Talk:Cleopatra/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Restructuring, rewriting, and future submission as a Good and then Featured article candidate

Just to let other editors know, I've decided to conduct research in my spare time to rewrite large swaths of this article (especially the paragraphs that lack inline citations altogether). I've already added the entire "Depictions in ancient art" section to the article, along with several images, which is a good start but far from the finish line. In the near future I hope to submit this article as a Good article candidate. It once failed a Featured Article candidacy in 2005, but I think we can eventually raise this article up to FA status as well. It's a vital article on one of history's most iconic figures that is simply too important to ignore or neglect. It gets about 10,000 views a day on average. That's almost twice as many views as my successful FAC on Augustus, and roughly the same amount of views as the article on Julius Caesar. In fact, it completely dwarfs just about any successful FAC I've written on various sundry topics such as Chinese historical biopics (Zhang Heng and Shen Kuo), or for that matter ancient Egyptian history with my article on Ancient Egyptian literature.

I invite others to help in this process if they have the time or patience to do so. I've gathered a list of veritable scholarly sources at the library, where I will scan them and then scour them for information. I've cited some online academic sources thus far, but these web pages don't help much, as I would need full books and journal articles (the Internet Archive, or archive.org, seems to have a poor selection in that regard, and many of the seemingly best books that can be borrowed there for 14 days are on a waiting list). Google Books is of little assistance, although JSTOR seems to have a few interesting articles that may help. In essence, this is going to take a while! Perhaps it will take months, but it will be worth it. I'll create a draft page soon so that editors here can view the progress of it. Feel free to make comments here about it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE! Here it is, my sandbox-draft for the article, just as I promised. I hope you enjoy! If anyone would like to help out and contribute please do so now, while I nominate this for GA status, and before we enter the FA nomination process. You can do so by adding new citations or even making suggestions on how to restructure or rewrite certain parts. I plan on cutting down information in the biography section by shifting some of that material into a new Life of Cleopatra article, which I will hopefully have the time to create very soon. In the meantime I will buff up the amount of citations to balance against the heavy use of Roller (2010), as explained in my edit summary. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice job! Splitting off some of the article's content to life of Cleopatra also seems like a good idea. I will say though that the lead is now Brobdingnagian (nearly 7000 characters). I think this is too large, and I imagine it would be commented upon in the GA/FA reviews. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hah! Brobdingnag...Thanks for reminding me of Gulliver's Travels (loved it as a kid). I will see what I can do about the lead. It's a carefully constructed narrative, so even removing details here or there could potentially mislead or misinform the reader. I guess I'll have to get drunk and dumb it down, since it's hard for me to dumb things down when I'm sober. Lol. I was also never very good at producing short, crisp phrasing, like the ancient Spartan Laconic phrases. I'm a long-winded type of writer, as you probably deduced. Per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY I will do my best to dust off my summarizing skills, trimming things no matter how painful it may seem. In the end I guess it's better to have a more easily-digestible article for most readers than one that's most gratifying to me personally as a pedantic. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did my best with it, without sacrificing key details. Let me know if you think it looks more acceptable for a GA nomination. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was originally going to use monstrous to describe its size, but that sounded overly negative and I rarely use Brobdingnagian, so why not lol? Yes, it's difficult to reduce the size of a summary, especially if you've just read an extensive amount about the subject and the details are fresh. I was going to attempt a reduction myself but was not sure where to begin. I have only reviewed two GAs, Hypatia and Pythagoras. Those article's leads are ~2500 and ~3500 characters, respectively. By extension, I think this lead could be reduced to 4500-5000, though the narrative is continuous and ripping out a few sentences here and there disrupts the flow and possibly misinforms the reader as you say. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I know little about GA standards, which seem highly variable, but many of the paragraphs seem very long, especially #2 in the lead. If you are going to split the article, I'd do that before GA. I'm not sure Life of Cleopatra is the best choice; people expect the main bio to be under the plain name. Mark Anthony and Cleopatra would shift a big chunk. Cultural depictions of Cleopatra is of course just a frigging list, and should be renamed so - it should be "more info" not "main article" here. You could move that bit out - or add it on top of the list. I've not done a full read through so far. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: hello again! The problem I have with it is excising things that seem extraneous. Nothing seems extraneous to me and it's hard to make value judgments about each of the remaining statements. Perhaps they could be reworded in such a way that they are simply less wordy, but the meat and substance left after my recent reduction still seems like critical information to me. I'm open to suggestions from you or anyone else on specific parts that could be reworded or removed. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: hi John. I will take your advice and split apart some seemingly very big paragraphs in the body of the article. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do that in the lead section per WP:LEAD, which stipulates that we are allowed to only have four paragraphs total and no more! I carefully planned the current setup so that the first paragraph would provide essential details, the second would summarize her childhood up to the birth of her son allegedly sired by Caesar, the third paragraph would detail her relationship with Antony and their subsequent downfall, and the fourth paragraph would explain her legacy and relevance in art and popular media. As for a sub-article with the potential title "Life of Cleopatra VII", it was just the first thing that sprang to mind and doesn't necessarily have to be the chosen title. Looking at other articles, they have titles like "Military career of Julius Caesar", but Cleopatra didn't have a very storied military career. Perhaps "Life and career of Cleopatra VII" is more suitable? I've also taken your advice and moved the article Cultural depictions of Cleopatra to List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra, while downgrading it from a "main" to "further" article link in this article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something such as Early life of Cleopatra, similar to Early life of Augustus, to cut down on the "Early childhood" section? Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: that's a good suggestion! The problem here, though, is that the entire "biography" section needs to be reduced, so in the end I'd probably have to create two articles to that effect: "Early life of Cleopatra VII" and "Later career of Cleopatra VII" or something (maybe just "Reign of Cleopatra VII", using her accession to the throne in 51 BC as the major demarcation from her childhood to adulthood). Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Blimey. This is excellent work, and fascinating, and your narrative is quite compulsive. The only comment I have so far (apart from congratulations for your finding and uploading of the very remarkable Herculaneum profile) is on the length of the introductory graphs, which I'd expect to be the major stumbling block (or more positively, a hurdle to be taken) for GA submission. As said by others, different reviewers have their own takes on GA standards. Personally, I found it very readable, if a little dense to the eye; while there's much to be said for four-para limits, as far as I can tell that's a recommendation, not an absolute rule. You seem to have already shortened some lead paras, without compromising the essentials. Anyway, assuming that further whittling of the lead will be called for during the GA submission process -- on sheer word-count if nothing else -- I'd like to suggest a little more reduction of background details, especially those concerning secondary characters and events "off-stage", as it were. You might even end up with five shorter paragraphs; the first being the general summary (as it stands), the remainder being concerned with significant phases and circumstances of her background, rise, rule, and her protracted fall. Erm... and a sixth on her legacy; though that, I think, could be shortened without significant loss. Haploidavey (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

One solution might be to in effect split the lead into two sections: a much shorter lead, and a "summary of life" or something. Then start the full chronological sequence. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Haploidavey: Thanks for the compliments! I'm wary of splitting the lead into more than four paragraphs because I have a memory of a reviewer complaining about this very thing in a previous FA candidacy, which dragged things out and threatened to scuttle the entire venture until I kow-towed to their demands about Wiki's accepted guideline here. I will try to remove further details as suggested, but I think another solution would be to just condense the ideas of entire sentences into one, which might help to cut down on the verbosity of the lead as a whole. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: this is an interesting suggestion, although I'm not sure how I would go about implementing it the way things are structured now in the lead. It would also still have to take into account the whole "Legacy" section of the article, which is primarily focused on literature and works of art. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Haploidavey and Johnbod: hi again! I just edited the lead and I think it looks much better now. I removed the entire sentence about Cleopatra fleeing to Syria and coming back with an army, which is probably not worth mentioning in the lead because the reader already knows she was engaged in a civil war with Ptolemy XIII. I also made a bunch of smaller reductions elsewhere and moved things around a bit. For such an important historical figure and with so much material to summarize from the body of the article, I think the lead is now in suitable terrain. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Just letting everyone here know that I'm going to make sub-articles entitled "Early life of Cleopatra VII" and "Reign of Cleopatra VII", reduce the current biography section in this article, and I will then nominate these articles as GA candidates. I think everything here is well-written, well-cited, and well-illustrated enough for it to sail smoothly through a GA nomination process. Thanks for all of your input guys. It has led to a major improvement to the article already and I encourage you to continue offering advice or criticism on how to improve the article. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Cleopatra V" versus the use of "Cleopatra VI" as Ptolemy XII Auletes' wife

