Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Brilliant work!
One of the best articles to ever grace DYK!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I gave it my best. Good to see you around these parts, Dr Blofeld. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Doc. Perhaps you can make Pericles an honourary member of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.? Just a thought. Dr. K. 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Medieval icon removed
I removed the medieval icon as pop-culture trivial unrelated to the content of this article. This is a really off-topic image which does not belong in the article, since nowhere in the article is medieval Europe's cultural reception of Macedon mentioned, apart from pita, pizza, cheese and goats. The fanciful interpretation of Alexander by a medieval artist, is irrelevant and is actually detracting from the presentation. Restoring it is not a good editorial choice, especially for a GA article. Dr. K. 12:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I won't argue. But please note, it is not an icon (in English), and the top half of the article needs more images that are not coins and busts. Some images are fixed too small as well. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Dr.K.: hello. I understand your viewpoint, but I also think you are missing the point. The image was placed there (by someone else, not me originally) perhaps not only to illustrate the perception of Alexander the Great in later historical times, but also to simply show the act of Alexander's coronation. This is a chief topic discussed in the text immediately to the left of the image before you removed it from the article. I also think that your argument is rather flimsy in terms of precedent and Wiki guidelines.
- For instance, see the related consensus about historical images formed at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ: "No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad. Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted."
- Mind you, there are legitimate contemporary images of Alexander the Great in this article, but none of them depict his coronation or succession following the death of Philip II. That's the point of including this image, not necessarily because it demonstrates later peoples' views and cultural perceptions of Alexander the Great (in this case, Flemish artists of the 15th century producing miniatures). If we took your argument about the lack of discussion of medieval artwork to its logical conclusion, that would mean removing even the Roman-era remakes of Hellenistic-period busts depicting various historical individuals described in this article, since the article likewise does not discuss Roman-era reproductions of Macedonian/Greek works of art. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm with Dr.K. on this one (and see WP:PORTRAIT for my wider views on this kind of issue). I realize we don't have any other illustration of the coronation – but then, the coronation is exactly the one thing this image tells us absolutely nothing about. Late medieval illuminators were notorious for their complete lack of sense of historicity – that artist would have had no compunctions about reusing the same design for illustrating the coronation of Charlemagne, or any other king or ruler no matter which time and place. Note that this "Alexander" is being crowned by bishops and surrounded by monks! Needless to say, if a reader were naive enough to be led to believe we wanted to to tell him this was really what the coronation looked like, they'd be seriously misled; beyond that, the illustration tells us precisely nothing. Its value for the article is exactly equal to that of a mere decorative speck of colour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I used the word "icon" as opposed to "painting" because the picture has many Christian religious elements, as you mentioned, and looked almost hagiographical in nature, surrounding Alexander with adoring medieval religious figures. I understand Pericles's point about yet another depiction of Alexander through the aeons; I had thought about that, before removing the image, but I finally decided to remove it because this article is about Macedon, not Alexander. This picture belongs perhaps in Alexander's biography, but I think that a naive, hagiographic, interpretation of a medieval Alexander, surrounded by what seems to be Christian religious orders, detracts from the understanding of the topic of this article. Dr. K. 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm with Dr.K. on this one (and see WP:PORTRAIT for my wider views on this kind of issue). I realize we don't have any other illustration of the coronation – but then, the coronation is exactly the one thing this image tells us absolutely nothing about. Late medieval illuminators were notorious for their complete lack of sense of historicity – that artist would have had no compunctions about reusing the same design for illustrating the coronation of Charlemagne, or any other king or ruler no matter which time and place. Note that this "Alexander" is being crowned by bishops and surrounded by monks! Needless to say, if a reader were naive enough to be led to believe we wanted to to tell him this was really what the coronation looked like, they'd be seriously misled; beyond that, the illustration tells us precisely nothing. Its value for the article is exactly equal to that of a mere decorative speck of colour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Mind you, there are legitimate contemporary images of Alexander the Great in this article, but none of them depict his coronation or succession following the death of Philip II. That's the point of including this image, not necessarily because it demonstrates later peoples' views and cultural perceptions of Alexander the Great (in this case, Flemish artists of the 15th century producing miniatures). If we took your argument about the lack of discussion of medieval artwork to its logical conclusion, that would mean removing even the Roman-era remakes of Hellenistic-period busts depicting various historical individuals described in this article, since the article likewise does not discuss Roman-era reproductions of Macedonian/Greek works of art. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, these are exactly the reasons why I removed it in the first place. Note that the image can be found in the Alexander the Great article, in the section about cultural depictions of Alexander, where it fully belongs. Here though, the image sticks like a sore thumb. It also shouldn't be too hard to find an appropriate image with which to replace it. Khirurg (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I still believe, in the absence of any contemporary depiction of Alexander the Great's coronation, that this image has value demonstrating that topic, albeit in a hideously anachronistic fashion per late medieval artistic tropes and trends found in miniatures. In either case, while we can continue quibbling about that here on the talk page, I've found an erstwhile replacement image for that section of the article. It shows the ruins of the Philippeion at Olympia, a monument that was erected by Philip II and is discussed later in the article as well. Although not located in Macedonia proper, the monument is still highly relevant for this section considering it was built specifically to honor Philip's victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- A less anachronistic depiction of his coronation could fit easier on articles other than the person's article, such as the article about the ancient kingdom. However, I looked both at my books and on Wikimedia for a better depiction of Alexander the Great's coronation, however couldn't see any. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I could not have described this image better Pericles. Now, I'm not sure what, if any, disagreement exists between us. Just joking. Ironically, my only motivation for removing this picture, is that now, because of your efforts, this is a GA article, and I really thought that this image did not do much for the article at its current status. Dr. K. 21:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The Philippeion is fine, good choice. Khirurg (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am not of much help. Just looked at the books such as "History of Macedonia" Tomes 1 to 7 by N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith but there are no coronation scenes, or whatsover pictures there, nor in the books about King Philip and Pella. This makes the search on internet a bit more difficult, especially if there are historical coronation pictures that have different or non-greek/non-english names. