Talk:Kingdom of Pergamon

very nice article
I very much enjoyed this article, my thanks to the writer(s) and editor(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Name change
I'll admit I boldly moved this article before, but I only did so after doing some research, and I certainly didn't change every other wikilink when I made the move. Both "Attalid" and "Pergamon" are used, but as best I can tell "Pergamon" is somewhat more common, and that's why I moved it back in 2021. Where are you getting "Attalid" as more common from? Even if you're "right", it's bad practice to rename every use instantly as a "fait accompli" - it's very possible that other sources traditionally use a valid alternate name, and they should stay that way regardless of the current title. There's almost never any need for such mass renames - even if you boldly move an article, there's no need to instantly rename a ton of articles. SnowFire (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See below Avilich (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will comment below, but regardless of the outcome of the RM, for future changes, please don't do a ton of wikilink adjustments elsewhere immediately after a potentially controversial bold move. It puts anyone else objecting in the awkward spot of either doing mass reverts and edit wars, or else "accepting" the change as a fait accompli, neither of which are good. Even if the article moves, that in no way implies that every single link on Wikipedia needs to say "Attalid Kingdom" rather than "Kingdom of Pergamon" (or Attalid dynasty, or Kingdom of Pergamum, etc.).  See WP:NOTBROKEN, and more generally, the alternate terms might even be preferred in certain contexts.  SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2023

 * 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 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)

Kingdom of Pergamon → Attalid kingdom – WP:COMMONNAME. Google Scholar returns 982 results for "Attalid kingdom" against only 370 for "kingdom of Pergamon" and 470 for "Pergamum". On JSTOR there are 198 results for the proposed title and only 26 for the current one (59 for "Pergamum"). "Attalid" appears more frequently in book titles, and the online Brill's New Pauly uses "Pergamene" or "Attalid kingdom" for the state and Pergamum just for the city. The proposed change also makes the title WP:CONSISTENT with Ptolemaic kingdom, Seleucid Empire, etc. Avilich (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 like Pergamon (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 at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)), and is only rarely called the Antigonid Kingdom. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 be Pergamum (kingdom) (remove the unnecessary "Hellenistic"). The same thing happens with Ptolemaic 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 in Brill's Pauly. Avilich (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I would accept Attalid 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)
 * "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 Pauly does 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per User: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, the Oxford 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 also this 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 under WP:COMMONNAME: there's then merit in using a term with emic meaning, and more importantly a strong policy case for WP:RETAIN and WP:NOTBROKE. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe Pergamon/um is a bit more common, and is certainly more recognizable to the general public. Paul August &#9742; 11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.