To the editor who recently attempted to change this (while failing to do so systematically throughout the article, thus sowing unnecessary confusion for readers in a current "Good article" candidate), this article, whether you like it or not, relies primarily on the biography by Duane W. Roller (2010). He, along with Roberts (2007) and Dodson and Hilton (2004), labels the wife of Ptolemy XII as Cleopatra VI Tryphaena, not Cleopatra V Tryphaena. While it is true that Fletcher (2008), Jones (2006), and Burstein (2004) label the wife of Ptolemy XII as Cleopatra V, things are not as clear as any one source indicates. The conflicting primary source accounts are explained by John Whitehorne (1994), which you would have known had you read the extensive footnote I placed in various places of the article, or had you simply read the explanation of this in the "Ancestry" section of the article. Please respect the article's numbering choice and systematic use of Cleopatra VI, since the Cleopatra V is still mentioned and explained. In fact, to avoid this in the future, in the info-box of the lead section I have even placed in parentheses that Cleopatra VI was also known as Cleopatra V, while retaining the note that already explains this thoroughly. I think this is sufficient for our readers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Successful Good Article nomination; future plans for Featured article submission

I want to thank and congratulate everyone who helped to bring this article up to "Good" status. That includes everyone who offered their timely input and suggestions on how to restructure and minimize the lead section and how to go about splitting material into sub-articles. I also want to thank User:Iazyges for taking the time to review this article. Three cheers to him and everyone else! In the very near future I plan on submitting this article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). I would like feedback from the community before I do so! Remaining issues are undoubtedly the article's size, although it's roughly the same size as my featured article on Augustus. The rather large lead section could perhaps see even more reductions, but at the moment it seems acceptable. The "Legacy" section has become progressively bigger over the past month, to the point where I'm considering making yet another sub-article, perhaps entitled Legacy of Cleoaptra or Legacy of Cleopatra VII. The simple List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra is obviously not sufficient in handling all of this material. Some input on that would be highly appreciated, because I am wary about removing precious information from the article and I'd hate to see my baby/creation getting carved up without much thought going into it. It might be safer in the meantime to nominate Early life of Cleopatra VII, Reign of Cleopatra VII, or even Death of Cleopatra as featured articles, as soon as their GA status is approved. Thankfully, that should come shortly! Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just letting everyone here know that Cleopatra is now a Featured Article candidate (FAC). Feel free to follow the link at the top of the talk page and leave comments or suggestions. Early life of Cleopatra has already successfully passed its GA nomination, but Reign of Cleopatra and Death of Cleopatra are still current Good Article candidates, so I would be grateful if anyone would provide advice on how to improve those articles as well. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Excessive citation" tag for Cleopatra's mother being unknown

Editor User:Surtsicna recently added a "citation overkill" tag to the statement in the "Ancestry" section about the identity of Cleopatra's mother being unknown. Personally, I think the citations are absolutely necessary, since there are a lot of spurious claims and speculation made in the general public and even the news media. Even some academics aren't shy about weighing in with their own speculations about who her mother might have been. It is imperative, then, to clearly demonstrate the academic consensus that there is no firm evidence indicating the exact identity of her mother. One citation simply will not do, as that would also come into question and perhaps provoke a request for further validation from reliable sources. Just to be clear to the editor User:Surtsicna, I have not planned on adding additional citations to that statement. In fact, I made a mental note never to exceed five citations for a single statement (minus the addition of a detailed footnote in some instances). You can check the entire article for that claim. I was very systematic and thorough about it, because I am also concerned about the readability of the article for our reading audience. I'm not sure if others will weigh in here, since this talk page hasn't generated much discussion in the past few days, so it appears, Surtsicna, that you and I might be at an impasse here. What is the acceptable amount of citations in your mind? Four, then? Why the arbitrary limit of five? Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this issue! Forgive me for not starting this discussion myself. Five is not the limit. It's actually above the limit. Wikipedia:Citation overkill suggests three citations should be the maximum. Of course, that is an essay rather than a guideline or policy but it does raise legitimate concerns. It also offers a solution: WP:BUNDLING. Would that work? Anyway, I too have often wondered why this talk page does not generate much interest given the subject's notability. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Thanks for responding in such a timely manner! The problem here is that I have chosen Template:Sfnp as the standard citation method for this article, not Template:Harvard citation, which would allow for bundling (unlike the former). Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestion to bundle citations would entail changing the entire citation method for the article. That seems like a huge task, considering how there are almost 450 inline citations thus far. I would be open to the idea of bundling citations if there was some easy way to do it with SFNP. Is that even possible? Otherwise I would have to do something like retaining the first three citations as SFNP and making a Harvard-style footnote like I've been doing, to direct readers to additional sources. Even that would be a rather big task, since there are multiple areas of the article where four or five citations are given for a single statement. Do you know of anyone we could contact who could offer potential help with this issue? I don't know how to resolve this and it seems like a major headache already. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like a headache to me too! Honestly, I neither feel strongly about this nor am I able to "fix" it. I'm not sure it's been a year since I even learned to use SFNP. I just wanted to point to what might be considered problematic afterwards, during the FA nomination. If you think 5 citations are necessary, let us keep them all. But if there is a source that says that there is no consensus among historians about the identity of her mother, then that might be enough for the claim that the identity is not known. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I remember none of the sources cited explicitly explained that there was full academic consensus behind their own assertions in regards to Cleo's mother. However, given the fact that I have seen more than five scholarly works explaining it as such, I think the consensus is clear. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Could a note be added to give a brief explanation about the conflicting claims regarding Cleopatra's mother? It could also contain the numerous references, which are only really a problem because they affect readability (this is not a concern if they are in a note). By the way, nice work on getting this promoted to GA! Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the most viable solution. In every instance where there is more than three citations a footnote with Harvnb-style citations can be given instead. It's not a perfect solution, but I can't see any other way to resolve this issue other than changing the entire citation format to something else entirely, like the Harvard citation method. I would rather avoid doing that, since that would be a herculean task; quite frankly I wouldn't have the patience for it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna and Hrodvarsson: I'm happy to announce that the matter has been resolved! I chose to put all SFNP citations exceeding the three-point limit into Harvard-style footnotes. That way, in the future, when anyone wants to provide additional sources they can just tack them onto the ones listed and bundled together in the footnotes. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Could a note be added to give a brief explanation about the conflicting claims regarding Cleopatra's mother?"

Outside Wikipedia, I used to read (and on occasion write) texts concerning the genealogies of the Hellenistic era. The main problem is not that there are competing claims (most of which are modern guesses), but that no primary source actually identifies Cleopatra VII's mother. See the following text concerning the primary sources about her: http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii_fr.htm

"Her mother is not named in any of the classical sources. Her date of birth, in early 69, is several months before Cleopatra V was removed from power at the end of that year. The last mention of her, OGIS 185 = iGPhilae 50, also refers to children (tekna), which indicates that there was more than one child of the royal couple alive at the time. Aside from a comment by Strabo 17.1.11 that Berenice IV was Ptolemy XII's only legitimate daughter, there is no suggestion in any ancient source that Cleopatra VII was illegitimate. Given the threat she posed to the Augustan regime in Rome, and the narrowness with which it was averted, it seems generally and reasonably agreed that this silence is positive evidence that she was legitimate, since there is every opportunity for her to be labelled a bastard if she was not the daughter of Cleopatra V, even if she was in fact the child of an officially recognised second queen. For general comments on the question of whether Ptolemy XII had a second wife, see discussion under Ptolemy XII."

