DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 20, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 8, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2005, October 29, 2011, October 29, 2012, October 29, 2013, October 29, 2014, October 29, 2015, October 29, 2016, and October 29, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article

The article is too long

[edit]

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[1] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming is certainly a good thing, but you should ensure first that the child articles are in an appropriate shape. E.g., Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey is much better writen than History_of_Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey; the latter trails off into a mere timeline (but then child-child article History of the Republic of Turkey is looks better). This is relevant because History of Turkey in its entirety is the child article of Turkey#History. So anyonw jumping straight from the section Turkey#History to History of Turkey will have – as of now – a worse reading experience at the bottom of the latter than at the bottom of the Turkey#History. I only mention this because I have seen cases trimming of main articles without brushing up the child articles. I think @CMD can be of much help in the challenge of how to create best structure and best content in article hierarchies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still 11,402 words. I'll rewrite and shorten the Foreign relations section, which is one of the longest sections now. Other parts of the article will be trimmed too, although I might add a few things as well. I don't think the article can get below 9k words, but below 10k will be my goal. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an easy word removal, remove the Science and technology subsection. It's a level 4 section in Economy of Turkey, totally out of relative proportion here. CMD (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still going over the article. There are lots of places to remove and trim before Science and technology subsection. Some parts still have very poor sourcing.
For example, one paragraph in climate is redundant. LGBTQ rights needs to be trimmed and merged into Human rights section.
The child articles are also very low quality. So we can't asses DUE with respect to other Wikipedia sources.
I have been sidetracked with other Wiki articles
By the way, we are at 10,746 words now. Much better compared to 13,585 words Bogazicili (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10,641 words at the moment. There are lots of places to tighten and get below 10k. I'll be doing that over the next several weeks. Also note that there's an actually an article: Science and technology in Turkey.
I won't be aiming for under 9k though. I think under 10k is ok, even for Featured Articles. Bogazicili (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the Emblem of Turkey?! 202.138.239.24 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include “Türkiye” in lead sentence?

[edit]

Following the examples of countries such as Ivory Coast and Czech Republic that have undergone name changes but the old name is still common, would it be sensible to adjust the lead sentence to read: Turkey, also known as Türkiye and officially the Republic of Türkiye…?

