Talk:Energy in Turkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
under the Black Sea
?
Current status: Good article

Peak energy?

When is peak energy (as opposed to peak electricity) demand and how much energy storage is needed when?

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge

Energy policy of Turkey into Energy in Turkey. I think that the Energy in Turkey article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Energy policy of Turkey will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. As discussed at Talk:Energy policy of Turkey/GA1 it is not really big enogh by itself. And as there are now more specific articles such as Coal in Turkey and Electricity sector in Turkey the combined article should not grow too big in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

new cite?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/coronavirus-emergency-measures-should-persuade-ukraine-romania-and-turkey-to-legitimize-energy-reform-not-reverse-it/

Missing cites

Article has a few broken short cites (see Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors):

  • Gomez et al: Future skills (2019)
  • Ersoy (2019)
  • Saygın et al (2019)

Also, plain text cites should be converted to full citations or to {{

harvnb
}} cites:

  • OECD (2019)
  • Turkstat report (2019)
  • Europe Beyond Coal(2020)
  • Şahin (2018)
  • Aşıcı (2017)
  • Şahin (2019)
  • BP (2019)
  • Shura2018

Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Thanks - might you have time to do the good article review? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cobuild reports

now 4 at https://www.cobenefits.info/country-studies-infographics/studies/turkey/ may be useful

Energy outlook 2021

also https://www.tskb.com.tr/i/assets/document/pdf/energy_outlook_2020.pdf

At end of May need to check if mmo have published this

Short description

First of all

WP:SDSHORT) that was not redundant with the title of the article. I figured that, accordingly, the article did not need a short desc. JBchrch talk 16:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I think a shortdesc makes sense in this article, and while I did copy the new desc from Energy in the United Kingdom I think it's the best option we have, unless User:Chidgk1 or someone else disagrees. Uness232 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now the short desc helper does not prompt for a change comment - I should have used the source editor and commented. Unfortunately I cannot find another "Energy in X" article which is rated "good" or above to copy from. Changed to "Make, use and trade energy in Turkey". But feel free to change again if you have better. Please use source editor and add a change comment to explain why better - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While Energy in the United Kingdom is not a good article, it is of fairly high quality and I believe has the best description for an article like this. The description you have added is gramatically incorrect, and even if that problem is fixed, the word 'make' can not be used as a noun in that sense. Uness232 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Chidgk1, would be very happy if you addressed my final issue on section 3b so I can give this a pass? Thanks. Uness232 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced by either short descs. Make, use and trade energy in Turkey is grammatically incorrect and Overview of the use of energy in Turkey does not mention that the article adresses production and trade. Maybe, Production and use of energy in Turkey? I still think that {{
shortdesc|none}} is more appropriate, though. JBchrch talk 15:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You might be right actually, as my shortdesc runs into the problem of redundancy as well, as you mentioned in your first comment, so for now changing it to {{
shortdesc|none}}. Uness232 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article does meet DYK requirements as a new GA, I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. The hook however isn't very interesting and doesn't really say much about the article subject itself. Could alternative proposals be provided here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not interesting that the plan was published a year after the period started? Maybe that is common where you live too? In UK a (non secret) government plan would be published beforehand so the public could comment. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about commonality, it's just not a hook that would catch attention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I made it a bit more obvious Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I really don't think this direction is working out. Could you try proposing a different hook fact? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you like ALT2 I will add cite.Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's potential in ALT2's hook fact, but its current wording could probably still be improved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for ALT2 itself, it's not really explicitly stated in the article: the article states that a gas field was found under the Black Sea, and also states that it could fuel most of Turkey's residential energy needs this decade. Perhaps a hook based on that could also work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once you are happy with the hook wording (suggest wording if you have ideas) I will make sure it is in article and cited properly before you tick it off. How about ALT3? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change "lots of" to something else? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added ideas - do you have an idea? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Plenty"/"Lots of" don't really sound encyclopedic, which was the thought I had. Perhaps something like "Significant energy resources..." or wording to that effect? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the DYK could be more playful than an article in order to be more catchy?. If you want something encyclopedic why not go with the original hook? That is encyclopedic and boring unless the reader takes a second look, after which it also sounds outrageous (well to me having come from UK anyway and presumably in USA plans are published before they start). This is our dry Brit style. Anyway I added ALT7 for your consideration. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think some variation of ALT6 is our best option here, there just have to be a more encyclopedic wording than "a lot" or "plenty". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean by "more encyclopedic wording" - if ALT4 is not a more encyclopedic wording please suggest a complete hook. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does "a large amount" work? Pamzeis (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - ALT8 fine by me Narutolovehinata5? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the late reply, I took some time off from the nomination to think which of the options were the best and how to move forward. I'm not a total fan of ALT8 but it's probably the best option so far and any further changes could result in the hook's hookiness being diluted, so I'll be giving it my approval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precision versus readability in the lead