Cleopatra V of Egypt (Cleopatra VII's supposed mother) is a rather shadowy figure, rarely attested in ancient sources. One of the main sources about this queen is Porphyry (3rd century AD), in texts quoted by Eusebius (4th century AD). Neither of them was a contemporary, and their accounts may contain errors:

• "Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 166, has a curious error whereby Ptolemy XI Alexander II is called an ancestor (προγονος) of "Cleopatra", which in the context ought to mean Berenice III. The Latin and Armenian texts call him her stepson, which is generally accepted as correct. I wonder if this error didn't arise somehow because, under the reconstruction proposed here, his father, Ptolemy X Alexander I, actually was an ancestor (maternal grandfather) of Cleopatra VII. She named her second son Alexander, which on this reconstruction is the name of her maternal grandfather."
• "Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 165 gives her existence and her paternity but not her name. M. L. Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer 54 n. 4, suggested that OGIS 174 could refer to this daughter, interpreting basilissa as "princess" rather than "queen" (cf the basilissa Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy III and Berenice II). However, it is difficult to explain why she should be the object of an inscription on Cyprus at a time when her father was not recognised as king there. Strack himself recognised that this interpetation was unlikely. We therefore have no direct evidence as to her name."
• "Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 165 associates her with Ptolemy X and Berenice III in flight in 88/7. The maternity is not explicitly given in Porphyry but Berenice III is universally assumed to be her mother. This solution seems very reasonable, since it simply and naturally explains her presence, especially if, as is sometimes suggested, Ptolemy X had other children, who apparently were not taken into exile. One possible indicator that this is the correct solution is the name of her eldest known daughter, Berenice IV."
• "Porphyry, in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 167. He describes Cleopatra VI Tryphaena and Berenice IV as daughters of Ptolemy XII. However, Strabo 17.1.11, only knows of three daughters for Ptolemy XII (Berenice IV, Cleopatra VII and Arsinoe IV), and he says that only Berenice IV was legitimate, implying that Cleopatra VI was not. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that Cleopatra V survived the events of 69. Those who accept the separate existence of this queen (e.g. M. Grant, Cleopatras 4) do so having first accepted that Cleopatra V died in 69. Further, as G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 178, first pointed out, and as J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 183 argued in detail, the notion of a dual queenship of two sisters had no precedent, analogy or justification in Greek or Egyptian thought, whereas a regime of mother and daughter could be justified as a queen regent seeking a suitable husband for her daughter."
• "The arguments that Cleopatra VII, Arsinoe IV, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV are all children of Cleopatra V essentially depend on the acceptance of a single marriage, though in the case of Cleopatra VII stronger considerations apply. See discussion under Ptolemy XII." Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: thanks for clearing that up! I have tried my best to explain these complications in the article, not only in the main prose text, but also in a very extensive footnote where readers can learn more about what secondary sources have to say about the matter. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can't you just write out a footnore, giving the sources on this in a consistent format? It's somewhat more work than using a template, and may not give a link back to text - but of all the problems an FA could have, this seems one of the smallest. When I wrote an FA, I don't think I used citation templates at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Good article nominations

I would like to let other editors here know that I have submitted the four articles listed below as "Good" article candidates, and that I'm seeking a competent reviewer to handle the nomination process: Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Cleopatra
• Early life of Cleopatra VII
• Reign of Cleopatra VII
• Death of Cleopatra

If anyone would like to review these articles as GA candidates, please do so now. You can find links to the GA review pages at the top of the respective talk pages of each of these articles, including this one. Once the GA candidacy is finished, I can then move on to Featured Article nominations, which is a much tougher hurdle to pass. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Although User:Iazyges has begun the GA review, everyone is still welcome to comment on the process as well as the current state of the article. Please bring up your concerns or issues now if you have them! Given our conversation above, I'd like to know if everyone is now satisfied with the current shape and length of the lead section, after I made several significant reductions in its overall size. Speak now, or forever hold your peace! Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognizing that it is correct to have her at Cleopatra, shouldn't the articles be named in such a way as to be consistent?128.151.71.16 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with noting that she was Cleopatra, seventh of her name (or sixth, depending on if you think Cleopatra V and Cleopatra VI were actually two different people). This main article could very well be titled the same way. The only reason that it is not is because she is simply known to popular culture simply as "Cleopatra", whereas modern historians commonly introduce her as Cleopatra VII. And with good reason, given her context within the Ptolemaic dynasty as a whole. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about consistency, not appropriateness. The main article is Cleopatra because it follows WP:Name ("Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.") The other articles should follow suit. Per WP:Name - "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." 128.151.71.16 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is not a bad one, but I'd like to see the consensus of other editors weighing in on this before a decision is ever made to move them or keep their titles as they are. Personally I wouldn't want to move them. If that's the unanimous decision of editors here, however, I would gladly acquiesce and accept that decision for renaming them. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

When I can put a bit of time together, I'll start the requested move process in order to gather opinions. But I'm curious as to why you "wouldn't want to move them". I could see being non-committal, but what advantage do you see with them being where they are? Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cleopatra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: hi again! Thanks once again for deciding to review this and other Cleopatra-related articles. I'd really like to get this show on the road, though. Do you think you'll be able to review this article very soon? By the end of the week? Even tomorrow, perhaps? I'm eager to nominate it for FA status and later have a "Good Article Topic" for Cleopatra-related articles. I need your help, though, to get there. Please! :) Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I’ll do my best to have it done by the end of the week at latest. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (Highest is 35.9%, due to unavoidable parallels) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations Y

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

General

• In the "Medieval and Early Modern reception" section, I think the link to List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra is not needed as it has been already given during the Cultural Depictions section.
• You have a lot of areas where page ranges use a hyphen (-) instead on an en-dash (–), however given the scope of the article, I'd suggest you make a request for someone with AWB to fix it, as it would take a huge amount of time otherwise.

Pericles' response

@Iazyges: hi again! I have removed the additional "list of cultural depictions of Cleopatra" link as requested. I have also contacted User talk: Tom.Reding, a user with AWB privileges, and requested that he apply the fixes that you've suggested here. I also notified him about the other pages you are reviewing: Early life of Cleopatra VII, Reign of Cleopatra VII, and Death of Cleopatra. Hopefully he will get back to me soon. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Tom.Reding has completed the task of fixing all the hyphens in this article and the others! Are there any more outstanding issues? Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede

• After the death of Cleopatra, Egypt became a province of the newly-established Roman Empire, marking the end of the Hellenistic period that had lasted since the reign of Alexander. Earlier it said Caesarion briefly succeeded her. This seems to say that under Caesarion's brief rule, Egypt became a part of the Roman Empire. Is this true?
  • • @Iazyges: good point! I have now clarified in the lead that Caesarion was only alive for eighteen days after Cleopatra. He was on the run, trying to flee the country, so he was more a ruler in absentia than anything else, which is why the lead says Cleopatra was the last active ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt. Caesarion was quickly executed by orders of Octavian, as the article explains in further detail. The lead section is not the place for such a wordy description, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• The latter was killed in 55 BC when Ptolemy XII returned to Egypt with Roman military aid. Did the Romans send soldiers or just weapons? If soldiers, I'd suggest changing aid to assistance, as it reads like the Romans supplied weapons but were not actively involved.
  • • Great suggestion! I have changed "aid" to "assistance" here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Cleopatra that produced a son, Caesarion (i.e. Ptolemy XV) recommend changing i.e. to or/aka, given that (in example Ptolemy XV) makes little sense.
  • • You're wrong. You are confusing e.g., a Latin abbreviation for exempli gratia, with i.e., in Latin id est. Exempli gratia means "for example" whereas id est means "that is" or "in other words". Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• the cause of death reportedly by use of poison. The popular belief is that she was bitten by an asp. suggest reportedy by use of poison, in popular legend she was bitten by an asp.
  • • Your suggestion doesn't fit well with the structure of the entire sentence, though. And it's not entirely a legend, since the story of the asp was also featured and accepted by several ancient Roman historians. It's a competing theory with the others, even if it's more dramatic and not as convincing as simple poisoning with a needle, ointment, or drink. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Biography