Please note this is not a proposal to rename the entire article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 08:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this (mentioned in the FAQ). Mellk (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it should be Turkiye, formerly known as Turkey... and we should be referring to it as Turkiye throughout the article. Because that's what its called. The fact that people commonly still use Turkey (incorrect) does not mean Wikipedia should also still use the incorrect name. I think the point of Wikipedia is accuracy. Calling it Turkey is inaccurate. ~2025-33249-40 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? The Turkish authorities do not have jurisdiction over the English language. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/turkiye ~2025-34852-79 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-33249-40: No it's not inaccurate: Cambridge, Collins, Longmans, BBC... Bazza 7 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Türkiye is actually in multiple English-language dictionaries.
  • Oxford Learners Dictionaries: also Türkiye [3]
  • Cambridge Dictionary [4]
  • Merriam-Webster: variants or now officially Türkiye [5]
  • Collins [6]
  • Everett-Heath, John (2020). Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (6 ed.). Oxford University Press. Türkiye (Turkey) entry
There was a previous RfC on this, so there should be another RfC. I think the suggested change above makes sense. Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no change. All the major English-language publications continue to use Turkey. English-speakers across the planet continue to have no idea what Türkiye is. For a language as widespread as English to change in the way the Turkish government would like would take years, if ever. We certainly haven't got anywhere near that yet. It's ridiculously optimistic to think otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above: Please note this is not a proposal to rename the entire article
The last RfC about this seems to be in November 2022 Talk:Turkey/Archive_36#RfC_on_the_official_name_of_the_country_in_the_lede_(2). Was there a more recent one about the first sentence in the lead?
I don't think any of the dictionary links above was in that November 2022 RfC. That is a change.
New sources and 3 years since the last RfC is enough for a repeat RfC per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary sources just note the Turkish government's change of "official" name. It doesn't reflect any change of usage whatsoever. But if this isn't about the article name, what on earth is it about? Türkiye is in the first sentence. The OP wanted "Turkey, also known as Türkiye and officially the Republic of Türkiye". But that's just absurd non-sensical repetition. That can't be a serious proposal? It wouldn't matter what the sources say that's never going to happen. The much quoted, but one-off, Ivory Coast opening sentence nonsense won't get repeated for more prominent articles like this one. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Czech Republic.
I believe we have completed WP:RFCBEFORE Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Czech Republic only mentions Czechia once. It doesn't matter how many times you try to shoehorn Türkiye into the first sentence, there is no evidence that English speakers will ever move away from calling the country Turkey. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how many times you try to shoehorn Türkiye You seem much more passionate about this than I am.
I personally prioritize high quality sources such as Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (6 ed.) Bogazicili (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some people get so nationalistic about what a country is called in a foreign language? The people of the Netherlands have more cause for complaint about many English speakers using "Holland" to refer to their whole country or "Dutch" for their language but I don't see an equivalent campaign. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. We are discussing how to best represent sources. Please refrain from WP:aspersions.
English-language sources like Al Jazeera English use "Turkiye".
That and other sources such as dictionaries above should not be ignored per WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV says "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". The microscopic prominence of Turkiye in mainstream English-language sources should certainly be reflected with the same prominence in this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the question that a new RfC should evaluate. Bogazicili (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new formulation(s) nonsensical and unwieldy, but I don't see a reason why an RfC can not be done again. If somebody wants to test the waters for how consensus has shifted (I don't think it has), I haven't seen an argument made against an RfC. Uness232 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I find the opposition nonsensical given that a lot of high quality sources mention the alternative name, including WP:Tertiary sources such as World Factbook.
There will always be similar repetition in country articles. For example, Australia: Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia. Or Germany: Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany. Or Bulgaria: Bulgaria, officially the Republic of Bulgaria. Australia, Germany, and Bulgaria are repeated twice.
All those articles are FA class.
Similarly, I don't see any issues with "Türkiye" repeated twice.
We still need to debate this a bit per WP:RFCBEFORE before an RfC to give space and time for people to make other arguments and proposals. RfC's are time consuming.
As a general reminder to all editors, consensus depends on the sources, not people's random opinions. Bogazicili (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those examples give the common name in English followed by the official name, without any additional name, as this article does now. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples were about the repetition. Repetition doesn't seem to be an issue. Rejecting reliable sources with the pretext of repetition seems ridiculous to me. It's also a WP:NPOV violation.
Turkey is clearly different from those examples, as Türkiye is an alternative name as shown by sources above. Bogazicili (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The country name would now have to be repeated three times, unlike these examples; which I, personally, beyond the scope of Wikipedia policy, find useless in terms of prose and flow. Türkiye is not common in colloquial usage, which is why we say Turkey (colloquial common name) or the Republic of Türkiye (official name, as also documented as the official name in tertiary sources). Adding a third name for the relatively small number of sources that use Türkiye (mostly as a reflection of official usage, not day-to-day usage, mind you) does not seem WP:DUE when we already have an official name using the word Türkiye in the first sentence. This seems fair and not at all a violation of WP:NPOV (also seriously? what POV is this even serving?).
I am still in favor of an RfC, as we seem to be going around circles, and in both WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:NPOV you seem to be overly obsessed with the letter and not the purpose of the law as well as the practical concerns of being an encylopedia; which is again something I've noticed with your editing style. WP:BURO matters here I believe. Uness232 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an RfC, I'd like to propose that we also include the option of moving all the alt name info into a footnote. It'd then mention Turkiye/Türkiye in English, Republic of Türkiye in English, and all the translations and pronunciations. The lead sentence then would just be Turkey[a] is a country ... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition is this: reliable English sources still mostly treat "Turkey" as their primary spelling. An increase in sightings of "Türkiye" is unimportant; the important thing is if the majority of reliable English sources are rejecting "Turkey". No such thing has happened.
A desire by some Turkish people to see the English spelling changed does not belong here. Please note that the Turkish Wikipedia has horrendously misspelled articles about "Birleşik Krallık" which must immediately be changed to "United Kingdom", and "Amerika Birleşik Devletleri" which must be immediately changed to "United States". Do you recognize from this that it is wrong for one language to try to dictate to another language? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I disagree with the proposal, but I'm not sure if this characterization works. For something to be included in the first sentence, it does not need to be the majority name. If it was the majority, we would be discussing the article name, not this. The discussion right now is whether the degree and context of usage of Türkiye merits a separate mention from Republic of Türkiye. I also don't understand how we measure 'rejection'. If Türkiye is used in place of Turkey is that not rejection? Must they clearly say that "saying Turkey is despicable and therefore we're not using it anymore" for it to count?
I also don't think many people in this discussion really care for one language trying to dictate to another language. We just look at usage. Uness232 (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the current discussion and previous discussions, but I don't see the following aspect discussed anywhere. An elephant in the room is: the English language doesn't contain the letter "ü".

