This WikiProject's subject is featured in the Outline of Greece, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of sourcing and cleaning up the romanization of Greek article. The current Wikitable defaults are producing a rather drab gray mess and I'm curious if there are accepted sky and pale blue colors to use for Greek-related tables. If not, how about coming up with a standard for us to apply? — LlywelynII 10:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Inaccurate language map used for wrong purposes
The map "File:Griechisch Isoglossen 1900.png" (Map 1), showing the Modern Greek dialectual isoglosses, seems completely inaccurate to me concerning the distribution of Arvanitika (white area in the middle). The reasons:
Euboea: It's well known that in Euboea the Arvanitic communities are limited in the southern part of the island, in the region of Karystia. Even in this region the largest towns, Karystos and Marmari - and their surrounding areas - are not Arvanitic. But this map not only presents Karystia as purely Arvanitic, but - interestingly - the "white Arvanitic area" is expanded in more than half Euboea. Maybe it's the first map that shows Arvanitika as the prevailing language in central Euboea, including the area from Chalkis to Aliveri(!), since there were never Arvanitic villages to the west of Aliveri (Aliveri wasn't Arvanitic either).
Boeotia: Boeotia is the main Arvanitika-speaking region of Greece. Only a small part of western Boeotia around the Mount Parnassus isn't Arvanitic. But - interestingly again - only a small part of eastern Boeotia, in the borders with Attica, is included in this white area.
Argolis: Argolis is a region with strong Arvanite presence, but in this map it's also excluded from the white area.
This white area, which doesn't correspond to the the actual distribution of Arvanitika, implies that Greek wasn't spoken in these areas, let alone Northern Greece which is totally excluded from the Greek-speaking world, as well as part of Thessaly.
My point: There are some linguistic maps of Greece in Wikimedia Commons here that are more precise regarding the distribution of Arvanitika. This map doesn't correspond to other historical-linguistic maps. Since it shows the isoglosses, it shouldn't be used to show the geographical distribution of Arvanitika. I insist that there are much more accurate maps for this purpose (like Map 2), which could be used in the related articles. Map 2 is used in articles such as Greece, Demographics of Greece, Minorities in Greece, Languages of Greece, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, but for a weird reason it isn't used in the article "Arvanitika", where a map of isoglosses (Map 1) was uncannily preferred! In my opinion Map 1 shouldn't be used anymore. Any opinions? --Ymaea (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Your are obviously better informed than I on the issue, but anyhow the two maps are not really comparable with each other. It would be wrong to use a map on Greek isoglosses to show minority language areas, because the context is totally different. I'd say always use the dedicated map for the minority languages (which is created by a respected and very knowledgeable editor in the field, Future Perfect at Sunrise), except when the specific context warrants the use of the isogloss map. Ideally, however, you or someone with knowledge in the field should edit the isogloss map and correct its mistakes/omissions.Constantine✍ 08:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed. I can not find any reason to use the first map instead of the second one for language distribution in Greece. Ymaea's objections are very reasonable. Map 1 has some issues that are not supported by other maps. Sthenel (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)