• from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, refusing to learn the native Egyptian language. suggest from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria, which had been established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, and refused to learn the native Egyptian language.
  • • I'm sorry, but this actually makes it wordier than it already is. We're trying to make it less verbose, please. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• In 65 BC the Roman censor Marcus Licinius Crassus argued before the Roman Senate that Ptolemaic Egypt should be annexed, but his proposed bill and that of tribune Servilius Rullus in 63 BC were rejected. suggest In 65 BC the Roman censor Marcus Licinius Crassus argued before the Roman Senate that Rome should annex Ptolemaic Egypt but his proposed bill, and the later bill of tribune Servilius Rullus in 63 BC, was rejected.
  • • Good suggestion! Just in case it wasn't clear to the reader, I have reworded this part according to your suggestion. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• By 29 August 51 BC official documents started listing Cleopatra as the sole ruler, evidence that she had rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler. suggest By 29 August 51 BC official documents began to list Cleopatra as the sole ruler, which is seen as evidence that she had by this point rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler.
  • • Again, I fail to see how this makes things better, since your suggestion makes it wordier than it needs to be. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• He left three legions in Egypt, later increased to four, under the command of the freedman Rufio, to secure Cleopatra's tenuous position but also perhaps to keep her activities in check. suggest He left three legions in Egypt, and later added another one, under the command of the freedman Rufio, in order to secure Cleopatra's tenuous position, and possibly also to keep her activities in check.
  • • Hmm...I'm not sure I like this. No offense, but I think my version reads considerably smoother than yours. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• preserved an account that Cleopatra once dissolved a pearl worth 2.5 million drachmas in vinegar just to prove a dinner party bet believe prove should be win.
  • • Not a bad suggestion... To be honest, "prove" is still acceptable here, but "win" is perhaps clearer to the reader, especially those who are not native speakers of English. I have thus changed it according to your suggestion. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @PericlesofAthens: Alright, everything looks good. I’ll pass the article as soon as I get home. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: excellent! Thank you so much for reviewing the article. I'm sorry to burden you with the other three. If it's too much of an overwhelming workload for you, feel free to speak out and hand it off to someone else at any time. If not, I look forward to your reviews of Early life of Cleopatra VII, Reign of Cleopatra VII, and Death of Cleopatra. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is no trouble at all. I always enjoy reviewing your articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: that is good to hear. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment

The lead section for this article is tremendously long. I generally have leads that are fairly long myself and my idea of an "optimum length" is much longer than for some other users, but this article's lead is rather extreme to say the least. I understand that Cleopatra is obviously a very important historical figure and the lead needs to summarize a lot of information, but, right now, the lead is longer than the one for the article Middle Ages, which covers an entire period of western history spanning roughly a full millennium. Something a little closer to the length of the leads for Aristotle, Pythagoras, or Origen might be more reasonable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: thank you for offering your advice! As you might have seen in the talk page discussion, the lead was actually even larger than it is now! Believe it or not, I've already cut out a lot of information, but I'm still pondering how to do that without disrupting the narrative flow of the two middle paragraphs. I'm still working on it, however, so expect to see a shorter, more digestible lead in the very near future. I have been caught up working on other Cleopatra-related articles, like Death of Cleopatra, so that I haven't been able to give this issue my full and undivided attention. I will try to do so now that you've raised the issue once more, a chief concern of editors on the talk page reviewing my work. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: just to let you know, I have taken your advice and edited the lead section, removing entire sentences and shortening others to the best of my abilities. Please let me know if you find the current length to be more suitable, or if you think the size of it should be reduced even further. I haven't counted the characters for each of them, but I'd say it's now roughly the size of the lead for Origen as you cited above. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, it is now just a bit longer than the lead sections of biopic articles such as Leonardo da Vinci and George Washington. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It might help to trim the lead to what sources agree on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

Original text-------

"As a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, she was a descendant of its founder Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian Greek general and companion of Alexander the Great."

Identified error------- (1) Please Change the word ((Greek)) in "a Macedonian Greek general" to -> Hellen, Helllas, or Hellenic. (2) Please Change the link of "Ancient Hellas" (once changed from Greek) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece

Supporting evidence------- "The ancient and modern name of the country is Hellas or Hellada (Greek: Ελλάς, Ελλάδα; in polytonic: Ἑλλάς, Ἑλλάδα), and its official name is the Hellenic Republic "Heliniki Dimokratia"." {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Greece}

Greek and Greece are not historic terms, they where developed around 300 B.C. by the Romans, when they first interacted with the Hellenic tribes.

The English name Greece and the similar adaptations in other languages derive from the Latin name Graecia (Greek: Γραικία), literally meaning 'the land of the Greeks', which was used by Ancient Romans to denote the 'area' of modern-day Greece. Greece is an area and Greek is a language, Macedonia and Macedonians are a civilization, ethnicity and culture. The same can be said for Hellas, the Hellenic nation and their culture. CancerianOx (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This request is just silly. No, "Greek" wasn't the term used by the Greeks themselves in ancient times, but it's been the standard term in English as long as English has existed. Scholars universally use the term "Greek" to denote the ethnicity and the language, even if they also use some terms derived from Ελλάς ("Hellenic", "Hellenistic", "Hellenizing", and so on). Wikipedia uses the most common term in English for article titles, and article text tends to follow article titles. Therefore, it will use the same term that all other English-speakers do. A. Parrot (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it, User:A. Parrot. The article is also littered with the phrase "Hellenistic", for that matter, so it's not as if we're expunging the use of terms derived etymologically from Ελλάς and Ελλάδα. If "Graecia" was good enough for the ancient Romans and "Greek" is good enough for English-speaking scholars to use unanimously, then it's good enough for the purposes of Wikipedia. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point by User:A. Parrot. It doesn't matter if it will be called "Greek" or "Helenic", since they are synonyms and refer to the one and the same thing in the English language, even if the one term has Greek roots and the other has Latin roots. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling all bannermen, Beacons of Minas Tirith are lit, Gondor calls for aid, for anyone willing to review Cleopatra, a current Featured Article Candidate

@Surtsicna, Hrodvarsson, Dimadick, Favonian, Haploidavey, Ian.thomson, Angar432, Doug Weller, Tathunen, Flamarande, Sponsianus, Gingermint, Seleukosa, AnnekeBart, Chris314, Wdford, Pmanderson, HammerFilmFan, Cooper-42, Carptrash, Cplakidas, PatGallacher, Erobinson55, Laurascudder, Tamfang, Inayity, Nicknack009, IdreamofJeanie, and Eggishorn: hello everyone! You've all shown an interest about this page in the past. Would any one of you be interested in reviewing it as a Featured Article candidate? The link to the FAC review can be found at the top of the talk page, or simply click here! I have fleshed out each section fairly well and have created new sub-articles to boot: Early life of Cleopatra and Reign of Cleopatra, to match the older Death of Cleopatra article (that I've also basically rewritten, because it was a stub beforehand). The article is now better-illustrated than it has ever been, given the assortment of relatively new images that I uploaded to Wikimedia, including ancient Roman statues, busts, and paintings of Cleopatra. The Beacons of Minas Tirith are lit and Gondor calls for aid. Are you up to the challenge? To defeat mighty Sauron and aid in the process of moving this page towards Featured Status? If you deem it worthy, of course (not trying to canvass here, but the review itself could use some damn attention and some love). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't have time. BTW Koalorka, Koalorka, and Ericl are all blocked, I can tell because their usenames are struck through when I view them. One for vandalism, another for repeated copyvio, another for repeated BLP violations. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for letting me know, Doug! I have stricken those names from the record. They are no true bannermen. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pericles of Athens: sorry, I see I duplicated a name and didn't add the one blocked for BLP violations, AwesomeMachine. I've removed him for you.

Thanks! Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, my writing is often considered to be "unencyclopedic" - I'm not so goo dat the other stuff. But thank you for asking. Carptrash (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know! Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not feel qualified to conduct an in-depth review of the sources but I will attempt to suggest prose improvements (if any are needed) in the near future. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about Cleopatra or how scholars tease out the details of her life, but I can do a source review, probably over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, you guys! If one of you could do a prose review and the other a source review, that would be a perfect combination. Fantastic. Talk to you guys again soon. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with prose if I'm needed. I've never reviewed an article for featured status, though. Tathunen (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

