very nice article

Name change

Requested move 11 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:Not moved.Hadal (talk)19:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Pergamon →Attalid kingdomAttalid kingdom –WP:COMMONNAME. Google Scholar returns982 results for "Attalid kingdom" against only370 for "kingdom of Pergamon" and470 for "Pergamum". On JSTOR there are198 results for the proposed title and only26 for the current one (59 for "Pergamum"). "Attalid" appears more frequently in book titles[1][2], and the onlineBrill's New Pauly uses "Pergamene" or "Attalid kingdom" for the state and Pergamum just for the city. The proposed change also makes the titleWP:CONSISTENT withPtolemaic kingdom,Seleucid Empire, etc.Avilich (talk)03:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. To be sure, both terms are used, and it's not surprising that some books using "Attalid" are out there. But, by the Google Scholar links provided, the terms are almost at parity anyway when the o-vs-u spelling debate is ignored. But the actual assortment is actually quite in favor of "Pergamon" or "Pergamum" because many times the kingdom is frequently referred to as just "Pergamon" or "Pergamum" with no "Kingdom of..." prepended, similar to how someone might write that "Rome conquered XYZ" with the city standing in for the entire kingdom. (Especially appropriate here, since the kingdom only encompassed one major city for a decent length of time anyway.) "Kingdom of Pergamon" is more clear on the topic than something likePergamon (Hellenistic kingdom), though. This is tricky to Google since "Pergamon" will return far too many hits, but I've personally been reading sources at least adjacent, and they often use "Pergamon" / "Pergamum." (I may try to dig up a more thorough analysis later, just posting something for now.)
  • On the Brill's link, for those who didn't click the link, the title of that article is "The Pergamene kingdom of the Attalids" (so a wash, it uses both terms). Furthermore, if you actually click into the full article (it's available via the Wikipedia library), "Attalid kingdom" is only used as a name in the introduction (and one title in the bibliography), but "Pergamene kingdom" is used within the body of the article, and the maps associated with it refer to "Pergamene territory" and the like rather than "Attalid territory." That New Pauly encyclopedia article does show "Attalid kingdom" is used, sure, but it's stronger evidence that something Pergamon-flavored (Pergamene in this case) is used.
  • Also, "consistency" is a weak argument. Countries don't have, and aren't expected to have, consistent names, full stop. Even if consistency is desired with something, this style is consistent with the contemporary Hellenistic Macedonia aka Antigonid Macedonia, often/usually just called "Macedonia" (with the article atMacedonia (ancient kingdom)#Hellenistic era), and is only rarely called the Antigonid Kingdom.SnowFire (talk)03:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no parity -- "Attalid" is more numerous by far on both Google Scholar and JSTOR, and since we can only choose one title you can't treat the variant spellings as the same thing when comparing the number of hits for each. The occasions in which "Pergamon/Pergamum" are used are unquantifiable and thus useless because there will be conflation with the city itself; although, if you want to insist on the point, then the correct title according to the common name policy would bePergamum (kingdom) (remove the unnecessary "Hellenistic"). The same thing happens withPtolemaic kingdom, which has that name despite the fact that all Ptolemies are always called kings of Egypt, never "of the Ptolemaic kingdom", so consistency is hardly a weak argument either. The fact remains that "Pergamum" isn't used in titles or inBrill's Pauly.Avilich (talk)04:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would acceptAttalid Pergamum as a compromise: it puts both terms in the title and accounts for the fact that the first two rulers weren't kings.Avilich (talk)04:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't treat the variant spellings as the same thing " - er, no, we can? Different anglicization of Greek is a trivial difference, same as Antiochus vs. Antiochos. It's the same exact Greek word and Greek term, while there is a different sense to Attalid vs. Pergam[o/u]n. Brill's Paulydoes use "Pergamene" as an adjective which again strengthens the case for a title involving the English term for Πέργαμον somewhere, similar to "German" strengthening the case for "Germany."

I agree it's tricky to Google, but I'm only talking about when "Pergamon" is used unadorned to refer to the kingdom, of course. This is common enough to help make "Pergamon" predominate over "Attalid kingdom", although not common enough to cause a move to Pergamon unadorned (which would be ambiguous with the article on the city itself). (Example, from Michael Taylor's "Antiochus the Great": "The Roman senate threw diplomatic support behind the pretender, and Egypt and Pergamon lent material aid to the new Alexander." Clearly this means the kingdom as a whole, not just the city. A weaker example from Paul Kosmin's "Land of the Elephant Kings": "the Antiochians then received support from the kings of Egypt, Pergamum, and Cappadocia." Pergamum is being compared to other kingdom-level entities here.)

I would prefer Attalid Pergamum or Attalid Pergamon over Attalid kingdom for the sake of clarity as a second choice, and I've indeed seen sources use "Attalid Pergamum" and the like so we're not making that up. But think the current title of Kingdom of Pergamon is the best.SnowFire (talk)05:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Pergamon/um is slightly more common, but both terms are frequent in modern sources. Pergamon has the additional advantage of having actually been used in ancient times.

"Attalid Pergamon" should be avoided, since it is ambiguous; it could refer to the kingdom as a whole or to the city in the Attalid period (as opposed to classical or Roman Pergamon).Furius (talk)06:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose perUser:Furius. In addition to what others have added above, I've done a quick look on Google Books, and 'Kingdom of Pergamum' (or simply 'Pergamum') is certainly common enough in recent, high-quality sources. Of note, theOxford Classical Dictionary seems to use 'Pergamum' as its preferred way of referring to the state, though it also uses 'Attalid' when referring to its rulers or their practices. See alsothis extensive volume, which refers to both 'the Attalids/Attalid State' and 'Pergamum' fairly flexibly. To my mind, the two terms are (at best) interchangeable in good sources, and so equally good underWP:COMMONNAME: there's then merit in using a term with emic meaning, and more importantly a strong policy case forWP:RETAIN andWP:NOTBROKE.UndercoverClassicist (talk)10:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I believe Pergamon/um is a bit more common, and is certainly more recognizable to the general public.Paul August☎11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for clarity and as the general practice where the terms are distinguished, it makes more sense to refer to the kingdom by a geographical name than by its ruling dynasty. The statistics could be argued either way, but recognizability is also relevant, and many more people will recognize "Pergamon/Pergamum" than the Attalid dynasty. That this was the practice in antiquity only adds to the weight of the present name, since this will be how people reading Greek and Roman history will find it described.P Aculeius (talk)13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pergamon typo