Talk:Atys of Lydia

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

requested move

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Merge. Ucucha 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to move the current title, lacking even a comma, to one under Atys's own title, "king of Maeonia". There another king named Atys: Atys (king) of Alba Longa, that one Roman and belongs arguably more to mythology than to history, unless they emanate from the same reference by reason of cultural affinities. I will add a move request for that from Atys (king) to "Atys (king of Alba Longa)", making a distinction between Maeonia (Lydia) and Alba Longa, if this one is accepted. — Cretanforever (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this move is entirely thought out. Why King of Maeonia and not King of Lydia. A search of reliable sources produces far more hits for King of Lydia and King of Maeonia, not to mention the list of kings is
  Atys son of Croesus
  who was also king of Lydia/Maeonia. I suggest the following;
  • WP:NCROY
    .
  • Atys son of Croesus → Atys of Lydia, since the Kingdom becomes known as Lydia (not Maeonia) after with the reign of Lydus
    and the reign of Atys son of Croesus is after that of Lydus.
  • WP:ROMANS suggest employing disambiguation by that relation. It seems like a novel solution to the issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Atys (king) → Atys of Alba Longa or Atys (mythology) to follow the model of Agrippa (mythology)
    • On second thought I have to agree with Skinsmoke.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Appears to fall into the conventions on royalty. If that is the case, seems a straightforward case that it should be Atys of Maeonia as Labattblueboy suggests. That would leave the other two to become Atys of Lydia and Atys of Alba Longa. Not sure I like the alternate suggestion of Atys (mythology). Couldn't that apply to any of them? Skinsmoke (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  Atys son of Croesus was not a king. Therefore the principal point which distinguishes two Anatolian Atys is that, in the light of the knowledge -of any sort- we possess, one was king and other was not. Therefore Atys (king of Maeonia) seems to me to offer the clearest distinction, according also due attention to the fact that one can not speak of Lydia before Lydus, but of Maeonia. Cretanforever (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The

WP:NCROY and I don't think I can support it. Hatnotes were created specifically to resolve such issues and I would agree that one here might be appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with List of kings of Lydia. This is a permastub about a figment from Hellenistic genealogies, neither sound history nor actual myth. Everything known about him (except the unreliable ancient sourcing) is in the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Merge this and several others with List of kings of Lydia. All of the info in the article is easily contained in the current format of that article. — AjaxSmack 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could equally support a merge.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.