Talk:Kingdom of Pontus

Iran High‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoroastrianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 September 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

On 23 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Kingdom of Pontus to Pontus (Kingdom). The result of the discussion was no consensus reached.

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 8 April 2022. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.

What was exactly Greek about their origin?

Every source I've stumbled across mentions this as a Persian dynasty. So why is it stated in the intro that it also was partially Greek? Perhaps I've missed something? Is it only mentioned because it was founded in the Hellenistic era?

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The Encyclopedia Iranica does not mention Greek origin. I found Greek culture, Greek language, but nothing about a Greek origin.

Persian origin:

The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, by B. C. McGing, page 11:Persian origin, Greek language
Children of Achilles: The Greeks in Asia Minor Since the Days of Troy, by John Freely, page 69-70:Persian origin, completely Hellenised
Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome, by Daniela Dueck, page 3:originated from the Persian nobility of Cius. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start making a rewrite and proper expansion these days. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B.C.E. & C.E.?

Does this mean Before Christ's Era & Christ's Era? Solri89 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Solri89: No, Common Era. See also WP:ERA.—Odysseus 1479 07:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2022

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 8 April 2022. The result of the move review was endorsed.

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: No consensus: No prevailing argument, roughly equal numbers support/oppose. Therefore I find no consensus either way. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– For the same reasons stated at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Requested move 16 September 2021. Avilich (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per preference for WP:NATURAL disambiguation. The current titles are fine and accurate. There's a number of differing rationales offered in the cited move request, but redirects could be created if desired if the fear is people will try to look this up by typing "Pontus" first. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the kingdoms are simply "Pontus" and "Cappadocia", not "Kingdom of Pontus" and "Kingdom of Cappadocia". NATURAL doesn't apply for names that don't exist. There is also the issue of consistency. Avilich (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The names do exist, whether they are the common name or not. Raymond Van Dam uses 'kingdom of Cappadocia' in Kingdom of Snow. 'Pontic Kingdom', however, is more common than 'kingdom of Pontus', as in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Where a topic is not the PT for the COMMONNAME, then NATURAL may apply. Whether in this case the natural forms are sufficiently common I leave to others more familiar with the topic area. Srnec (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pontus was a kingdom, so it's correct to say "Pontic kingdom" or "the kingdom of Pontus" (nb. the lower case 'k' in Van Dam). But "Kingdom of ..." isn't a formal designation, and article titles on Hellenistic kingdoms need to be consistent. Macedonia is done already, so the others must follow for the same reasons. Avilich (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a formal designation, though. It just has to be a used designation. To be clear, if the Pontus title wasn't ambiguous, then sure, move it to "Pontus". But we can't, so we need a disambiguator, and I'd prefer a WP:NATURAL one (whether it be Kingdom of Pontus or Pontic Kingdom). Note for one famous example, we have Republic of Ireland because "Ireland" is taken already. SnowFire (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Republic of Ireland" is too widespread for this to be a fair comparison. The lede even makes the point of saying "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland", but this formulation would look silly if it were written "Pontus, also known as the Kingdom of Pontus". A more accurate analogy would be Pontus (region) vs. "Region of Pontus", or Cappadocia (Roman province) vs. "Province of Cappadocia". I don't need to point out how silly natural disambiguation looks in either case. Avilich (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Both Pontus and Cappadocia are just referred to as "Pontus" and "Cappadocia" in the primary sources and their translations (eg Appian BC 55). It also is consistent with other usage. If we really are to cater to the crowd of people who might search it up, I would venture that if anyone is searching Pontus, it's people who are playing Rome Total War or something; it's called Pontus in there too. Ifly6 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we really do care to cater to people looking for information. Srnec (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Welcome to Pontus. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ifly6.93.182.73.53 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natural disambiguation requires either that the term be widespread or that Pontus (region) be moved to "Region of Pontus" for consistency. Titles are supposed to be consistent (WP:TITLE), and "Pontus (kingdom)" is consistent with both "Pontus (region)" and "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)". If you cannot show that the NDAB term is widespread, then the NDAB argument is useless. Avilich (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Most sources refer to these kingdoms as simply "Pontus" and "Cappadocia", so per WP:commonname we should too. If the word "kingdom" were part of the name, then it would be capitalized. Paul August ☎ 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand natural disambiguation. The existing article titles are quite consistent with most sources failing to disambiguate at all. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Perfectly valid natural disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't really think there's anything wrong with the current title, but I suppose consistency is a virtue, and a couple of google books searches show the "kingdom of" format to be less common than I'd expected. Furius (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. The current title seems to be doing its job well, and there are lots of redirects, hatnotes, and disambiguation pages to keep people from losing their way if this is what they're really looking for. Consistency has its place, and I've argued in favour of the most easily distinguished title before, and doubtless will again—but this seems like consistency urged for its own sake, not because it will substantially improve people's chances of finding the right article. Or to put it another way, the proposed title is a solution in search of a problem. P Aculeius (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what caused you to abandon your previous argument against "Kingdom of ..." formulations in the Macedonia move request. I am, of course, echoing it here, together with the "common name" rule, so it's hardly consistency "for its own sake". I can't see how the proposed title will create problems: it also contains the words "kingdom" and the kingdom's name, and the old one will remain as a redirect. And, in the absence of actual problems, consistency in articles of Hellenistic and Roman-era kingdoms is inherently desirable. Avilich (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Natural disambiguation. Proposal is neither necessity nor improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I think the consistency argument with Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is failing to account for the many other articles that use a "Kingdom of X" name, of which there are many examples in Category:Former kingdoms. (Maybe "Kingdom of X" is actually the common name in all these other cases, though I find that somewhat dubious.) Colin M (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are modern official names which are widely used in sources. Ancient Hellenistic kingdoms didn't have distinct 'official' names, nor do they have distinct alternative names that are used in secondary sources, hence the inappropriateness of NDAB and the need for consistency. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.