Abstract
Along with the diversification of tourism, naming and grouping mistakes are frequently made for different tourism activities. When many variables such as the type, place and purpose of tourism activity are considered together, it is seen that naming and grouping mistakes are also reflected in scientific research. This situation can create a series of problems from the construction of scientific research to its conclusion and brings the danger of making research results unreliable. One of the mistakes frequently encountered in tourism research is to attribute different meanings to the concept of city tourism. The mistake that arises as a result of mixing up the concept of city with the concept of province, which is an administrative classification, also negatively affects the studies of city tourism. Mentioning tourism attractions in a province under the name of city tourism causes the misexpression of city tourism as a concept that includes all types of tourism in these studies. However, there is more than one city settlement and city tourism destination in each province. The purpose of this study is to make a suggestion for the correct use of the concept of city tourism. In this study that is in the nature of compilation the concepts of city and city tourism have been explained and the boundaries of the concept of city tourism have been tried to be drawn. The erroneous point of view that the meanings attributed to the concept of city tourism point to the tourism potential of a city and at this point the concept of city tourism is a type of tourism that can cover all types of tourism has been discussed. Within the framework of this discussion, a framework has been created for the correct use of the concept of city tourism in future academic studies.