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The Philippeion is fine, good choice. Khirurg (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I still believe, in the absence of any contemporary depiction of Alexander the Great's coronation, that this image has value demonstrating that topic, albeit in a hideously anachronistic fashion per late medieval artistic tropes and trends found in miniatures. In either case, while we can continue quibbling about that here on the talk page, I've found an erstwhile replacement image for that section of the article. It shows the ruins of the Philippeion at Olympia, a monument that was erected by Philip II and is discussed later in the article as well. Although not located in Macedonia proper, the monument is still highly relevant for this section considering it was built specifically to honor Philip's victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, these are exactly the reasons why I removed it in the first place. Note that the image can be found in the Alexander the Great article, in the section about cultural depictions of Alexander, where it fully belongs. Here though, the image sticks like a sore thumb. It also shouldn't be too hard to find an appropriate image with which to replace it. Khirurg (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
@Dr.K.: we're going to have to agree to disagree on the coronation picture, but for now a compromise is made with that alternative picture of the Philippeion, which I'm just as happy to include in the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just uploaded this picture. It is also anachronistic but less religious in its overtones and less stylised, although the resolution is not high. Dr. K. 02:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Looks pretty cool actually. However, like you said, the resolution is somewhat of an issue. At the very least it deserves placement in one of several Wiki articles dedicated to Alexander the Great. I've already placed it in a few of them thus far, such as Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, which seems fitting enough to me. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, looking at the article as it stands now, I rather prefer the photo of the Philippeion where it is, seeing how there is an overall lack of architectural images in the article. Perhaps when I create a new article called History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), I will place your picture there. I plan on creating that article sometime in the near future, in Wikipedia:Summary style of the present "History" section (which will be edited and parsed down a bit to ensure the article is of a reasonable size for a future FA candidacy). Pericles of AthensTalk 03:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's great. Thank you for your feedback, the placement of the picture, and your future plans. It sounds as if this historical era will be further enhanced by your tireless efforts. I'm glad to hear that. I hope, in the not too distant future, someone will supply a higher resolution picture, so that you can use it with fewer constraints. Dr. K. 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I found the 11.41 MB version and replaced the old low=res image with it. Dr. K. 05:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, although the source I found first, The Indianapolis Star, calls the painting "The Coronation of Alexander the Great", I just found out that the museum itself calls it "Coronation Scene" and speculates that it may be the coronation of another general, perhaps King David. Thus, the picture cannot be used. I have removed it from all the articles. Sorry about that. Dr. K. 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Damn. That's random! Thanks for letting me know and removing it from the articles. In either case, Wikimedia has more images related to Macedon and for that matter Alexander the Great. A future history article on the subject will have a multitude of different options for images, obviously with more than what is shown in this article. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, looking at the article as it stands now, I rather prefer the photo of the Philippeion where it is, seeing how there is an overall lack of architectural images in the article. Perhaps when I create a new article called History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), I will place your picture there. I plan on creating that article sometime in the near future, in Wikipedia:Summary style of the present "History" section (which will be edited and parsed down a bit to ensure the article is of a reasonable size for a future FA candidacy). Pericles of AthensTalk 03:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Looks pretty cool actually. However, like you said, the resolution is somewhat of an issue. At the very least it deserves placement in one of several Wiki articles dedicated to Alexander the Great. I've already placed it in a few of them thus far, such as Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, which seems fitting enough to me. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just uploaded this picture. It is also anachronistic but less religious in its overtones and less stylised, although the resolution is not high. Dr. K. 02:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Khirurg: thanks! I poked around on Wikimedia in order to find the most aesthetically pleasing shot of the Philippeion as well as an image of it that has not yet been used in any other article. I feel as though Wikimedia is a treasure trove that is often neglected, let alone used to its full potential. It is, however, occasionally tiresome and difficult to search for images there. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @SilentResident: thank you for your valiant efforts! I'm afraid you won't find a huge variety of depictions of Alexander the Great in ancient artwork. Yes, he has several well-known busts, various coins, a few mosaics bearing his image, and of course some relief work on the Alexander sarcophagus. However, as far as I know none of these show him in a scene of his coronation. For that matter, I don't recall ever seeing an ancient Greek or Roman work of art with that particular theme...from what I can tell it is almost strictly a medieval artistic theme. Sure, there are plenty of ancient Greek coins bearing images of monarchs with royal diadems, but these are just basic portraits of their profiles, usually without scenes or imagery of significant events that occurred during their reigns. In fact, looking at the mosaic depictions of Alexander, the depiction of real-life scenery is usually reserved for scenes of the monarch hunting or, in other examples, portraying a certain deity or mythological figure. For instance, prominent Greeks and Romans loved to depict themselves as Hercules/Herakles in various forms of art. On rare occasions you can see them partaking in specific battles, e.g. the Alexander sarcophagus as well as the Alexander mosaic. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also felt compelled to add an image from the Alexander Sarcophagus to the article, showing an infantryman fighting a Persian soldier. It's interesting to compare his shield in carved relief to that of a real example made from bronze, shown now in a double image layout. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Footnotes and stuff
