Talk:Kayqubad I

message: I mean it's true, but this should then be included on every Turkic sultan of Seljuk/Ottoman empire, since all of them 99% of the time had non-turkic mothers. 
Just weird it's specifically talked about on this page, but not on all the other hundreds of sultans/rulers which proved by fact wasn't always Turkic ehtnically speaking.
Oturner91 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek ethnicity 

message: The Turkish name (or an English one derived from it if one exists) should be the one used as the article's title, as it is likely also the one in common use in academia (and therefore considered the English spelling).  The Arabic and/or Farsi transliteration and script should also be included, despite Zaparojdik's screaming to the contrary.
Interestingly, the Turkish spelling according to the Turkish article on the man is "Alaeddin" not "Alaaddin".  If someone could pick up an English-language scholarly book on the Sultanate of Rûm to get uniform set of names of the Sultans, that would be great.  Here's a book I found during a search, but which is not at my university library: Cahen, Claude, The Formation of Turkey. The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, Harlow, 2001.
Also, the article title should probably just be the last or regnal name, not the whole name as it now stands.  Other Sultans have just the regnal name like Kay Khusrau I and Kilij Arslan II.  I think this is generally the convention for royalty. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current proposal by Mardavich and myself, using the Arabic transliteration, was based on discussion on User talk:Tajik and User talk:E104421 and on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). Basically, what we found out was that there was no single English name form dominant in the relevant literature - most literature uses some form of Arabic-style scholarly transliteration, but with differences in detail. In that case, according to the MoS, a consistent Wikipedia house-style version of a standard Arabic transliteration should be used, which is what we now have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second Fut.Perf. This is a silly edit war, the Arabic-style scholarly transliteration is the most relevant as the Seljuqs used Perso-Arabic script. --Mardavich 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *For friends of historical spellings, there's this great numismatical website, mehmeteti.150m.com/seljuqsofrum/index.htm, with lots of beautiful original coins bearing those Seljuk names. Perhaps someone could contact the guy and ask if he would license us one or two for illustration? It's time we actually start expanding the content of that article, don't you guys think? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *If there really isn't a form that's common (I'm not entirely sure that's correct), then I agree something has to just be chosen.  However, I reiterate that I do not think the `Ala' ad-Din part should be included, as per the above examples of other Sultans and per the prevailing usage (do a search for "Sultanate of Rum" and look at the results). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have no problem about that. By the way, we ought to start thinking about disambiguation pages too. There's the mythical Shahname character Kay-Qubad, who hasn't got an article yet, there's three or four Seljuq sultans of the same name, and then there's also some modern Bangladeshi guy who's taken the Kaykobad version. - With all the required alternative spellings, that's going to be a big web of dablinks and redirects. And all for this tiny bit of content... Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding!  You could probably end up with a hundred redirects for a single name with all these different transliterations of all these different languages, if you wanted to be truly comprehensive. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to put my two cents in, most encyclopaedias, and here on Wiki, allow for Turkish renderings of the names of Turks in history - please check Mehmed II, Mehmed is the Turkish rendering of Muhammad, and he has always been known as Mehmed. Such renderings are widely accepted, in Wikipedia and many other academic works. "Purism" of name doesn't have any importance. So is the current name the concensus?? You gotta be joking. Are the people who are moving this article going to change the title of the Mehmed II article to Muhammad II? No, I don't think so. Besides, we should also run a google check to see the most common name in English. Baristarim 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They might have used the Persian-Arabic script, however: Most people didn't read and write back then, and Seljuq people spoke Turkic languages, therefore what is important is not the script, but the language. It is as simple as that. Transliteration has nothing to do with this: Nobody back then knew how to read and write, so I wonder how someone can claim that "Seljuqs used this or that script".. Baristarim 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I didn't very closely check the section on "Ottoman Turkish" in the Arabic MoS guideline. If you want, check it out and propose a different spelling on its basis if it's more "Turkish". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Seljuqs, the dynasty, didn't use "Ottoman Turkish" or "Turkish", they used Persian, the script and the language. As a matter of fact, the Seljuqs are renowned as the great propagators and patrons of Persian culture, art, literature, and language. Their official title was "The Great Seljuqs of Iran". Mehmed was an Ottoman Turk who used Ottoman Turkish in his court, he was called Mehmed in his own time, the naming of his article can not be a precedent for the naming of an article on a Seljuq emperor who used Persian in his court. They lived in different eras, under different cultures, and used different languages in their courts. --Mardavich 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have book but the snippets in Google Books show that it appears without the dash as well as "Kaykubādh", e.g. in the book's index in two places. The Anglicization without the final "h" is far more common though in the books indexed by Goog, so that was a good choice. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: There is a statue of Kay-Qubad at the intersection of Keykubat Caddesi and Atatürk Caddesi in Alanya which I have seen before.  Here's one shot.  A large free-use version would be nice.--Patrickneil 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Alaeddin Keykubad I is the correct form (see the article on Alanya, 6 September 2008 featured article). If consensus, the titles for the two other homonymous Seljuk Sultan of Rûm of the 13th century can be adapted. Various forms of the name used in different sources is explained in the body of Alaeddin Keykubad with direct links in the footnotes. Cretanforever 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something wrong with the above stamp. The move request was actually posted on 26 October 2008. See diff . Aramgar (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Again? We have been through this before, and the arguments above are still valid. Alaeddin Keykubad may be the correct form in Turkish but is not in widespread use outside of Turkey. Consider the most recent reference in the bibliography: . Let us focus on content rather than rehashing this again. Aramgar (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft move request 3

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Keykubat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: @Beshogur ! Here is an issue in the content:Biography. I added, "Kayqubad wanted Rukn al-Din as his successor". (source:Tamta's World, Page no.197). While in the article Kaykhusraw II, content:Succession says "the sultan (Kayqubad I) had chosen as heir the younger ‘Izz al-Din'". I have not searched for more books about this issue because I am busy. Please look into some other books for this issue. Thank You.
IAmAtHome (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The book is unavaiable for me. Plus have really no idea about Rum Seljuks. Although, TDV states: "He was probably born in 586 (1190). His father, I. Gıyâseddin Keykhusrev, had to leave the throne to his brother Rükneddin Süleyman in 592 (1196), and when he went abroad, Alâeddin Keykubad was with his father with his brother Keykâvus." (google translation) Can you elaborate what really the problem is? Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about Kayqubad I's sons. Which was selected by him as the successor, Rukn al-Din or Izz al-Din? I have changed the source url. Check it now.
IAmAtHome (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a confusion. Please see this issue if you have sometime. Thank You.
IAmAtHome (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for tagging, I will look into it. Cheers -Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kayqubad I's Selected