Hello Metuboy Thanks for taking an interest in this somewhat neglected subject. I think for readability any percentages in the lead should be to the nearest 10% or 5%. Partly because hydropower varies so much from year to year but mainly for readability. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK should I use '10 percent' instead of '10%' ?? Metuboy (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Percentages mentions body of article but not lead so I guess up to you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Chidgk! I really appreciate Metuboy (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bir şey değil. By the way if you are interested in energy I have a few articles I am trying to bring to "good" standard awaiting review, such as Solar power in Turkey. I am sure if you reviewed one of my good article nominations you would be able to find a lot of things wrong and suggest a lot of improvements. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would love to help you out! Ofc Metuboy (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone improve the Turkish article?

Hello Metuboy and other native speakers,

As you can see it is in bad shape. As my Turkish is poor it is hard for me to find good sources. If any of you could improve that article I expect you would find useful cites which you could also use here. As you know this is a hot topic so it would be great to bring both articles up to date. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean improving this article in Turkish? or in English? Metuboy (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are a native speaker of Turkish or bilingual? If not please ignore this. There are various articles about Turkey which are "good" in English but not in Turkish - tr:Türkiye'de enerji is one of them. If you or another native speaker are interesting in first improving tr:Türkiye'de enerji there should also be benefits for this article as it is almost a year since it was listed "good", so improving the Turkish article would likely reveal new sources or new info which should also be added here. Because the subject has moved on since a year ago. Also it should be easy for a native Turkish speaker to expand that article by translating parts of this one - for example the section about oil. And while translating they could tag problems here. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Indeed I am native Turkish speaker and I would love to help it out with some turkish sources as well Metuboy (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metuboy OK I have tr:Türkiye'de enerji on my watchlish. Let me know if you find anything useful for this article too - for example whether Turkey made a new contract with Russia to buy gas after the old contract finished end 2021, or whether the govt will wait until the 2025 contract expires. You need my advice on the Wikipedia translation tool? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flow of gas from Iran

Hello @103.246.36.121 - you recently added the following:

In 2022, it was announced that there is a shortage, which is bigger than any other previous shortages. This is because a lot of energy which comes from Iran cannot be supplied. [1]

Could you possibly discuss this at

Talk:Oil_and_gas_in_Turkey#Flow_of_gas_from_Iran
Chidgk1 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwecPvAaDao

Needs update for new plan

https://enerji.gov.tr//Media/Dizin/EIGM/tr/Raporlar/TUEP/T%C3%BCrkiye_Ulusal_Enerji_Plan%C4%B1.pdf Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

policies source

https://shura.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SHURA-2023-11-Rapor-Enerji-Sektoru-icin-Politikalar.pdf

need to add once has been translated presumably in a few months time Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

now english https://shura.org.tr/en/net-zero-2053-energy-sector-policies/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New source needs adding

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2024/02/28/understanding-energy-drivers-of-turkey-s-foreign-policy-pub-91733 Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also check gas oil maps against its map Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_in_Turkey&oldid=1211023127"