By all means, do a review! It's okay if it is your first time doing so. Literally no one will count that against you. ;) Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have summoned me. I have generic doubts about working *only* from secondary sources on this subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pmanderson: Summoned from where, though? The fiery depths? Now I remember you. You're that curmudgeon who wouldn't support my Featured Article candidacies for Augustus (2007) and Parthian Empire (2010). Long time no see, buddy ole pal. Still worshiping at the altar of Syme, are you? I won't be holding my breath for you to support my FAC this time around, but, out of the goodness of my heart, I will address each and every concern you may have with the article. I have just added a shiny new set of footnotes that you may find suitable as a solution to the problem of Caesarion. I also slightly tweaked the wording of the lead section to make it clear that his so-called reign was "nominal" and, as explained in the footnote, Octavian was running the show as pharaoh during Caesarion's flight away from the capital Alexandria. As for primary sources, I have provided the input of Plutarch via the translation by Prudence Jones (2006) and even teased out Duane W. Roller's source for the claim of Caesarion reigning for 18 days (the Stromata by Clement of Alexandria). In the footnote I also provided Roller's explanation that Caesarion's "reign" was merely an attempt by Egyptian chroniclers to explain the gap between the death of Cleopatra and the official induction of Egypt as a Roman province (under the direct control of Octavian, not the Senate, of course). Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone may be interested, a major coup has occurred on Wikipedia. I have thus far managed to raise Cleopatra, Early life of Cleopatra, Reign of Cleopatra, AND Death of Cleopatra to Good Article status! Yippee! Special thanks to User:Iazyges for reviewing all of these articles. Hopefully the main one is well on its way to Featured status, but there is still more work to be done! Some have offered their critiques so far and the article has been greatly improved as a result. I urge all of you to please visit the FAC review page and to offer your own thoughts on how to improve the article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to give special thanks to User:Cplakidas and User:Векочел for reviewing the article! @Tathunen and @Hrodvarsson: are you guys still interested in reviewing the article? Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues you guys may have with it, if there are seemingly any glaring errors or problems that should be addressed. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for not providing any suggestions as of yet. I will complete the review at some point this weekend. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I said this on the FAC page already, but I want to thank you again, Hrodvarsson, for reviewing the article! @Tathunen: are you still interested in reviewing the article? Please reply soon, as I think the FAC could very well come to a close within the next week or so. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, @Pericles of Athens. I'm in the final stages of writing a book, so my time is sadly limited. What does reviewing the article entail? I'll help if I'm able. Tathunen (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The article basically has to meet all of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria in order for reviewers to consider supporting it. Failing that, reviewers generally abstain from voting, offer suggestions and commentary, or oppose articles that aren't good enough in their view. If you don't have time to review the article that is fine. I'm just trying to get as many reviews as possible. This could very well be my final FAC before I retire completely from Wikipedia, so I want to go out with a bang and a final hurrah. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So does anyone else want to comment on the article, weigh in, and provide their thoughts on the FAC page? The FAC isn't going to last forever. Please bring up your concerns now before it comes to a close! It has six supporting votes thus far, which is very good. It seems as though it will sail through the nomination process in the coming weeks, perhaps within a month's time. However, playing Devil's advocate with my own FAC, I'd like to know if anyone else here has any problems with it that they think should be resolved first. Anyone? Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed by all the silence around here as of late, but I guess this is just the wrong time of year to be expecting heavy contribution and activity on Wikipedia. The summer is upon us, so perhaps I should have started this whole FAC process a long time ago. Unfortunately I was busy with Ethiopian historiography and Mosaics of Delos during the fall and winter of last year leading into this one. I hope that someone else here will consider reviewing the article before the FAC closes. Please speak up now while you still have the chance! Personally I don't think the article is missing anything vital or misrepresenting things in any way, but I'm not infallible and I honestly hope someone offers some sort of criticism or critique. Simple validation and further consensus that the article is in good shape would obviously be nice to see as well. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why the FAC hasn't been closed already, with six supports and no opposes. That's more attention than I'd usually expect on FAC these days. A. Parrot (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I bunch of articles just got either promoted or archived recently (today and in the past week), so I remain hopeful that mine will be passed soon. I'm not sure what's holding it up, to be honest. Perhaps it is because of the one commentator who didn't support the article (but didn't oppose it either), who has since disappeared and has failed to respond after I both replied to his comments and alerted/pinged him about it. I feel as though I addressed his concerns, but who knows what the FA coordinators think about it. I'm certainly not a mind reader! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

FEATURED ARTICLE STATUS!!!

Huzzah! Hurrah! Alala! This article, with eight supporting votes on the FAC page, has finally been promoted to featured status! It now has a shiny bronze star proudly displayed on the top right of the page. Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and/or helped to improve its quality through talk page discussions here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: This is just another of the featured articles that you have nominated! Few editors have nominated as many GAs and FAs as you. Векочел (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations. It is also very pleasing that the article was promoted exactly (down to the minute, see 1 and 2!) 13 years after the first FA nomination failed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел and Hrodvarsson: thanks for the praise, you guys! Also, it is unearthly and surreal that this article passed FA status 13 years later down to the very same day and minute as the failure of the previous one! As for the future, I plan to nominate the Cleo sub-articles for FA status. I think that I will start with the Death of Cleopatra article, as it looks to be the most polished in my view. The others are arguably ready for FA nominations as well, seeing how they have recently gone through the Copyeditor's Guild gauntlet. Which one do you think should be nominated first? In the meantime, I plan on doing an immediate FAC on Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), another one of my recent articles. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you never cease to amaze me PericlesofAthens! I just read half of the article today; it was truly a pleasure. Congratulations and well done, once again! @Hrodvarsson: You gotta be kidding me! How on earth... Well, if that wasn't a good omen, then I don't know what is. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I'm glad you've enjoyed the article thus far! I'd love to hear your input after you've read the "Legacy" section as well. And yes, it is truly bizarre how the stars aligned for the article having a 13-year-old FAC anniversary of sorts, down to the precise month, day and minute. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Modulus12: hello! Recently you've made some minor changes to the article, rewording it a bit and removing a good amount of links. While some of your edits have indeed been helpful, including the removal of duplicate links in the main prose body, I feel as though some of the de-linking is a bit overzealous. That's especially the case with links that don't appear anywhere else in the article, links that exist in footnotes (which do not abide by the rules for the prose body), and Wikipedia:Redirect links. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Redirects, these are acceptable and in many cases are useful links for readers who want to know more about any given subject. That's especially the case when a more specific, narrow, or niche article does not yet exist for a particular topic. Please be cognizant of these things as you go along and keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia:Featured article, meaning it is not only held to higher standards, but that its current form has been accepted by the community as one of the best works of the encyclopedia. Further significant changes to the article should be discussed here on the talk page, although most of your edits don't fall under that category. I noticed in one, however, that you removed almost 1,000 bites of text, which is concerning, because I do not have the spare time to look over all these minute changes to the article. Please share here the major changes you intend to make before you submit them. Thank you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought of footnotes as an extension of the prose. Why would you read a footnote without reading the preceding text? And so links there are just as duplicate as ones in the prose. But that's just my opinion. As far as my overzealous de-linking, if it wasn't a direct duplicate or a word that is just high-school vocabulary with little encyclopedic value (where I think a link is just distracting), I most likely removed a link because it doesn't lead where a reader is expecting. MOS:LINKCLARITY: The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context. I did try my best to rearrange things to keep the link or find a more suitable destination, but some links I felt would just be confusing or useless to the reader as written and were better removed (or conversely, were interesting links but were not highlighting relevant text and so were completely hidden from the reader). But I won't be offended if you want to add some of them back. Regarding the Senate of the Roman Republic link, I was indeed a bit hasty there, but this also falls into the "useful link completely hidden from the reader" category. The linked prose is just Roman Senate, the same as the last dozens of mentions, so the reader isn't expecting anything different from the first time it was linked (which was to the overview article Roman Senate). Since Cleopatra lived entirely within the Roman Republic, what I should have done was taken this much better and more specific link and replaced Roman Senate with it in the first sentence of the Reign and exile of Ptolemy XII section. While my edits do total over 1,000 bytes removed already, to the best of my knowledge I haven't removed a single statement from the article. Deleting square brackets and first names after the first reference just piles up to a lot of bytes in a long biography. Modulus12 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Good arguments, but I would ask that you just be careful with your edits, please. For instance, in your view there should be a consistency in the term "Ptolemaic Kingdom" throughout the article, although "empire" was used in one context to emphasize the expansionary nature of the Ptolemaic realm across the Eastern Mediterranean that stretched into the Levant, Anatolia, and even the Aegean and Thrace in southeastern Europe (and my wording reflected the source material, something that you should consider when rewording various passages, no matter how well intentioned). You replaced the link for "Ptolemaic Empire" with "Ptolemaic Kingdom" in the "Background" sub-section, but you didn't notice that "Ptolemaic Kingdom" was already linked in that very sub-section. This sort of thing is bound to happen in very large articles like this, of course, but please be cognizant of the links that already exist in the main prose body. That being said, you've done a lot of good work removing such double links, so thanks for finding those. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

