From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Corfu was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 5, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Headline text[edit]

This page is useless all i want to no is what the population of corfu was in 1991 and i cant find it grrrrr i hate this page!!!!

  • The population for 1991 is given under the "Population" section. Paul Weaver 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know how many public libraries and also how many of any other type of library is in Corfu

Thinalio is wrong !!![edit]

This word should be edited, the correct name is Thinali. I live in this municipality and would like to create an article about it but I will not do it under the false name Thinalio which is not correct. Someone edit it please into Thinali. I have already created a website about it in greek under the url Even the official site of the Thinali Municipality defines itsself as Thinali: Viruswitch 13:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you edit it yourself, then? This is "a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit". Duja 08:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Errrr, I dont know how to edit it? Maybe I should give it a try. The problem was that it has been marked and linked as a requested article, if I edit it the wrong page "thinalio" might still exist. Anyway, let me try. Viruswitch 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There, I fixed it. You have "Edit this page" tab at every page, as well as [Edit] links at every article's section. From there, the procedure is pretty self-telling, especially if you want only to correct the spelling and minor errors. Target page Thinalio did not exist, as the link was red, as is Thinali as well. Duja 07:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) I wonder how we can edit the box with the "Municipalities of the prefecture of Corfu" at the bottom of the page. It still has a Thinalio in there. I cant see it in edit page thought. Viruswitch 08:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ionian University[edit]

When the author says "now" in the following passage, what exactly is here meant? Now means when?

"Corfu now also has a university named University of Corfu

Born and raised in Corfu, I have not heard of this University. We have here the Ionian University, which also has its own site online in english: ( Viruswitch 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Corfu Town[edit]

"The town is as mundane as Rome, looks like Venice and has the flair of Cuba."

What does this mean? How is Corfu as mundane as Rome? Where are the canals? I didn't know Cuba had a flair.

World War I[edit]

I just can't believe that there is absolutely no trace of Serbian army and people being on Corfu during WWI. It was the great exodus of Serbs to Corfu under Austro-Hungarian invasion on Serbia and the army and the people were transported to this island by the Allied ships to heal, rest and regroup. After returning to front line fron Corfu, Serbian army broke through Thessaloniki front and that was the beginning of the end of WWI.BJovan 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I've removed all of the "promotional" images from tourism websites. We have plenty of free, reusable images for this article at Wikimedia Commons, and no excuse to publish work done by photographers for the purpose of making other websites more appealing. I'd like to encourage editors here to be more cautious in their usage of unfreely-copyrighted media in the future. Jkelly 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are no equivalent images to those that you removed in the Commons. I checked Commons prior to searching for those images. Wikipedia has the promotional images category for a reason, to illustrate items that are not available in its image database, removing them this way without even attempting any discussion is uncalled for. Dr.K. 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert unfree image cleanup in the future. Jkelly 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I provided a fair use rationale this time. The matter must go to mediation. Dr.K. 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing my images without warning. This is counter to consensus building in Wikipedia. Dr.K. 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Concern about the images in this article were brought to Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Overusage_of_fair-use_images a couple of days ago. These are not, in any way, "your" images. They are the work of people who expect to be paid when they are published. Unfree content uploaded to Wikimedia projects may be deleted if not absolutely essential. This usage is not even remotely close to being essential. You have been pointed to free, reuable content that anyone can use to illustrate this article. Please be more careful about republishing copyrighted media here. Jkelly 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
First, let me make clear that I used the words my images to denote that they were uploaded by me not that they were mine. If they were mine I would have used a different license tag and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Second, when you first deleted the images it would have helped if you attached the link you provided above so that I had a frame of reference. Now that I understand the nature of the debate I can make a better decision.
Third, I disagree with your opinion that these images were not essential. Without going into a debate about the History of Corfu, it is sufficient to point out that the few images that Wikipedia commons has don't even come close to provide a satisfactory pictorial account of the island's history. I know one Achilles statue looks exactly like another to the external observer as well as churches, palaces etc. but my intention was not to make the article into a postcard. Historical accuracy needs appropriate images and in Wikipedia commons the material needed for the article such as pictures of the Venetian Blazons, St. George's church the only Doric style church in Corfu, St. Spyridon's bell tower in Liston etc. etc. is simply not there. To imply that these images are interchangeable with the Achilleion pictures and a few others in Wikipedia commons is simply wrong on many levels.
Fourth, if Wikipedia has such a problem then it should issue clearer guidelines. Edit reversals without warning is not an adequate substitute for policy. Dr.K. 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
They are the work of people who expect to be paid when they are published. Those people are not entitled to be paid for a fair use of a work - that's not part of their package of rights. Please let me know if you'd like me to provide an appropriate legal decision on this matter. no excuse to publish work done by photographers for the purpose of making other websites more appealing was not the purpose of the images, as has been amply explained already, both here and in the image captions. That purpose was to illustrate aspects of Corfu, not solely for decoration. Kindly apply the law as it is, not as you might wish it to be. You appear to have a motive here in favor of more strong authors rights that seems to be interfering with your judgment on Wikipedia issues. Jamesday 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I do have feelings about author's rights. You seem to have strong feelings about United States fair use doctrine. Neither of those feelings matter much. We work within Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. It is possible for a freely-licensed, reusable image to be created to replace these objects. Our interest here is to create a free, reusable encyclopedia, not to milk whatever we can out of other people's work under one country's law. Jkelly 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jamesday. The points he makes are reasonable and fair as well as culturally sensitive and perceptive. I also think that the problem here is that Jkelly is being too proactive in defending authors' rights against established use of US fair use tags in Wikipedia. People use these tags for valid reasons and because they are available to use. Jkelly's vision of an imagewise self sufficient Wikipedia is not bad, but cannot be done overnight and at light speed using a couple of unfortunate articles. If Wikipedia wishes to ban use of fair use images so be it. But we have to agree on this change of policy as a community and not by unannounced wholesale removal of images based on short discussions. Dr.K. 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't "an unfortunate article", that I chose at random as part of a campaign for "authors' rights". What happened here is that another editor came to Wikipedia talk:Fair use with specific concern about the overuse of unfree content in this article. Three different editors looked at the article and agreed it was a problem. I removed the unfree content. There's a story being told here about my motivations and the status of these images that is rapidly heading towards fantasy. Jkelly 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


