Talk:Germany–Turkey relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. The WikiProject should come to a conclusion first. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)



German–Turkish relationsGermany–Turkey relations — It should be renamed because most of the bilateral relations articles are named like X–Y relations. Turkish Flame 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Turkish Flame 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Turkish Flame. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. "Germany–Turkey relations" is simply not proper grammatical, idiomatic English. Fut.Perf. 07:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Comment. "[M]ost of the bilateral relations articles are named like X–Y relations" – true, but not all. There are (a lot of) articles named either "Xian-Yian relations" (with demonyms), "X-Y relations" (with a hyphen) or "X – Y relations" (with spaces). Why not make a multimove request instead of going through the same arguments every time? Also, is there a rule somewhere that this is the only acceptable format? Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • To elaborate, a large majority of articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Turkey are in the format "Ruritanian–Turkish relations", like this one. Are you planning to move them all? If yes, why do it one by one? If not, why are we here? Jafeluv (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll move all of them but this is a little bit controversial article. That's why I chose this way. --Turkish Flame 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, simply because there's no evidence of this usage being the only acceptable one (I don't think there's a guideline on the matter...?), and the current format is pretty widely used in Turkey-related articles. I'm all for making all X-Y relations articles consistent in naming, but discussing them one by one is exactly the way not to do it. Jafeluv (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm striking my oppose because there is a guideline on the matter, devised by WikiProject International relations. It says that the noun form of the countries should be used, so the proposed title would be the correct one. However, I still strongly advise you not to suggest these moves one by one, because a) that would take forever and b) people grow tired of going through the same arguments over and over again. Either request a huge multimove at WP:RM or find a bold enough admin from the international relations project to move all the other articles after this one gets consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The "guideline" is invalid. Last time this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, there was no consensus either way; it doesn't make it a valid consensus just because somebody then went and put this new rule on the Wikiproject's main page. There is no single grammatical scheme applicable for all country pairs, because country names are in themselves a grammatically heterogeneous class in English. The attempt at imposing a uniform naming scheme on all these articles is fundamentally misguided, because it goes against the nature of English. Artificial uniformity is bad. In the present case, as in many others, the Adjective-Adjective compound is the only form found in natural English usage; other country pairs are different. Fut.Perf. 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First source of the article is currently a missing page[edit]

The first source, which is cited in the World War II section of the article leads to a PDF document on page of the US State Department which is currently missing; [1]

Tiro42 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Germany–Turkey relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)