In order not to edit-war, let me explain things here. First, I am rather dismayed by the hostility in the edit summaries and will probably leave the article alone after this. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, and I hugely respect the work that User:PericlesofAthens has put into this article, but frankly, some links were not always the best, etc. I tried to help, nothing more (and also nothing less). Anyhow, regarding the footnotes, I am aware that WP:OVERLINK does not apply there. For the image captions, I am not sure it is so clear-cut, and I have had comments to this effect in FACs as well, which is why i applied it here as well. But the fact is that the footnotes are not independent of the main text. No-one in their right minds reads the footnotes independently, but only as one comes across them while perusing the main article. So linking again "Philip II of Macedon" and "Alexander III of Macedon" after having just read an entire section about Philip II and Alexander, is simply redundant (as is the constant "of Macedon" after royal names, etc.). That was my reasoning. Feel free to disagree, of course. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: no offense, but your editing preferences drive me absolutely nuts. Sorry if my edit summaries came off as more than just a bit hostile. I was already in a monstrous mood that day and fixing the links that I perceived to be worth keeping led me to write a couple things that I regret. However, I still believe that links in footnotes should be left alone, since they do not follow the same Wiki guidelines about links found in the main body of text. The same rule applies to image captions. Given the incredible dearth of repetitive links found in the body of any Wikipedia article, the only way to provide readers with multiple useful links to the same high-value article is to place them within footnotes and image captions. In either case, I actually approved of your introduction of the "reign" template into this article, which I left alone and have even decided to apply to the rest of the sections that you had not edited. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I wrote above, given the work you have poured into this article, you are entitled to have the first say in such matters. I still think that your reaction to what were, after all, good-faith edits, was thoroughly unwarranted—one can revert changes without making hostile comments along the way—but I don't intend to pursue this any further. Best regards and keep up the high-quality work, Constantine ✍ 15:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: no offense, but your editing preferences drive me absolutely nuts. Sorry if my edit summaries came off as more than just a bit hostile. I was already in a monstrous mood that day and fixing the links that I perceived to be worth keeping led me to write a couple things that I regret. However, I still believe that links in footnotes should be left alone, since they do not follow the same Wiki guidelines about links found in the main body of text. The same rule applies to image captions. Given the incredible dearth of repetitive links found in the body of any Wikipedia article, the only way to provide readers with multiple useful links to the same high-value article is to place them within footnotes and image captions. In either case, I actually approved of your introduction of the "reign" template into this article, which I left alone and have even decided to apply to the rest of the sections that you had not edited. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Future plans: creating "History of the Kingdom of Macedonia" article
I think this article is approaching FA quality and could perhaps one day be nominated as such if the edit warring dies down and the article becomes more stable than in years past. However, before that can ever be considered, I should once again bring up the issue of Wikipedia:Article size, trimming the article and splitting it into further sub-articles via Wikipedia:Summary style. Hopefully this can be limited to only one section in particular: the history section. It is perhaps the largest of any one section as of now (21 Feb 2017). Some of the material could certainly be shifted over to a new sub-article, with a summary of the larger article named something like:
- History of the Kingdom of Macedonia,
- or History of ancient Macedonia,
- or History of the Macedonian Kingdom,
- or even History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
I'm not sure which one to choose! Perhaps we could build a consensus on that and make redirect links for the others. I'd also like to discuss what materials or details you guys think could be cleaved from the present section. Mind you, none of it would be lost; it would only be relocated to a prominently linked sub-article. Of course all of this is hypothetical; I have no definitive plans to do any of this, and I don't plan on doing it anytime soon, but if we were to do it, what would be our best course of action? Also, the good thing about creating a sub-article is that even more detail can be added to it! And perhaps I'll even try to nominate the sub-article for Good Article status too. ;) Pericles of AthensTalk 21:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd go with History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which tells us that the boundaries are those used at whatever time we're talking about. If we use "Ancient Macedonia" the title could be interpreted to mean "the history of the areas now or ever known as Macedonia" and we may waste a lot of time fighting off wild-eyed modern nationalist claims to various areas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's a really good point! History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) it is, then! Well, whenever I get around to it...I don't plan on creating the sub-article anytime soon. I'll certainly wait for the DYK nomination process to be finished before I even consider working on it. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with Richard Keatinge. The best could be History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in case this sub-article is ever made. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Small update: just letting everyone know that I have begun the perhaps long and arduous process of creating a summary "History" section for a "History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" article. I'm fleshing things out in one of my user sandbox pages, and hopefully I'll have it ready by the end of the week! This abridged version of the present "History" section will neatly summarize the new (and still hypothetical) "History" article, while retaining the most salient points. Just to be clear: nothing will be lost. All the content that you now see in the "History" section will be simply shifted over to the new split/sibling article and can be read there instead. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with Richard Keatinge. The best could be History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in case this sub-article is ever made. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've done it. I've created the new article! However, the work has really only just begun. So far I've only parsed down and summarized the first two sub-sections of the "History" section in this article. I'll see what I can do about cutting down the size of the other sub-sections and removing some extraneous material, in anticipation of a future Featured article candidacy. However, once that task is done, I think Wikipedia:Article size will no longer be an issue. Pericles of AthensTalk 10:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's a really good point! History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) it is, then! Well, whenever I get around to it...I don't plan on creating the sub-article anytime soon. I'll certainly wait for the DYK nomination process to be finished before I even consider working on it. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Seeking advice for moving material to split articles and summarizing it here, per WP:SIZE