English variety

I'm curious as to what English variety this article should be written in. Egyptian English doesn't seem to exist as its own thing. (The Egypt article uses British English, and Ancient Egypt seems to use DMY dates with American English.) Would it be British English since Egypt was under British rule for a time? Or is Cleopatra far enough removed from national ties to have any English variety? I believe the main contributor (correct me if I'm wrong) is PericlesofAthens, who indicates himself as American, and I only saw American spellings throughout the article. But at the same time the dates are in British format. Is it possible to use contradictory writing and date formats? Status quo is fine with me if we just want to slap up an American English tag and DMY tag. Modulus12 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Modulus12: Yes, it is in American English, although I guess the date format was my subconscious mistake after having lived in the UK for several years (lol). At the same time I am fine with keeping it how it is. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2018

In chapter 2.11 there is a grammatical mistake in the following part: "she allowed an asp" instead should be "she swallowed an asp". TestudoV (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If you finish reading the sentence, it's clearly not an error: the popular belief is that she allowed an asp ... to bite and poison her. Modulus12 (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018

rome was buildt in 1977 Cleopatra made it. 2601:205:C000:8462:C965:229C:4791:CF76 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

er, actually no IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy "Macedonian" not "Macedonian Greek"

Title says it all, same way we don't write "Athenian Greek", and can lead to confusion nowadays due to the country of Macedonia and Greece citizens being called 'Macedonians' and 'Greeks' Macedonia (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

During the Hellenistic Era, Macedonians were recognised as Greek; the phrase "Macedonian Greeks" is there precisely to avoid any confusion. Go in the modern Macedonia pages if you are concerned about current Macedonia and stop vandalising featured articles. Jesus, what is it with Macedonia these days? T8612 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how I'm "vandalising featured articles" given that this qualifier is not required and absolutely makes no sense? Macedonia (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You basically came in here like a wrecking ball, without any prior discussion here, trying desperately to remove the word "Greek" from the phrase "Macedonian Greek", even though this has been the stable version of the article for many months and indeed is the version of the article accepted by the consensus of the Featured article nomination process. More than that, the language of the lead is a complete reflection of the "Ancestry" section, where I have cited dozens of sources that describe Cleopatra not only as a Macedonian but as a Macedonian Greek, and others that simply state Greek in many cases. Ironically, one of the various sources you tried to cite in the lead (within an obnoxious chain of five different citations, breaking the rule we discussed in the FAC about limiting that to three per sentence) was Prudence Jones. You even included a quote from her source explicitly saying "Macedonian Greeks", which basically cuts the feet right out from under whatever silly argument you originally had. You just came her to be a WP:POINTY editor. Personally, I don't really care what your ideological or political bent is (although it's pretty obvious with your name and user page), but you can go ahead and keep that crap out of a featured article. Gee thanks! Toodaloo and ciao. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:POINTY applies here as the truth is, they are Macedonian. That is fact and is something we can both agree on, yes? The issue arises whether we should include the additional qualifier "Greek". From your POV, doesn't saying that they are Macedonian automatically imply that they are Greek? When we describe someone, isn't ludicrous to say they were a "Queenslander Australian" or "Arizonan American", do we not say just "Queenslander" or "Arizonan"? From both of our POV's, to simply say "Macedonian" is correct. Macedonia (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We write what's reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources, and PericlesofAthens has provided ample rationale for the text in the article. Please move on. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Makedonija: Well I'm so very glad you've chosen a civil tone now that everyone is watching instead of telling me to "get stuffed, mate", like you did in a recent edit summary of the article. The phrase "Macedonian Greek" is used because that is the most common among academics from works that I have consulted and cited in this article, particularly those in the "Ancestry" section. More importantly, aside from the casual mentioning in the lead that her native language was Koine Greek and that her reign marked the end of the Hellenistic period, it is the only indication of her ethnicity and lineage in the entire lead section. I should also note that you tried removing "Greek" from the first paragraph of the lead while ironically citing not only Prudence Jones (2006) as I've mentioned above, but also Donald B. Redford (2000) and Kathryn A. Bard (1999) who explicitly write "Macedonian Greeks" and even Sarah B. Pomeroy (1990) who doesn't even say Macedonian but "Greek ruling class". What you're doing is misinterpreting and abusing WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, if you bothered to read them at all instead of haphazardly copying and pasting a chain of citations from the article Ptolemy I Soter and plopping them into the middle of the lead section of this article, where tons of citations are unwanted for obvious reasons per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. Ideally, a lead section should reflect the sources used in the main body of text, which is exactly what this article does. It doesn't follow the same rules as the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (which I also wrote) where editors and I came to a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page about not inserting "Greek" before "ancient kingdom" due to the complexities of the early Macedonian ethnic identity. That debate, however, has no place in an article about the Ptolemies, who are universally described in academic works as being Greeks. Period. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I just love the hypocrisy coming out of you, and it is sad to see that you started the incivility with your "buzz off" comment, which, you should note, has an earlier time stamp than my "get stuffed, mate" description. To have thought that you possessed the intelligence and maturity of an adult was wishful thinking on my part obviously. Articles do not belong to editors, so it is of no consequence of whether you wrote the Macedonia (ancient kingdom) article. I am simply arguing over the wording. From both our points of view, "Macedonian" is correct, is it not? From my supposed POV Macedonian Greek is not required. Do you see what I am trying to say here or will you just continue with your incivility? Macedonia (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Bravo. With this post you just squandered whatever credibility or persuasive power your argument might have had, by failing to obey Wikipedia:No personal attacks by commenting on my intelligence, maturity, or other personal attributes which have nothing to do with the article, but are certainly perfect examples of ad hominem attacks if I've ever seen them. I don't even need to go there, since it is probably enough for me to simply direct editors to your entertaining user page. It goes without saying that you will now be reported for breaking that red line of civility. I also see you have failed to understand the point about why I brought up Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which was to point out that changes to an already featured article are done by WP:CONSENSUS. Somehow you interpreted that as a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP, while conveniently ignoring both User:Laser_brain (an FAC coordinator who knows what he's talking about) and I regarding WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, which basically trumps whatever argument you're trying to make here about excising the word "Greek" from the article. The phrase "Macedonian Greek" is a direct reflection of a multitude of scholarly sources cited in this article. If you are unable or unwilling to understand that, then you are welcome to edit a blog somewhere else, preferably outside of Wikipedia. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And the kettle calls the pot black. You seem to not want to discuss the issue at hand, and have started and continue the incivility. I have asked you a question twice which you have refused to answer: To call Ptolemy a Macedonian is correct. This is a simple, 1 word, yes/no answer. Macedonia (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention as well with your personal attacks by calling me a nationalist, while you still are avoiding to answer the question... Macedonia (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want my personal opinion, I would say they are Macedonian...Macedonian Greek. Guess what? My personal opinion doesn't matter. Your personal opinion doesn't matter. I'll tell you what does matter, though: WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, which is really the only thing that should be discussed, otherwise this is just turning into a WP:FORUM. News flash: this talk page is not your little private playground to express your personal opinions. I'll tell you what it is, though: it's a place where editors discuss how to improve the article with academic secondary sources. Unless you have dozens of sources on hand that explicitly and unequivocally describe the Ptolemies from Ptolemy I Soter all the way down to Caesarion as exclusively "Macedonian" and NOT "Macedonian Greeks" (i.e. explicitly stating that they were not Greek and only Macedonian), then I fail to see why we should amend the article according to your charming opinions. Guess what I have? A potent litany of academic sources that say otherwise and contradict your POV-pushing. In addition to the academic sources you cited above (sources that humorously and explicitly contradict you, nice job), I could start with Pucci (2011), Goldsworthy (2010), Roller (2010), Fletcher (2008), Burstein (2004), Grant (1972), and a number of other academic sources in this article which all use the same language and terminology: "Macedonian Greeks". You can protest, you can scream, you can flail, you can make silly demands that I answer your questions, but none of that matters. Your theatrics aren't convincing anyone. The only thing that matters are the sources, and, thankfully, they aren't on your side. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Again missed the point entirely, to say they were Macedonian is still correct, notwithstanding cherrypicking of a few sources that say "Macedonian Greek". I have had an absolute gutful of your insults and not wishing to contribute to constructive conversation, and the double standards of this place. This conversation would've carried on very differently had I done 4 reverts (like you did, in direct violation of the 3RR), but alas, there have always been different rules for different people. That much through history hasn't changed. Macedonia (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Cherrypicking." "A few sources." That's rich, given how you managed to cite three out of five sources that explicitly disagreed with your chosen phrasing and slicing of the word "Greek" from the phrase "Macedonian Greek" for no really pertinent reason that I can see (although one could easily speculate as to why you've taken up this crusade). And it's not just Jones, Bard, or Redford, either, it's also Roller (2010) and Southern (2009) who deliberately choose to utilize this exact phrase when describing the Ptolemies. In fact, Southern (2009: p. 43) uses that exact phrase to directly describe Ptolemy I Soter. Both Grant (1972) and Burstein (2004) employ incredibly similar phrases to describe the Ptolemies (i.e. "Macedonian, Greek-speaking" and "Greco-Macedonian", respectively). If you don't like the fact that this article and its language is a reflection of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, you're welcome to rant about that in your personal blog somewhere, but it certainly has no place in this article. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, uninvolved user here. I've gone through Kleiner, Burstein and Grant. Can't find the actual phrase "Macedonian Greek" in any of them. They're all pretty clear about the Greek connection; Grant writes that "Cleopatra was a Greek queen". But even without referring to Ptolemy as "Macedonian Greek", the very next sentence talks about the Hellenistic period and the one after that notes that Cleopatra's first language was Koine Greek. If changing it to just "Macedonian" would obscure that the Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek then I'd be leery of change, but as is I don't think it'll have that effect. Pericles, is there anything different in the other sources you mentioned? --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Pericles, I just read up and realized you wrote that Redford and Bard explicitly used "Macedonian Greek". They don't seem to be cited in the current version of the article, could you point me to the names of the works? --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: Upon inspection, it seems as though Burstein (2004: p. 64) says "Greco-Macedonian" and not the exact phrase "Macedonian Greek", although he frequently employs the phrase "Macedonian and Greek" throughout his book. Prudence Jones (2006), on the other hand, is also cited in the "Ancestry" section and for good reason, because she has this to say (p. xiii): "in the barest outline of her life, Cleopatra VII was born in 69 B.C. to Ptolemy XII Auletes and (most probably) his sister-wife Cleopatra V Tryphaena. They were members of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Macedonian Greeks, who ruled Egypt after the death of its conqueror, Alexander the Great." Duane W. Roller (2010), who is perhaps the most frequently-cited source in this entire article, explicitly states about Cleopatra's ancestry and origins (p. 15): "Cleopatra VII, the last Macedonian Greek queen of Egypt, was born around the beginning of 69 B.C., descendant of a long line of Ptolemaic kings." As for Donald B. Redford, in his Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2000), he writes the following: "Cleopatra VII was born to Ptolemy XII Auletes (80–57 BCE, ruled 55–51 BCE) and Cleopatra, both parents being Macedonian Greeks." Kathryn A. Bard, in her Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (1999: p. 488), writes the following: "Ptolemaic kings were still crowned at Memphis and the city was popularly regarded as the Egyptian rival to Alexandria, founded by the Macedonian Greeks." Grant (1972: p. 3), cited in this article, says that Cleopatra came from a "Macedonian, Greek-speaking dynasty", but more than that, he says (p. 5) that "Cleopatra VII would have described herself as a Greek. Whatever the racial ingredients of her Macedonian ancestors, her language, like theirs (though they had spoken a dialect), was Greek, and so was her whole education and culture." I can muster more sources than these, but I think you probably get the point. ;) Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I have cited Pat Southern (2009) in this article but simply forgot that she also wrote, on p. 43: "The Ptolemaic dynasty, of which Cleopatra was the last representative, was founded at the end of the fourth century BC. The Ptolemies were not of Egyptian extraction, but stemmed from Ptolemy Soter, a Macedonian Greek in the entourage of Alexander the Great." I think that is honestly sufficient enough to demonstrate the commonality of this phrase in academic works on the Ptolemies. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems even the Encyclopaedia Britannica (cited in our article) has contributing authors who favor the phrase "Macedonian Greek", as demonstrated in this 4 October 2018 article "Ancient Egypt" by Alan Edouard Samuel, John R. Baines, et. al.: "The Macedonian-Greek character of the monarchy was vigorously preserved." "Such links were far from able to preserve harmony between the royal houses (between 274 and 200 BCE five wars were fought with the Seleucids over possession of territory in Syria and the Levant), but they did keep the ruling houses relatively compact, interconnected, and more true to their Macedonian-Greek origins." Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Thanks for that, the quotes from Jones, Redford and Bard are more than enough for me. Sorry to put you to so much effort, but it is appreciated. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: No problem! It was my pleasure. If anything it makes me feel vindicated for using the precise terminology of the sources, even ones I didn't cite directly for this purpose, but will do so when the lock on the article is lifted. To avoid the train of citations in the lead section and this sort of confrontation in the future, I think that I will also include a lengthy clarifying footnote there in the lead, packed with citations from the aforementioned scholarly sources. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Small correction: Kathryn A. Bard (1999) was the editor of the encyclopedia mentioned above, whereas the author of the encyclopedic entry on "Memphis" (pp 488–490) was David Jeffreys. I have cited both him and Janet H. Johnson, Duane W. Roller, Prudence Jones, and Pat Southern in a new footnote about the terminology used for describing the Ptolemaic dynasty as "Macedonian Greek". Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: I went back through Kleiner (2005), which you perused, but you must have missed the instances on pp. 9, 19, 106 and 183 where she specifically used the phrase "Macedonian Greeks" to describe either the Ptolemies as a whole or just Cleopatra, even her children with the Romans Antony and Caesar. Just letting you know! I added Kleiner to the aforementioned footnote. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. User "Makedonija" returned to Wikipedia (after more than 3 years of absence), to change "Macedonian Greek" into "Macedonian". Peculiar to say the least. I guess his user page says it all. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Gotta love the personal attack Macedonia (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry diagram

