Talk:Kingdom of Pontus

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)

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)

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

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

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

@Solri89: No, Common Era. See also WP:ERA.—Odysseus1479 07:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2022

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)

---

• Kingdom of Pontus → Pontus (kingdom)
• Kingdom of Cappadocia → Cappadocia (kingdom)

– 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)

  Yes, we really do care to cater to people looking for information. Srnec (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Okay. Welcome to Pontus. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• Oppose. Perfectly valid natural disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Oppose. Natural disambiguation. Proposal is neither necessity nor improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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.