As a consequence, any proposal of an "official English name" with non-English characters should just be ignored as nonsense. Imagine Russia would go Russия, Austria would demand to be called Östria, and so on.

English-speaking people are not able and should not be obliged to use names with alien letters or sounds. It's such common sense that there is probably no separate rule for that, but why don't we use this consideration while discussing this topic? If the Turkish government disrespects the English-speaking space and common sense, it should void their expectations that other countries respect their fantasies. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the general point, it's not quite true that we never import diacritics into English for foreign place names. We do occasionally and inconsistently: Besançon, Nîmes DeCausa (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this discussion be closed. There is no need to include “Türkiye” twice in the opening sentence. The official name is already mentioned in that sentence. It would only make sense if “Türkiye” were commonly used in English speech to refer to the country, which it is not. Furthermore, I think this topic should not be discussed again for another 3 years. KFan3 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this discussion is kind of nonsense, in Türkiye we discuss which one is the correct term for Chicago since official the one is Şikago. Let's just go with the map, which takes it's source from official documents, just like the Gulf of Mexico. The map says Türkiye, and I'm pretty okay with Turkiye, we don't need ü. But this discussion is pretty unnecessary. Ail Subway (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment translates to "Why should we bother with discussions where we take into account what a lot of interested people think? In the future just come to me first and ask me what I think and be done with it, you silly people with your own reasons and your own arguments that are different from mine." Largoplazo (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and earliest usage

[edit]

In Heimskringla, assumed to have been written in Iceland around 1230, chapter 5 starts with these words: "Fjallgarður mikill gengur af landnorðri til útsuðurs. Sá skilur Svíþjóð hina miklu og önnur ríki. Fyrir sunnan fjallið er eigi langt til Tyrklands. Þar átti Óðinn eignir stórar." 

EliasHalldor (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would like to improve Name of Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2025

[edit]

Its called turkyie and turkish civilzation ~2025-37927-82 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Those who live in Turkey are Turkish citizens only[reply]

Yes ~2025-37927-82 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: to request a page move follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. And it's Türkiye, not Turkyie. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But don't request a move now because, following the last discussion, there's a one-year moratorium on move requests for this article, as can be seen near the top of this page. (On mobile, you may need to tap a "Learn more about this page" link.) The moratorium will end 9 May 2026. Largoplazo (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander's Empire or Macedonian Empire

[edit]

It looks like Khirurg is continuing the edit war from 2024 [7] with this edit [8].

