# Talk:Chaka Bey

Not a good decision. First, "Tzachas" is the Greek form of the name, and this is about a Turkish ruler, where the native form would be preferable. Second, the above results are questionable, because they included "bey/beg" as an integral part of the name, when it is merely a title: Chaka Turkish brings 410 results, and "caka" turkish, i.e. the Turkish spelling, brings a few dozen results as well (if some irrelevant results are discounted). Constantine   ✍  16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm sorry you only arrived after I'd moved the page. Before moving it any more, I'd like to get input from more editors, and be sure that we're getting the right title. I've left notes at 1234 WikiProjects just now requesting input, so let's see what others have to say. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"Tzachas" was recorded only in historical documents written in Greek language. The Turkish forms of the name (Çaka, Çağa, Çakan ) were nothing but assumption, hypothesis etc. And at present, these "assumed" names (Chaka, Chagha, Chakan, Çaka, Çağa, Çakan ) are not common names of this person. Takabeg (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is a good point. I've checked my own sources, and indeed, Tzachas was recorded only in Greek histories. So I agree with the present state of affairs. Constantine   ✍  12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe too late for the comment, but anyway. The problem is with the pronunciation. There is no standard pronunciation rule for foreign names in English. How do you pronounce "Tzachas" ? I don't know any Turkic or Islamic name beginning with Tz. (Ç in Çaka is pronunced like ch in the word chalk.) So I don't agree with the above move. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tzachas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Give me a little time to go over the article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Tomandjerry211, sorry for the delay, I only just now saw your review. On the points you raised:
"First paragraph in the body should be a note." I disagree, it discusses the sources on his life, and is directly pertinent to the "Life" section.
"1090/91" means in 1090 or 1091, it is a common shorthand e.g. in the case of the sources using the Islamic calendar, where years do not coincide with the Western calendar. 1090 and 1091 would be 1090–91, which is how I've denoted the regnal dates.
"It is unecessary to put the same citations over and over again right next themselves in the article" I am not sure what you mean
I mean some thing like this: "The T30 HMC served in World War II. It later served in the First Indochina War.", this is unecessary to do.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you mean in the second paragraph. You're right, I've removed the one redundant set. Constantine   ✍  12:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really, I mean it could, but there is no firm rule. I prefer to keep it simple with this one.
Fixed dead link, Brill keeps moving its articles around.
On splitting the article, there is really not that much info for it to be necessary. Having one-paragraph sections merely to have sections is rather beside the point.
All Anatolian Turks were Oghuz Turks.
Thanks for taking the time to review this, I am awaiting further feedback. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Passing, Well done!--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)