What do straight lines, dotted line and dashed line mean in the "Ancestry" diagram? Might it be a good idea to add some sort of legend to make it easier to understand? HaEr48 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@HaEr48: if you read footnote 85, it says the following: "The family tree and short discussions of the individuals can be found in Dodson & Hilton (2004, pp. 268–281). Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton refer to Cleopatra V as Cleopatra VI and Cleopatra Selene of Syria is called Cleopatra V Selene. Dotted lines in the chart below indicate possible but disputed parentage." There you have it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps editors who think changes should be made to a featured article should raise such issues here on the talk page first and gain consensus

I say that because this article has been heavily vetted, and changing the language here and there may seem like a small issue, but the language used in the article was very deliberately chosen. For instance, a recent editor decided to replace the title/adjective "tetrarch" that described Herod the Great and Phasael, instead calling them "ethnarch" and "ruler", respectively. While these are okay terms to use generically, the use of the word "tetrarch" here stems from the very language in the WP:Reliable source cited, namely Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography (2010: 86) [the bolding is my emphasis]: "There is little information about Cleopatra during the months of her pregnancy and early motherhood. Nevertheless, during this time, probably in December 40 B.C. she received an unexpected guest. This was none other than the tetrarch of Judea, Herod, son of Cleopatra's former ally Antipatros of Askalon...when Herod appealed to Antonius in late 41 B.C., the latter had made him tetrarch of Judea...Herod's brother Phasael, whom Antonius had also made tetrarch, had been imprisoned by the Hasmonean king Antigonos II."

Roller doesn't stutter here. He consistently uses the term "tetrarch" on this page and others when describing these rulers of Judea. We shouldn't change the language of the Wiki article without good justification and at the very least a host of other sources that explicitly explain how tetrarch is not the correct title to use in this instance. I heavily doubt you'll find a series of sources that would agree or explain this, because it is one of the most accepted terms in academia on this subject.