There are a number of places where the writing is too clever or cute, and others where there is boosterism:

  • and being a god dispensed with the usual formalities of asking her hand from dad (a lowly river after all as compared to Poseidon's mighty oceans),
  • Myth, romance and beauty, with a sprinkling of adventure for good measure, centred around the element of water have been the hallmarks of the island ever since, fittingly called the emerald isle to this day
  • every rising power in the region started to want of a piece of the action in Corfu
  • things settled quite a bit

That's just from the long article lead. It is possible to be both compelling and formal at the same time. Jkelly 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we are talking about introducing Corfu mythologically. Mythology is sometimes lighthearted. I tried to convey that. Don't forget that this section deals with a rather light subject. It is not a Shakespearean play analysis. Dr.K. 22:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not logging in; this is just a brief note about the "venetian blazons": the lion mentioned here is the lion of Saint Mark, the symbol of Venice both at home an in its overseas territories. The book is the Bible and refers to the fact that Saint Mark was an Evangelist, a Gospel author. You will find the book in every instance of the lion, not just in Corfù.

Music and festivities[edit]

The photo under the music and festivities section is a picture of an austrian band who visited Corfu a couple of years ago and not the Old Philharmonic (photos of the Old Philharmonic can be found on the band's website ( Also, the Funeral March from Beethoven's Eroica is played by the Capodistria Philharmonic not the Old Philharmonic. Sorry I'm only reporting these and not correcting them myself but I don't know how. Thank you. 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Naus194.219.255.38 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption to a marching band some time ago. I'll change it to an Austrian band. This band visited again this August 2006. That's when the picture was taken. Dr.K. 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the caption. Thanks for the info. Dr.K. 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed the Philharmonic details as well. Ευχαριστώ. Dr.K. 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Highest point[edit]

The text article says that the highest point is in the mountain range of San Salvador at 1000 metres, but if you click on the link for Mount Pantokrator the highest point is at 914 metres. Anyone know which is correct?