This is what the source says, Howard 2016, p. 28:

The Persian invasions of Greece, which form the subject of Herodotus’s book, aimed to root out Balkan support of the revolt of the Anatolian Greek cities. The Greeks repelled the Persians and liberated the Aegean coast of Anatolia. The majority of the Anatolian interior remained under Persian rule until the campaigns of Alexander the Great a century and a half later. The vacuum left by Alexander’s victories over Darius III at the Granicus River (334 BCE) and at Issus in Cilicia (333 BCE), the collapse of the Persian Empire, and Alexander’s death was filled by several new states. Along the Aegean, the Greek cities evolved into states with fiercely independent civic traditions. Thriving commerce grew on the bedrock of a slave economy, funding a prodigious scholarly and scientific achievement ...

There is no mention about "Alexander's empire" or a Macedonian Empire.

Following Alexander's death (323 BC), there were new states.

Unless Alexander's Empire is shown in an overview source, I think this is simply WP:UNDUE. We can't list every entity that existed for few years in Anatolia in this article. Bogazicili (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely easy to find "overview" sources that mention this, e.g. Gilley & Worthington, A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, p. 186: ..he ruled an Empire that consisted of Greece, Asia Minor, the Levantine Coast.... This is widely known. And considering the significance of the Alexander's conquest of Anatolia, it is definitely due. Why are you so opposed to this? This is a very bizarre thing to oppose. Khirurg (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What?? "Following Alexander's death (323 BC), there were new states." Yes! the states of the Hellenistic era: Pergamon, the Seleucids, Pontus, the Ptolomies etc Good grief this is ridiculous. Alexander's conquest fundamentally changed the map and culture of Anatolia. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, right? It's unbelievable. Same story over at [[[Anatolia]] and other articles too. Khirurg (talk) Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue in Turkey#Early_classical_antiquity section, mixed cities or Greeks mixing

[edit]

Right now this is the current wording:

These eastern Greek settlements played a vital role in shaping the Archaic Greek civilization; important cities included Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul).

This implies Miletus and Halicarnassus were completely Greek cities. However, elsewhere in the source it says many of these cities were mixed, or Miletos and Halicarnassus being Carian

Bolding mine:

  • The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE)
    • ** The Land and Peoples of Anatolia through Ancient Eyes chapter, p 22-24:

      Caria
      Herodotus, as a native of Halicarnassus, brings firsthand experience of the ethnic complexity of Caria, the region where migrating Greeks most intimately mixed with Anatolian populations. As already noted, at 1.171 Herodotus claims that the entire west coast of Anatolia (i.e., Mysia, Lydia, and Caria) was at one point inhabited by one ethnic group, which divided into three “brother races” named after the brothers Myus, Lydus, and Car. ... The main Carian cities, Miletos and Halicarnassus, differ in their ethnic makeup; Miletos was Carian in the Iliad but is considered Ionian Greek by Herodotus, whereas Halicarnassus, not mentioned in the Iliad , was deemed a Dorian settlement by Herodotus. The complex ethnic makeup of the Aegean coast, with speakers of three distinct Greek dialects mingling with native Anatolians, especially Lydians and Carians, can be seen in Herodotus’s confusion about the ethnicity of the inhabitants of his own city.

Some of these "migration myths" seem to be supported by archeological research:

    • The Greeks in Western Anatolia chapter, p. 508-509:

      Irene Lemos ( 2002 , 2007 ) has used such a critical archaeological approach to argue that core elements of the foundation myths, such as the mixed composition of the Greek settlers (Herodotus 1.146) and the initial cause of the outward migration from mainland Greece, might reasonably be accepted as historical facts. Another core “fact” of the migrations is that a number of the foundation stories record that there was a pre-Greek population at these sites and that the Ionian Migration was not a virgin soil foundation (Miletos [Herodotus 1.146]; Ephesos [Athenaios 8.62.361 ap. Kreophylos]). This is apparently confirmed by archaeological evidence that is suggestive of continuity of settlement and cult practice from the Bronze Age through to the early Iron Age, at sites such as Miletos (Niemeier 2005 ) and Ephesos (Bammer 1990 ), and by enduring elements of pre-Greek Anatolian cultural practice (Greaves 2010).