Also, another editor saw fit to expand an already long sentence about various 20th-century media in the "Modern depictions" sub-section by adding a bunch of information about a belly dancer employed by an Egyptian educational program. Not only is the section detailed enough, but this added a bunch of unnecessary detail while producing a run-on sentence that clumsily mixed past and then present tenses. Individual belly dancers should be listed over at List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra, but they are hardly worth mentioning here in our main article in a sub-section that only deals with a handful of specific artists and highly important pieces of art, speaking more in generalities. I think we should first assess how important something is before adding further details to an already featured article. Ideally consensus for such significant changes should first be reached here on the talk page. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eluchil404: hello, I'm shifting our discussion at my talk page over here to the article talk page instead. As for Roller, I'm not sure if his use of "tetrarch" is an aberration or not when describing Herod and Phasael, but you are undeniably correct to apply the term to his children and successors, who ruled his realm in a four-part division (hence the name tetrarchy). The Wiki article for tetrarchy actually briefly explains the Tetrarchy of Herod, but you are right that Herodian Tetrarchy is a more relevant link (and therefore I have replaced it with the latter). I will keep the term for now because it is the language used by Roller and I don't see any reliable source that explicitly contradicts his use of the term. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly Roller is a reliable source and I am not, so the article should reflect his terms not my unsourced judgment. Thanks for updating the link. If I have time I will try to track down some sources for the use of tetrach and Herod's pre-king title but I may not have time. Thanks for keeping the article to a high sourcing standard. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopian - Ethio-Semitic or Sudanese

The word "Ethiopian", as used in Ancient times, did not refer to the modern day nation, nor the languages spoken in it, and was used often to refer to the peoples living in modern Sudan, specifically, the Kushites, hence the edit from the article linking to "Ethio-Semitic languages" to "Kushite". Ignoring the historical use of the word, and the fact that when Plutarch uses the word in other sources, it's clearly identified as referring to Kushites, from a mere geographical sense, what sense would it have made for her (Cleopatra) to be speaking Ethio-Semitic languages, located all the way at the horn of Africa, and not the language of the kingdom directly south of her land? Given this fact, and the fact that "Ethiopian" was oft used by the ancient writers to refer to Sudan, not to our current country of Ethiopia, it makes no sense why "Ethiopian" links to an Ethio-Semitic article. But it goes further, because the sources cited in regards to what languages Cleopatra spoke also correlate Ethiopia to Sudan anyway.

This is one of the original quotes that refers to the languages that Cleopatra spoke, by the way:

'It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian. ' (Plutarch, from the Life of Antony)

Then there's this quote from the sources that are used in the same sentence as the listing of Cleopatra's spoke languages which describes the languages Cleopatra spoke. "The seven languages recorded by Plutarch deserve some attention. The list is essentially geographical, from south to northeast. Ethiopia and Trogodytika had been associated with the Ptolemies since the time of Ptolemy II, who had sent numerous expeditions into both regions, especially to Meroë, the Ethiopian capital, where his agents had lived for extended periods and had explored far beyond.21 This city, on the Nile above the Fifth Cataract, was the center of a powerful indigenous kingdom that was important to the Ptolemies because of its supply of resources, especially gold and elephants, the latter a valuable mili- tary tool." (Duane W. Roller, Cleopatra: A Biography) "Meroë, the ethiopian capital"? The only Ethiopia with a capitol at Meroë was the Kushite kingdom.

This also applies to Cleopatra the great by Dr. Joann fletcher, which also refers to the Kushites consistently when discussing "Ethiopians". Hence I rest my case that "Ethiopian" more likely refers to "Kushite" than to "Ethio-Semitic", using the sources already cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree, since the ancient Greek term "Aethiopia" refers to the land of the Nubians in the Kingdom of Kush (in ancient Sudan) who spoke the Meroitic language (i.e. from Meroe, their capital), not actual pre-Aksumite Ethiopians of Abyssinia. It's just a shame that Roller doesn't really explain this or specify what Plutarch actually means here by saying "Ethiopian". The term was rather nebulous and generally meant that region of East Africa or the southernmost reaches of the Nile. I won't revert your edits, but you should actually find a source that explains this thoroughly and clearly, so that you can place a new explanatory footnote after "Ethiopian". Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation overkill?

Most sentences are followed by three citations, after which there is often a note that contains yet more citations. Is this not an overkill? If one or two cover everything in a sentence, do we really need more? I find them quite distracting, more so because most of them three-digit numbers. One paragraph, for example, contains 6 sentences but 18 citations and 5 notes (each with two citations). Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Surtsicna, perhaps look at H:CITEMERGE. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a citation merge in a model similar to the one you have in the link here. However, we must keep the SFNP or HARV citation format that links to the referenced sources given at the bottom of the article. I won't accept anything less. And mind you, the amount of citations in the article was an FAC compromise among multiple editors. Changing that would require a new consensus here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A compromise? Did some editors feel there should be more citations per sentence? Whatever for? Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No. There used to be four, five, six, even seven citations for some sentences, and this was reduced to no more than three citations per sentence with a footnote for additional ones, per the Wiki guideline WP:Citation overkill. Mind you, many sentences have one or two citations, so this isn't a problem in every sentence or even every sub-section of the article. Bundling them would require significant changes and editing, but the style of merging suggested by User:Emir of Wikipedia could offer a potential solution...you know. If someone wants to waste two hours of their time doing that on a Friday night when they should be with friends/family. Have a good weekend, gentlemen! Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I recommended a merge because I think it would be quicker, easier, and simpler than finding a new compromise regarding citations. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead content

Hi and thanks for everyone's contributions! I'd like to see some mention of her role in the Roman civil wars in the first paragraph. And I'd like to suggest we move the koin Greek part from there. And perhaps the details of all of her ancestors. Her involvement with Caesar and Anthony is more notable than their current position reflects. Also, perhaps we could remove some of the details and shorten it up a little? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for offering your opinions, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. The lead is not only carefully structured, but also follows a convention found in other Wikipedia articles where basic details, like her ethnic identity and socio-political status, are presented in the first paragraph. I don't see a more reasonable place in the lead section to put the fact about her being the first Ptolemaic pharaoh to speak Egyptian, with her native tongue being Koine Greek. The first paragraph also already hints that she was involved in the Roman civil wars, because it explicitly states that Egypt became a Roman province after her death. This is given a full treatment in the second and third paragraphs, which more than suffices, considering how the last paragraph is about more minor details regarding her image in the arts. The lead section is also the result of a very long Featured Article candidacy process built upon the consensus of various editors. The drastic changes you're suggesting would require a new consensus, and a robust one at that. Frankly, I don't see the need for that, but you're welcome to try and build one here among other editors. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: thanks as always for your words of wisdom. I understand your point about laying out her biographic details in the lead section, but the leads content should also reflect the subject's noteworthiness. I just don't see how the fact that she spoke Koine Greek, and some of the other details, are important enough to justify their position in the text. That said, I was not party to the process that produced it. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: Actually, it is noteworthy that she was the first Greek Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language, and in this instance it's important to note just what her native language was in contrast. If it wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't be mentioned and explained prominently in various academic sources, from Roller (2010) to Jones (2006). Cutting down on some details is one thing, but this isn't one of those minor details. It's one that was inherent to her ethnic identity and her learning Egyptian is relevant in regards to the kingdom that she ruled. It's expounded in the Biography section of the article, so if anything that part of the lead is simply a reflection of the main body of prose per WP:SUMMARY. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

All of that being said, I do agree about your overall concerns that the lead section is still a bit too long, so I have trimmed a few details, added a footnote, and reworded a few sentences to make it slightly shorter overall. I think that should be sufficient for anyone concerned about its size. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Image sizes

I disagree with the sizes of the images in the article. They are far larger than necessary, in places overwhelming the text instead of supplementing it. My changes were not arbitrary, they were compliant with MOS:IMGSIZE, which states that fixed pixel widths are highly discouraged due to the need to be flexible for readers on a multitude of devices and screen sizes and that an upright scaling parameter should be used instead. A Featured Article most certainly should comply with the Manual of Style and not be disregarded simply out of a matter of personal preference — that is what the base width setting is for in the registered user's Preferences screen.

In any case, I looked at the article, both with revisions using smaller vs larger images, on 13" and 21" monitors and I had no problem in either case discerning what the images were when made to be smaller. Many of the images are of marble statues or sculptures, which do not reveal any additional details when made 100 pixels larger. So I do not understand the argument that they are too small to make out what is in the image. If there are specific images that there are disagreements over, then surely those can be discussed. But on the whole, there is no need to hardcode large image sizes into the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Poss spelling error Trogodyte / Troglodyte

Hi, the "Background" section has "...She also spoke Ethiopian, Trogodyte, Hebrew ...". Based on the "Troglodyte" article, the spelling seems wrong. T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Troglodytae artricle: "Greco-Roman period: The earlier references allude to Trogodytes (without the l) , evidently derived from Greek trōglē, cave and dytes, divers." so seems Ok to leave it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)