Checking the prose size of this article, it contains about 15000 words. That's well over the 10,000 word limit suggested by Wikipedia:Article size. Mind you, it says that this can be justified with certain articles that have an enormous scope, but I don't know if it can be justified for this one. I have covered a lot of topics in this article, but it is possible to shift more material into split articles via Wikipedia:Summary style. For instance, I've just recently created the article History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Certainly more material can be shifted there, but I'm having difficulty deciding on what to keep here and how to summarize it appropriately without losing clarity or damaging the carefully-constructed narrative. Sometimes excising too much content is disruptive and hurts the article's ability to inform the reader. It's a delicate balance, though, since there's also the issue of readability for the average visitor to Wikipedia who just wants an abridged version of events in a history article. Any suggestions about specific content that should be kept, moved, minimized, reworded, etc.? Pericles of AthensTalk 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have drastically reduced the size of this article thus far, shifting roughly half of the material found in the "military" section over to the articles Ancient Macedonian army and Antigonid Macedonian army. However, the article is perhaps still a bit too big to be considered readable or navigable for average readers. I'm thinking about creating a new article called something like "Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" and shifting most of the material from the current "Institutions" section over there. Do you guys have any input or thoughts you might want to share about that? I could probably use some help. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I did it! I created the new article Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and shifted much of the material found in the "Institutions" section over to that new sub-article. I've also created links to that article in about a dozen related articles. I've tried my very best to remove details from the prose body of this article and shift whole sentences into new footnotes. At the very least I think the article is approaching an optimal size per WP:SIZE, given the incredible scope of the article and the multitude of subjects that require adequate coverage. I'm surprised that I've been able to remove so much detail thus far and yet maintain such a large article, but that's to be expected for a topic of this scale. Just to reiterate the various subjects that are covered, we have sections on etymology, history, government institutions, the military, language, religious beliefs, socio-economic class, visual arts, performing arts, literature and philosophy, sports and leisure, dining and cuisine, ethnic identity, architecture, military tech and technological engineering, currency, finances, and resources. That's a huge amount of items to discuss! Given all of that, I think my efforts to scale down the sheer size of the article have been a success and further efforts in that regard should involve only minor tasks. Removing too much detail from the article might actually damage and cheapen it, if not deny our readers with some critical information for fully understanding the topic. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the matter, though, before I push ahead with a Wikipedia:Featured articles nomination. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- In that regard, I'd like to hear the opinions of those who've shown a keen interest in this article, including @Cplakidas: @SilentResident: @Richard Keatinge: @Iazyges: @Finnusertop: @Johnbod: @Dr.K.: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Khirurg: @TaivoLinguist: @Alexikoua: @Kahastok: @Reaper7: @N.Panamevris: @Macedonian: @Furius: @Judist: @NickTheRipper: @Chris Troutman: @Wzrd1: @TU-nor: and @Pincrete:. I'd appreciate any and all feedback I can get. Thanks in advance! Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Amazingly fast work -- this from a two-fingered typist who still has to look at his keyboard and can produce one line of text in the time it takes you to produce two new articles. Ho hum. I think you're nearly ready for FA; but the section on social class and economy stands out to me as sketchy and incomplete. I don't know what's available to flesh it out, and quite naturally, most sources are concerned with the most influential, ambitious and powerful men; but that's a top-down approach. What about commoners? Do we have anything at all on the topic? Or anything on who qualified for citizenship and voting rights? I'd be very interested to read something more about the 90-odd percent of "ordinary" men (and women, naturally) who made up the bulk of the population. Haploidavey (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Haploidavey: that's a great question! I'm not sure if there's much more to say about social class, although ancient Macedonian economics are certainly fleshed out and given greater treatment in the final section of the article entitled "Currency, finances, and resources." Aside from farmers and soldiers, I gained the impression from Hatzopoulos (2011) and Anson (2010) that there isn't much known about other people of lower professions and stations in life. There's obviously a wealth of material about the aristocracy. I'll see what I can find, but I don't think you'll be too satisfied, since I believe the evidence is lacking. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just in case anyone's wondering, I'm most likely going to wait for my current Featured article nominee Sino-Roman relations to finish before I nominate this one. I think it would be too much to handle having two FA candidates at the same time. One thing I learned about the recent one, though, is that the licensing of images are a real concern. They are very pedantic about it, wanting several different public domain tags if it is marked as public domain, for instance (indicating unequivocally that it applies to the US and everywhere else). Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maps are also tricky when it comes to licensing and sourcing. Just today I had to fix the source info for a couple maps and replace one map entirely, i.e. the one showing Alexander's empire. If anyone spots anything else, please let me know! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm worried that if we trim the article too much, this will rather damage the article's quality than alleviate it of its sheer size. But if really has to be trimmed further for WP:SIZE, then it is a good idea to weight the sections of the article for their relation to the kingdom as a political entity, and see which sentences/sections relate less to the kingdom and more to its people (i.e. "Culture and society" section), since there is always the option to move and present some of this trimmed info in other articles (i.e. Ancient Macedonians). This could help alleviate a bit the article of some of its size. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good points. I wonder what further materials from the "Culture and society" section could be shifted over to the article "Ancient Macedonians" instead of creating some new article called "Society and culture of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)." I think we probably have enough split articles already with the new History and Government ones. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- We already worked hard to trim the language section when you first expanded this article. I'd say leave that section alone, it's already nice and neat with appropriate material in the other referenced articles that deal specifically with language. --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not the language sub-section that is the problem. I was thinking more the excessive size of perhaps the "religious beliefs and burial practices" section that could probably have some of its material shifted over to Ancient Macedonians, per Wikipedia:Summary style. The latter article does cover religion, so there's already a section for such material. Visual arts and performing arts could also probably be handled the same way, if only to parse this article down to get it within a more acceptable range according to WP:SIZE. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the paragraph on royal cult in the religion section could go, or be reduced to the first and last sentences - Alexander as Pharaoh and so on isn't all that relevant to Macedon itself and is covered in the article on him. Furius (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had the impression that religion played less a significant role in the Kingdom's affairs (except for the funerals of high ranked kingdom officials who passed away) rather it did in the daily life of the commonsfolk. For example the religious practices of the Macedonian kings are not as notable as their burials after death. Couldn't be more logical to keep info about the burial customs (since they relate more directly to the kingdom itself) than about religion of the commonsfolk? I know burials and religion are related to each other, but it feels like details about religion are just cluttering this article and rather should be limited (trimmed) abit. -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, similar to other sub-sections, I'm going to shift some material about religion into the article Ancient Macedonians, especially if it is not pertinent to the state. There are some things I will not touch, though, such as the statements about the patronage of temples and cults by the Macedonian kings (which is directly related to the state). I will also try to retain most of the info about royal burials. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had the impression that religion played less a significant role in the Kingdom's affairs (except for the funerals of high ranked kingdom officials who passed away) rather it did in the daily life of the commonsfolk. For example the religious practices of the Macedonian kings are not as notable as their burials after death. Couldn't be more logical to keep info about the burial customs (since they relate more directly to the kingdom itself) than about religion of the commonsfolk? I know burials and religion are related to each other, but it feels like details about religion are just cluttering this article and rather should be limited (trimmed) abit. -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the paragraph on royal cult in the religion section could go, or be reduced to the first and last sentences - Alexander as Pharaoh and so on isn't all that relevant to Macedon itself and is covered in the article on him. Furius (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not the language sub-section that is the problem. I was thinking more the excessive size of perhaps the "religious beliefs and burial practices" section that could probably have some of its material shifted over to Ancient Macedonians, per Wikipedia:Summary style. The latter article does cover religion, so there's already a section for such material. Visual arts and performing arts could also probably be handled the same way, if only to parse this article down to get it within a more acceptable range according to WP:SIZE. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- We already worked hard to trim the language section when you first expanded this article. I'd say leave that section alone, it's already nice and neat with appropriate material in the other referenced articles that deal specifically with language. --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good points. I wonder what further materials from the "Culture and society" section could be shifted over to the article "Ancient Macedonians" instead of creating some new article called "Society and culture of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)." I think we probably have enough split articles already with the new History and Government ones. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm worried that if we trim the article too much, this will rather damage the article's quality than alleviate it of its sheer size. But if really has to be trimmed further for WP:SIZE, then it is a good idea to weight the sections of the article for their relation to the kingdom as a political entity, and see which sentences/sections relate less to the kingdom and more to its people (i.e. "Culture and society" section), since there is always the option to move and present some of this trimmed info in other articles (i.e. Ancient Macedonians). This could help alleviate a bit the article of some of its size. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Haploidavey: that's a great question! I'm not sure if there's much more to say about social class, although ancient Macedonian economics are certainly fleshed out and given greater treatment in the final section of the article entitled "Currency, finances, and resources." Aside from farmers and soldiers, I gained the impression from Hatzopoulos (2011) and Anson (2010) that there isn't much known about other people of lower professions and stations in life. There's obviously a wealth of material about the aristocracy. I'll see what I can find, but I don't think you'll be too satisfied, since I believe the evidence is lacking. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I did it! I created the new article Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and shifted much of the material found in the "Institutions" section over to that new sub-article. I've also created links to that article in about a dozen related articles. I've tried my very best to remove details from the prose body of this article and shift whole sentences into new footnotes. At the very least I think the article is approaching an optimal size per WP:SIZE, given the incredible scope of the article and the multitude of subjects that require adequate coverage. I'm surprised that I've been able to remove so much detail thus far and yet maintain such a large article, but that's to be expected for a topic of this scale. Just to reiterate the various subjects that are covered, we have sections on etymology, history, government institutions, the military, language, religious beliefs, socio-economic class, visual arts, performing arts, literature and philosophy, sports and leisure, dining and cuisine, ethnic identity, architecture, military tech and technological engineering, currency, finances, and resources. That's a huge amount of items to discuss! Given all of that, I think my efforts to scale down the sheer size of the article have been a success and further efforts in that regard should involve only minor tasks. Removing too much detail from the article might actually damage and cheapen it, if not deny our readers with some critical information for fully understanding the topic. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the matter, though, before I push ahead with a Wikipedia:Featured articles nomination. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- We'll, I've succeeded in moving a bunch of stuff over to the new sub-articles History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) as well as the preexisting article Ancient Macedonians. However, the article's prose body is still about 80 KB (13,000 words). According to WP:SIZE#Size guideline, an article above 60 KB (10,000 or so words) should be split up into sub-articles, which has already been done. While it says it should be divided at that size, it also says that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." I think this article in its current incarnation is more than justified in having as much content as it does, especially after all the efforts editors, including myself, have done in minimizing the amount of material. The sheer amount of topics that are covered and given due weight also justify the article's current size. Your thoughts? Pericles of AthensTalk 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the rule of WP:SIZE should not be perceived in the sense that size has to be small just for the sake of being smaller. While comfortable navigation and reading are important, sometimes, exceptions can be made to that rule when the dilemma is between having a complete but bigger in size article, or an incomplete but smaller in size article. There are many articles which are as big in size as this one, and still retain their GA status, such as United States of America. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I totally agree, especially at this stage of progress in editing the article, with reasonably-sized summary sections for the new articles. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the article could probably remain fairly static from this point forward. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on the matter and gain Wikipedia:Consensus before moving forward with a Wikipedia:Featured articles candidacy. At the very least the article is now well-sourced and every image has appropriate copyright tags/licensing. That alone is a solid foundation for a successful Featured Article nominee. