Talk:Menteshe

Mentese is the norm / no to the merger to 'Menteshe'

Wikipedia is trying to stay on par with professional encyclopedia patterns.

The place and dynasty were identified in Encyclopaedia Brittanica as Mentese.

A google search on Mentese and Menteshe will indicate that the former produces more "hits", and that more hits pertain to the place and dynasty.

Futhermore, the search indicates that the former relates to Turkish and English usage. The latter relates to German usage.Dogru144 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Example of professional article using Mentese

See the academic paper or book uploaded to the Internet, dealing with this period of Turkish history: http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf/VG07.pdf

It uses "Mentese." Dogru144 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

• "Beylik of Mentese" -Llc 3
• "Beylik of Menteshe" -Llc 2
• "Mentese principality" -Llc 12
• "Menteshe principality" -Llc 6
• "principality of Mentese" -Llc 16
• "principality of Menteshe" -Llc 12
• Menteshids -Llc 9

Takabeg (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Aervanath (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Menteşe (beylik) → Menteshe – In English literature, the beylik has commonly been transcribed as "Menteshe", which, incidentally, was also the original name of this article. Searches in literature produce the following:

• "Mentese" alone gives thousands of hits, but the vast majority are irrelevant, since this is also a verb in Spanish
• "Menteşe" in GBooks gives a bit less than 200 hits, including references to the modern placenames, and quite a few irrelevant hits (Postfeminist Discourse in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, The Celestial Key to the Vedas, etc.)
• "Mentese beylik" in GBooks gives 101 hits, with a few obviously irrelevant ones into the mix, and a few Turkish-language ones as well. Most of the hits are to books without preview, so what exactly they match is unclear
• "Mentese Turkish" in GBooks gives about 200 hits, with largely the same restrictions as the above (many Turkish-language publications, "Mentese" as a surname, e.g. Halil Mentese, etc.)
• "Menteshe" in GBooks, gives about 280 hits, including the usual false and irrelevant hits.
• "Menteşe beylik" in GScholar gives a lot of hits, but they are almost all in Turkish; restricting hits to English, there are 73 results, which again
• "Menteshe" in GScholar gives 216 hits, many of whom are due to the book of E. Zachariadou, but which nevertheless refer to the principality.

In conclusion, usage does not seem to be overwhelming either way, and both forms are used in English both by Turkish and non-Turkish scholars (you can spot the great Halil Inalcik using both forms, for instance). However, "Menteshe" does seem to have the advantage that it is relatively unambiguous, being used in English almost exclusively for the principality and rather infrequently for the modern town. Using it would avoid any confusion with the modern localities and obviate the need for disambiguation. WP:DIACRITICS allows us to use both forms, but IMO, for the general readership, the less modified letters we use, the better. It should also be noted that "Menteshe" is used by reference works like the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st Ed.) and (2nd Ed.). Constantine ✍ 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Foreign proper nouns is a big problem in WP. I know that Ş is not a letter in English. But Menteşe is a proper noun and I believe it should be kept as it is.(After all Ø is not a letter in English alphabet but we have Hans Christian Ørsted). By the way, I don't understand why we have to search the name Menteşe or Menteshe in the books. This word does not have an established use in English . What percentage of English speakers know anything about Menteşe ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"What percentage of English speakers know anything about Menteşe ?" You know full well that this is not an argument. The only indication about use in English is, indeed, use in English. If Turkish were not written in a variant of the Latin alphabet, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS covers Oersted; here the question is, why should we not use a form that is easier to read for the average English-speaker, especially when it is also common (indeed, perhaps slightly more common) in literature? If the two forms are functionally equivalent, why should we prefer the accented form? I see really no point in the latter, and it would simplify naming as well. Constantine ✍ 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Nom has done a great job in justifying the usage of Menteshe, reversing the undiscussed move 19:20, 3 December 2006‎ Cretanforever (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (22 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (moved Menteshe to Menteşe: in line with other Beyliks). While consistency is a naming criterion, so is recognisability. Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Andrewa. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Good nomination that hasn't been adequately refuted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menteshe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429162918/http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf/VG07.pdf to http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf/VG07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061225052217/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11741 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11741
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218045818/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=9421 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=9421

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) 22:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)