I don't think the current text portrays the source accurately. I'll try to add a concise sentence or two to fix it. Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying you would like to diminish the Greek nature of these settlements? If so, I don't think your sources say that. They simply seem to be making the rather obvious point that the settlements overlaid existing inhabitants. What you want to get into seems more suited to a detailed article on the subject eg Genetic make-up of the Greek settlements in Asia Minor. This is a very high level overview article. In context, I don't see a problem with the current text for this article. What you are trying to do feels pointy and rather unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about one of 3 options
  • Removing this part important cities included Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul)
  • Adding Some archaeological evidence supports ancient Greeks' migrations myths about Ionian Migration not being a "virgin soil foundation", with a pre-Greek population present.
  • Adding something like "According to Herodotus, some of these places like Miletos had mixed populations" or something like that.
I wasn't sure what to do, that's why I brought it to the talk page first. Bogazicili (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing incorrect about the existing sentence. These were "Greek" cities. The fact that there were other ethnic elements to them (like in almost all other cities across the ancient near east) isn't really a point of significance in an article at this level. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They might be "Greek" cities at a certain date but some of them might have been Carian before a certain date. If you look at the paragraph above, we are mentioning Carians, Lycians and Lydians and say nothing about their cities or areas. It's just two sentences, followed by an entire "Greek" paragraph.
That is the NPOV issue.
An alternative would be saying these people (Carians, Lycians and Lydians with Greeks) overlapped in terms of certain geography and time period Bogazicili (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna and Byzantium at this time was their role in wider Greek civilisation. that's what the sentence says and nothing you have produced changes that point conveyed by the text. No change in text is necessary or appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. There is no NPOV issue with the current wording. This is a very high level overview article, the ethnic composition of individual cities is completely WP:UNDUE. Khirurg (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grokipedia article worth comparing if you are bored

[edit]

https://grokipedia.com/page/Turkey starts “Türkiye, officially the Republic of Türkiye …”

Partly for gentle amusement and to feel superior. For example click “edit history” and scroll to the bottom to see they are still pondering whether to remove stuff they copied from us by mistake. And “gubernatorial” is a funny word for us Brits.

Despite the stupidities and it being far too long though it is sometimes useful to get a different point of view. For example their lead only has one paragraph of history but mentions Erdoğan and is better than us on foreign policy I think. And carefully checking the body of their article would likely reveal areas which could be improved here. Obviously anyone taking inspiration from there would need to check their sources extremely carefully as they use some unreliable sources like Greek City Times and globalfirepower.com

Another example of usefulness - I wondered if they mentioned the important (in my view) problem of smoking and then found that we don’t either Chidgk1 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Grokipedia article - notably the lead - is actually better than this one, which has been so whitewashed that one would believe that Turkey is perfect in every way. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only read the lead and that certainly is much much better than this one. It's succinct and brings out the key points clearly. The one for this article has suffered from cramming in everyone's favourite fact. It's close to being unreadable. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

[edit]

Hello, can I edit the English page of the Republic of Turkey because I want to have the national anthem file to be the U.S. Navy instrumental version instead of the choral orchestra version, may I please change that? Bjornlyskmand (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Edit requests aren't for seeking permission to edit a page. If thepage is protected, you simply can't edit it until you qualify under the terms of the level of protection. In an edit request, you must state what edit you'd like to have made—the exact edit you'd make if you were making it—and asking if someone who has editing access will make it for you. For that to happen, you have to, as I said, given the exact edit, and you have to supply justification for it. So you'd have to identify the file you want to replace the existing one with and why it's better than the existing file. In this case, why do you feel an instrumental version is better than one with the lyrics sung? Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]