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone else want to comment on the recent shifting of content to the new sub-articles? Any and all feedback would be most welcome and I appreciate the input you guys have provided thus far. I want to make sure that we have a clear consensus here before I move on to the Featured Article nomination process. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just that I'm looking at all your hard work with awe and admiration. We seem to have a willing horse and I'm happy to applaud as you run the extra mile. I do agree that per WP:SIZE#Size guideline the shifting is a generally good idea, we want a series of digestible encyclopaedic articles not a single book-sized page. We may be heading for more than one FA. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with all of Richard Keatinge's points--especially about all of Pericles' hard work. --Taivo (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! I'll take that as an endorsement to move ahead with a Featured article nomination. My current nominee Sino-Roman relations is moving at such a snail's pace over there that it has convinced me that nominating this article for Featured status as of today wouldn't really hurt much. In my estimation and previous experience it might even take two or three months just to complete. There will be lots of feedback from regular reviewers over there, so don't become too alarmed if I start editing the article and making significant cuts according to their demands. I have a good number of featured articles under my belt, but I'd like to avoid another bitter, fruitless episode like the one I had with the nomination for History of the Han dynasty, a current Good Article but an ultimately failed Featured Article candidate. I have a feeling that, despite our consensus here and all the hard work that has been done shifting material over to the new sub-articles, there will probably be at least one or two detractors who will declare their opposition based solely on the fact that this is a larger article than usual. I will mention quite prominently in my candidacy's introduction that we achieved community consensus here about the article's current size. I hope that will hush up some of their potential grievances with having to read a larger article. If it becomes necessary to win the support of a more stubborn reviewer, I am willing to make further cuts to the "Society and culture" section (minus "language and dialects" as proposed by Taivo), but I will vehemently oppose any other cuts to the article. Wish me luck! All the best, Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good luck... not that you'll need it. What you've done here's truly heroic. Haploidavey (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! I'll take that as an endorsement to move ahead with a Featured article nomination. My current nominee Sino-Roman relations is moving at such a snail's pace over there that it has convinced me that nominating this article for Featured status as of today wouldn't really hurt much. In my estimation and previous experience it might even take two or three months just to complete. There will be lots of feedback from regular reviewers over there, so don't become too alarmed if I start editing the article and making significant cuts according to their demands. I have a good number of featured articles under my belt, but I'd like to avoid another bitter, fruitless episode like the one I had with the nomination for History of the Han dynasty, a current Good Article but an ultimately failed Featured Article candidate. I have a feeling that, despite our consensus here and all the hard work that has been done shifting material over to the new sub-articles, there will probably be at least one or two detractors who will declare their opposition based solely on the fact that this is a larger article than usual. I will mention quite prominently in my candidacy's introduction that we achieved community consensus here about the article's current size. I hope that will hush up some of their potential grievances with having to read a larger article. If it becomes necessary to win the support of a more stubborn reviewer, I am willing to make further cuts to the "Society and culture" section (minus "language and dialects" as proposed by Taivo), but I will vehemently oppose any other cuts to the article. Wish me luck! All the best, Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with all of Richard Keatinge's points--especially about all of Pericles' hard work. --Taivo (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just that I'm looking at all your hard work with awe and admiration. We seem to have a willing horse and I'm happy to applaud as you run the extra mile. I do agree that per WP:SIZE#Size guideline the shifting is a generally good idea, we want a series of digestible encyclopaedic articles not a single book-sized page. We may be heading for more than one FA. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone else want to comment on the recent shifting of content to the new sub-articles? Any and all feedback would be most welcome and I appreciate the input you guys have provided thus far. I want to make sure that we have a clear consensus here before I move on to the Featured Article nomination process. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I totally agree, especially at this stage of progress in editing the article, with reasonably-sized summary sections for the new articles. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the article could probably remain fairly static from this point forward. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on the matter and gain Wikipedia:Consensus before moving forward with a Wikipedia:Featured articles candidacy. At the very least the article is now well-sourced and every image has appropriate copyright tags/licensing. That alone is a solid foundation for a successful Featured Article nominee. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the rule of WP:SIZE should not be perceived in the sense that size has to be small just for the sake of being smaller. While comfortable navigation and reading are important, sometimes, exceptions can be made to that rule when the dilemma is between having a complete but bigger in size article, or an incomplete but smaller in size article. There are many articles which are as big in size as this one, and still retain their GA status, such as United States of America. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
A quibble about the language section
I'll join in the congratulations to User:PericlesofAthens and others who have participated in the recent development of the article, but I have one quibble about the current wording in the "lnnguage" section: The sentence "Rare epigraphic evidence indicates that the native Macedonian language was either a dialect of Greek similar to Thessalian Greek and Northwestern Greek,[290] or a language closely related to Greek" evidently tries to strike a reasonable balance in the tired old POV debate, but it's in fact not quite accurate. The reasons for the "language closely related to Greek" position are not, as far as I know, based on epigraphic evidence. The relevant evidence on the side of foreign, non-Greek status comes more from literary, historiographical and lexicographical sources. The only truly epigraphic piece of the puzzle is the Pella curse tablet, and that of course falls plainly on the "Greek dialect" side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps that wording can be changed to "rare textual evidence"? That should maintain the balance and be more accurate. "Textual" implies a broader range of documentation than just epigraphic. --Taivo (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Taivo! I wrote my response below before seeing yours here (or rather, was in the middle of writing my response when you had given yours). I think that your suggestion here would make a fine compromise. More importantly, it reflects what the sources have to say. As you can see in the block quote below, Hatzopoulos makes a single reference to "epigraphic evidence", yet he uses the terms "texts", "documents", and "inscriptions" thereafter. --Pericles of AthensTalk 10:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, "textual" is minor enough to be irrelevant for the FA nomination, but inclusive enough to address Future's concern. I don't think Future's intent was to rewrite the section, but to simply be more accurate about the nature of the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Textual sounds good and summarizes all thee other words into one. --SILENTRESIDENT 23:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, "textual" is minor enough to be irrelevant for the FA nomination, but inclusive enough to address Future's concern. I don't think Future's intent was to rewrite the section, but to simply be more accurate about the nature of the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Taivo! I wrote my response below before seeing yours here (or rather, was in the middle of writing my response when you had given yours). I think that your suggestion here would make a fine compromise. More importantly, it reflects what the sources have to say. As you can see in the block quote below, Hatzopoulos makes a single reference to "epigraphic evidence", yet he uses the terms "texts", "documents", and "inscriptions" thereafter. --Pericles of AthensTalk 10:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Pericles' reply
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: hello again! Thanks for giving your congratulations. As for the chosen wording in the "language and dialects" section, that was the compromise made by User:TaivoLinguist and I, which included the removal of any mention of the Pella curse tablet. Discussion of this, along with similarly verbose scholarly debate, was shifted into footnotes and the appropriate sub-articles "Ancient Macedonians" and "Ancient Macedonian language" where that material can be given its full context. I cited multiple authors in the footnotes of that single sentence you have mentioned and basically provided a collective summary of what they had to say. For instance, here is an extract of Hatzopoulos (2011, p. 44): Pericles of AthensTalk 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The origin of the Macedonians themselves has, for more than a century, been the object of a lively debate, in which scientific considerations are sometimes inextricably intermingled with ulterior motives of a political nature. Macedonian authors, like most Greek writers of the late classical and Hellenistic period, used the Attic koine instead of their local dialect, while conclusive epigraphic evidence concerning the ancient Macedonian speech was not forthcoming. Inscriptions discovered in Macedonia were both rare and late, dating from after the reign of Philip II, who had introduced the Attic koine as the official idiom of his administration. We therefore had to rely on the contradictory evidence of ancient authors, who may have not been immune to political considerations when they stressed the common origin and common language of the Macedonians and the other Greeks or when they denied it. As for the collection of glosses, that is rare words attributed by ancient authors to various foreign and Greek peoples, among which feature the Macedonians, their ex hypothesi exotic nature and the uncertainty of the manuscript tradition deprives them of a large measure of their value as evidence. In the last thirty years the discovery, systematic collection and publication of a large number of inscriptions, sometimes of an early date, has made it possible to study in perspective proper names and technical terms that preserve phonetic and morphological features, as well as their divergences from the norms of the koine. Very recently a couple of longer texts entirely written in the local idiom have come to light and been published. They leave no doubt that Macedonian was a Greek dialect presenting affinities partly with the dialects attested in the inscriptions of Thessaly and partly with those known from documents discovered in north-western Greece. Moreover its phonology seems to have been influenced to a limited extent by the languages of the conquered peoples, in which the distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants tended to be blurred.
So then, as you can see we're not talking about a single piece of evidence, ala the Pella curse tablet, but actually a range of Macedonian inscriptions in not-so-standard Koine Greek that betray some elements of the native Macedonian tongue as well. On top of that Hatzopoulos mentions the two longer texts written entirely in the native Macedonian language, no doubt a reference to both the Pella Curse Tablet AND the binding spell of Oraiokastro dated to the 4th century BC. The "conquered peoples" he mentions are the Illyrians, Thracians, and even the Phrygians, who seem to have had some influence on the development of native Macedonian (at the very least some loanwords). Hypothetically speaking, all of this could be explained in the language section, but again, its presently terse wording is a reflection of the heated compromise that I had made with TaivoLinguist. I would request that we refrain from going down that road again, given how I have just nominated this article for Featured status. If you have a better suggestion on how to word that sentence, I am all ears, but rewriting the sub-section in any way will need consensus here first. The discussion must include Taivo at the very least, since it was he who had raised most of the major grievances about that sub-section in the past. Pericles of AthensTalk 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Featured article!
Hurray! The article has finally achieved its featured status!!! I want to thank everyone here involved in consensus-building and who helped bring the article to its current form. Our efforts have been rewarded. Kindest regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am so sorry I didn't notice this sooner! I was very busy in real life these days, that didn't allow me to check the developments here and on many other articles. I am very happy to see this being realized! Impressive feat, Pericles of Athens! Congratulations!!! --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- No problem! It's the summer. People are busy. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! Cheers. --Pericles of AthensTalk 13:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Impressive feat" would probably be an understatement IMO. Well fcking done, PericlesofAthens! Was a pleasure reading! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- The beautiful work that you, PericlesofAthens have put into this - and the sheer amount of it - was a happy shock that made me wake from my slumber! And in a more self-indulgent note, I was happy that much of the wording of my contributions in the lead was kept. I am really happy how you and others helped evolve this corner of the wiki from a battle arena to a construction site. I would have never imagined such an improvement when I tagged some of the sections of the article as requiring expansion. Boy what a treat! Cheers! Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Impressive feat" would probably be an understatement IMO. Well fcking done, PericlesofAthens! Was a pleasure reading! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- No problem! It's the summer. People are busy. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! Cheers. --Pericles of AthensTalk 13:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I hate to sound like an advertiser, but if you like these articles, you may be interested in others I've written and/or made major contributions towards, all of which are now either Featured or Good articles:
- Sino-Roman relations (now a Featured article)
- Mosaics of Delos (a Good article under peer review)
- Ethiopian historiography (a Good article, shooting for future FA)
- And of course all the sub-articles for Macedon: Ancient Macedonians, Rise of Macedon, History and Government. These are all currently part of a "Good Topic" nomination, the progress of which you can check by using the link at the top of the talk page, or simply clicking here! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @PericlesofAthens: jesus, what are you trying to be, an online billboard?!!!1 Just reported you per WP:NOTADVERTISING.
