Talk:Alexander the Great (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Ancient Near East

This disambiguation page 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 articles

Macedon

I'm just curious, what is Macedon, and what is up with these Macedonian editors coming to this pointless disambig page and repeating the same, stupid vandalism every time? Obviously, the page on Macedon can't be trusted with all the edit warring going on over there. Is this just another case of too much national pride? Are there any sober, non-Macedonian editors that can clear this up for me? I just don't get it. Oh, and just to clarify, I'm not a Greek, or anti-Macedonian, or whatever other strange things these editors have claimed me to be. I'm an Irish dude from Canada. I have no bias in this issue, I just want to stick to the facts. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They just modify whatever they like cause they got no history and Trynna stole it but whatever everyone knows the truth and they’re still evidence:) Αγγελική Τσουκαλά (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dab manual of style

See WP:MOSDAB. No non-target words should be wikilinked in dab pages. A dab page isn't an article, it serves purely to direct the reader to the right articles. Encyclopedic information should be reduced to what is strictly necessary for the reader to select the right link.

I've tried "a king in Greek antiquity" as a fair compromise for that minimal wording. His "Greekness" as a matter of personal ethnicity is disputed. The fact that he belongs to the cultural sphere of Greek antiquity is not. And that latter piece of information is really the only bit that the outside reader needs at this point to frame him in the right context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is disputing the “Greekness” of Alexander? And at the end of the day who is claiming that the ‘ancient Greek’ attribution is referring only to "personal ethnicity" what ever that means? The mainstream (and widely accepted) scholarship praise (not only support) his ‘Hellenicity’ for multiple reasons. Even if a minuscule minority expressed, at some point, some other ideas, this does not (and should not) mean that we should exclude widely accepted facts. Some people even might say for dubious political reasons, at that. Anyway, I think that the phrasing I have proposed is accurately descriptive and perfectly compatible with WP:MOSDAB and other policies or guidelines. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit considered a compromise? And if it is, if Fut.Perf. accepts itas such, I predict the mere mention of Greece will still attract the same types of edits in the future. For the record, I support the edit you've made. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have both totally failed to understand the main point of my edit, which was purely technical and had nothing at all to do with the ideological issues of ethnicity. Get those f...ing links out, they don't belong in a dab page.

And then, reduce the entries to what is necessary. The idiocy of people (on both sides of the issue) who seem to seriously believe the question of what ethnicity he was is the most important thing about Alexander and needs to be rubbed into everybody's faces even at this out-of-the way point. For crying out loud. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to calm down. Maybe you're taking this volunteering a little too seriously. We're so used to people playing the racial card here, that it becomes second-nature to revert these removals. Your summary stated "Information about ethnicity is irrelevant here." while the consensus of is in opposition to that statement. If your desire is to have these additional links removed, then leave them out. I'm fine with that. Please, just don't get so upset about it. It's very easy to get upset at a bunch of words on a computer screen, but try to understand that we're also human beings over here with feelings and different points of view. We're doing our very best here to keep the peace. Try to respect that. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, then please make it a habit of first reading what people tell you, before reverting in a knee-jerk reaction, especially if the people talking to you are long-time well respected users, who will take unkindly to being called vandals. Talk about keeping the peace, right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take an editor's "age" into consideration when making edits or reverts. I believe that behavior to be biased against long-time anon editors with good karma who may have just opened an account, and new users who may be experts in their fields. Long-time editors have a tendency to get upset and angry over small things and blow these situations way out of proportion. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about keeping the peace or not. That's what smileys are for. :) In either case, I'm going to assume you've got a cool head now. I'm glad that we've reached a peaceful conclusion. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have we? The present version is worse in every respect than the one before my edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Indenting removed) If all you cared about were the links, what's the problem now that they're gone? You need to help me understand what you're upset about. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for correcting that. This still leaves us with the minor matter of the "Greek king", which serves no other purpose here than marking of POV territory by the Greek crowd, which has apparently become an object of collective obsession (and which, as I just pointed out again to 157.x, actually is disputable, no matter how loudly the crowd shouts no, no, no, everybody agrees with us), plus the new addition of the "Argead dynasty" which is totally superfluous ballast at this point. I repeat, reduce it to what is really necessary, it's a dab page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will then use the introductory sentence from the resolved article, "Alexander the Great, also known as Alexander III of Macedon was an ancient Greek king of Macedon (336–323 BC)" paring that down to "Alexander the Great, an ancient Greek king of Macedon (336-323 BC)", which would be what we had originally. This summary resembles the summaries present in the MOSDAB, and contains the minimal amount of information necessary to guide the reader to the appropriate topic. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great on Netflix

Is there a completely new series about Alexander on Netflix at the end of January 2024?

Or is it the German miniseries or the British one called in the Footsteps of?

--106.70.91.181 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]