure that these are filled in, or b) erase them after they become ancient (they were already ancient). Note that the cns had been there since September 2013. It was time to start deleting them individually, but the section did not pop up on my watchlist. Else I would have done it.

Antalya, like many Turkish places, often do not have solid facts to support statements which often seem to promote tourism than try to inform readers in an encyclopedic fashion. These cities (and provinces) need close attention by serious npov editors IMO.

Note that there is nothing now that suggests that a person needs ever to have resided in Antalya to be in notables. Newbies often place people in there quixotically, or wrongly. This is why we place a informational comment at the beginning of notables, rather than to get into an edit war with a newbie later. Note that there is no way to tell whether any of the people in the list are from Antalya or not. Sometimes their bio says so, but that means the Antalya article is not stand-alone, which all articles are supposed to be. Even if it were otherwise, and article editors were "required" to go to yet another Wikipedia article (which cannot be used for citation BTW) to check, the residency in the bio is usually not cited either. Student7 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put those 50x CNs in there was just being a pain in the arse. Most of the CNs were of uncontroversial statements that would not likely to be contested. As to notables, they all have their own articles, so what's the beef? It says "from Antalya" as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you strongly felt the material should be removed from the article, you should probably have removed it.
While I'm willing to work cooperatively on the article if you wish, I will certainly not "ensure that these are filled in, or erase them after they become ancient" at your demand - my reversal of your 50+ {{citation needed}}s was a perfectly valid edit to improve the article and I'll do it again elsewhere if I spot similar, despite this response.
I have to say I take exception with your assertion that the {{Refimprove}} template is 'long-ignored' - seems a lot like bad faith to me - I do my best to fix up articles with all sorts of problems, referencing included (and I'm sure I'm not alone there).
Nikthestunned 17:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above misunderstands that Wikipedia articles cannot be justified by other wikipedia articles. This is circular reasoning (WP:CIRCULAR). See also WP:WPNOTRS. This criteria does not just apply to citations, but to links as well. Each article must stand on its own. The WP:BURDEN is on the adding editor to copy (if available) the citation that links a person to Antalya. There is often no such citation in the bio, which also needs a cn. Student7 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing around WP:SHITisms is just as annoying as an occasional bad link. Sure the article could use more references and citations but what is certainly does not need is 50 fucking [citation needed] templates. That's bullying, disruptive and counter-productive as it is likely to chase editors away from such a daunting task. I suggest you stop being so officious and pick a few key statements in there that really get under your skin because they could be contentious and template them. Eat the elephant one bite at a time as it were. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real paper?

I found: E. Murat Özgür and Ayla Deniz "A New System of Migration: Female Migration from Russia to Antalya (Turkey)." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000 – 000 but I can't find it on the Procedia list. I don't koow if it's real. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antalya. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antalya. 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:

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) 00:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antalya. 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:

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) 02:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antalya. 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:

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) 06:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Italian withdrawal

Somewhere in the history section the article states that the Italians occupied the city until 1923, which is according to me wrong or potentially wrong. I am looking for the exact date the Italians left the city and certainly the internet is full of different dates. The most possible scenario is that the Italians left long before that year. My belief is that they evacuated all Asia Minor immediately after the Greeks failed to knock out the Turks on the Sakarya battle (5 September 1921). I also suspect, even though I did not look for it there, that the written bibliography (history books) is going to have a large diversity about that date too. Another strong and frequently cited date is 5 July 1921, which I would believe but obviously 1923 has to be deemed a very late date to be the historically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 Historic landmarks

I added 2 historic landmarks such as the Aya Yorgi Church and the Murat Pasha moswue located in Antalya next to some of the other ones .If I have made any mistakes in the format that I have written them could anybody fix it.The Aya yorgi (Saint Geoge) church is not showing up could anybody fix it I am not very experienced in editing. GardenofOlivesanddates (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry I fixed my own mistake. GardenofOlivesanddates (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

santa

hi whos santa claus. have you never met him he is the most magical on earth. 82.31.58.127 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antalya&oldid=1061907036"