- Lel.
- ...Thanks much for linking those articles man. I had already seen Sino-Roman relations before. Its really well written. I just made a start with Ethopian historiography; it contains so much information of which I knew barely anything. I hope to make a start with Mosaics of Delos these days as well. Keep up the great work! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Shadowmorph and LouisAragon: thanks for the kind words! I appreciate the praise and am humbled by it. I'd like to work on other related articles like Ancient Macedonian language, but perhaps not anytime soon. I'm juggling other projects at the moment, namely Mosaics of Delos and Ethiopian historiography that I mentioned above. I might even work on another Chinese history article (for instance, finally creating a History of the Tang dynasty article to complement my Tang dynasty FA), or even something related to my FA on Ancient Egyptian literature. I've been itching to improve articles on Roman emperors for a long time, in line with my FA on Augustus. Beyond that, the articles on the Macedonian dynasties (i.e. the Argead dynasty, Antipatrid dynasty, and Antigonid dynasty) could use some work. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Split
I'm sure I am not the first to bring this up but ...
To me this article needs to be split out, in much the same way we have Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc. There are very important periods here that merit their own articles. Simply merging all of these into one article at best does not allow adequate discussion of each.
I would propose something like:
- Macedonian Kingdom - pre-Alexandrian kingdom
- Macedonian Empire - Alexandrian period (short but still of massive historical significance)
- Hellenistic Macedonia - post-Ipsus kingdom through Roman acquisition
The correct historiographical terminology is debatable, of course, and I have no strong preference. But I do believe having distinct articles is important.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to create sub-articles if that's what you'd like to do, but I see no reason to downsize the article in its current form or split it into others. This article is a Featured one and as such has reached wide community consensus on its present form; it is even part of a larger Good Topic (see the banners above on this talk page). It also already has a History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) sub-article where you can find a lot more details about the history of the kingdom. That being said, we really do need a separate sub-article for the empire of Alexander, which was admittedly short-lived, but it was at least held together for a time after his death. As such, it deserves its own article, at the very least a sub-article of this one. That does mean, however, that you are permitted to gut this one or alter it in any way, shape, or form aside from adding a link where appropriate to the hypothetical new article on Alexander's empire. In the meantime, we do have suitable articles that cover the subsequent Seleucid Empire, the Ptolemaic Empire, the Attalid dynasty, Hellenistic Greece, and the Hellenistic period more generally. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- A point of order: The "you are permitted" statement is a strawman. I did not suggest unilateral action, and more to the point, I think you know I was not saying that. And equally important, it is not in your purview to dictate terms.
- Anyway, I have no problem maintaining a master article. But I would argue that if the sub-articles are set up, then the current breadth of coverage in this one would become somewhat redundant. In other words, before going down the road of creating sub-articles it is worth coming to some consensus on what the overall organization is intended to be.
- -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Excuse me for being blunt, but since you are not a regular editor here and didn't mention anything about community consensus (only a desire to split apart an already Featured article), I simply assumed the worst: that you intended to take the concept of WP:BOLD and make massive cuts, edits and rearrangements. As for me dictating terms, that's obviously not how it works, but since I'm one of the chief editors of this article (and the one who nominated it for FA status), I felt the need to weigh in and would strongly oppose any significant changes without a very carefully-constructed plan outlined here on the talk page and with full community consensus. In fact, you can go ahead and mark me down as the first strong oppose to such an idea.
- I'm not sure if you are new or very familiar with Wikipedia so I hope it isn't condescending that I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:SUMMARY and other such guidelines. Just because one article on a similar or related topic covers a certain subject does not mean another related article cannot cover it as well (i.e. in regards to your statement: "But I would argue that if the sub-articles are set up, then the current breadth of coverage in this one would become somewhat redundant."). I don't think there would be any redundancy whatsoever. I think sub-articles are perfectly capable of exploring a specific, niche topic in greater detail. The main article, i.e. this one, can stay perfectly intact the way it is. It does not need to change because some other related article exists and covers a related topic more thoroughly. Since the Kingdom of Macedon existed virtually unbroken, but with three major dynasties, from its inception until the Roman conquest, there's no need to split this article, even if sub-articles were made focusing on specific eras. Your comparison to ancient Rome is rather moot, I would argue, because the Roman Kingdom, the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire, and the medieval Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire) represented significant governmental changes that warrant separate articles, not just sub-articles for the article "Ancient Rome".
- Of course, I'd like to see the opinions of others here and their arguments. It's at least an interesting proposal, even though I firmly disagree with it. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- For the reasons already stated by PericlesofAthens, I too strongly oppose to a split of the article. Macedonian (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also oppose any splitting of this article; and with all due respect to the IP, I think they're missing the point - or rather, seem to have reversed the more usual notion of how a core article (or general article, if you prefer) should function. Breadth of coverage is essential. I can't for the moment see any section which overdoes the depth of coverage and should therefore be whittled back. Of course, that's not to say that sub-articles can't be spun off from various sections, but I can't see how splitting a well-integrated core article would help an interested reader. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)