Pantokrator at 914, I'm pretty sure. Duja 09:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It is Pantokrator at 914. Dr.K. 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Took out the 1000m. Thanks. Dr.K. 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Corfu[edit]

I am not sure how to add it, but here it is if anyone has time: -Reaper7 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Reaper7! The flag is already on Wikipedia at and the reason why it is not in use here is because this article is about the Geographical Feature of Corfu itself, and not an actual region or city. It is in use in Corfu (city), which is the actual city. Thank you for the suggestion! Jacsam2 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Name Origin[edit]

There seems to be some misleading or conflicting statements regarding the origin of the name "Corfu": ".. its name is connected to two powerful water symbols" versus "The name Corfu is an Italian corruption of the Byzantine Κορυφώ (Koryphō), meaning city of the peaks, which is derived from the Greek Κορυφαί (Koryphai), meaning Crests or Peaks, denoting the two peaks of the fortresses that enclose the city." gnomelock 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No conflict exists. The two references refer to the two versions of the island's name: The Greek version: Kerkyra which is connected to the two water symbols (father and suitor) and the foreign version Corfu which derives from the peaks etc. Dr.K. 07:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless I clarified same in article. Thanks for the suggestion. Au revoir. Dr.K. 07:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Corfu incident (1923)[edit]

A little information regarding the 1923 Corfu incident would be nice. The article about this incident is also very short. Valentinian T / C 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into this. Good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. Tasos (Dr.K. 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Any map??[edit]

Could we add a map? we need a map.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onur prg (talkcontribs) 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Here are a few:

Valentinian T / C 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian! What a nice surprise! I'm so glad to see you here of all places! It's been such a long time. How are you? Thanks for the great pics. I'll take the map and replace the satellite photo that doesn't look very informative. Take care. Dr.K. 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual and I'm glad you could use the map. Jkelly is right, this article has come a long way and it looks very promising. I'm fine myself, but unfortunately I have very little editing time at the moment as I'm working on my master's. Take care. Jesper. Valentinian T / C 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
All the best for your Master's and then onward to PhD! Your scholarship is such that this won't be very difficult. Let's keep in touch. Au revoir. Tasos (Dr.K. 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

State of article[edit]

This article has come a long way, and is really quite good. It may be time to take it to Wikipedia:Peer review to expose it to more editors and solicit feedback. Jkelly 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JK. You are the admin. you start this up. I hate procedural matters ;). Dr.K. 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to reduce the file size of the topo map from 3.1mb? I'm still new here, I don't know how to do that. Thanks! Karanne (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The expert to ask is Sting. Dr.K. (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance and article rating[edit]

This article keeps getting rated as start class after its original classification as B class. It also gets rated as Mid importance after its original classification as top importance. I think we need a discussion on these two subjects to avoid this reversion game going on. Dr.K. 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were to assess the article, I would rate it as Start class with an importance of Mid as per the assessment criteria found here. For example, the article is missing inline citations in a large part of the article and it is also missing an infobox. I propose modifying the tag above thusly: {{WikiProject Greece|class=Start|importance=mid|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=no}}
--Kimontalk 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kimon. Additionally, the importance is no higher than Mid. If every article is Top importance, then nothing is important. This has been discussed on the project talk page. Argos'Dad 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about the "importance" (why do we even do that?), but the assessment makes no sense to me. This is a mature article, so why is it being labelled "start class"? Does the infobox not have enough flag icons or something? Jkelly 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jkelly. Lack of an infobox does not disqualify an article of B status. Lack of citations in certain segments is not a determining criterion either. Clearly the artcicle is B class going for A status after suitable peer review. See discussion in state of the article section above.
As far as importance other than the facts that Corfu was the cradle of free Greek civilisation during the 400 years that Greece was under Turkish occupation, gave Greece its first Governor, first University, European culture, withstood repeated assaults during the Middle ages as a bulwark of Western civilisation and Byzantium etc., nothing really important about Corfu. Dr.K. 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The assessment was not based on missing flags in the infobox, it was based on the total lack of one. Now there is one, which is great. As for missing the inline citations, I don't think it would be a problem if it weren't for entire sections being almost completely unreferenced. Such as Geography and urban landscape. Finally, as per the WPGR quality scale, B class criterion #1 is It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited and B class criterion #5 is It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
As for the importance of the article (if we do decide as a project to keep it) it remains a Mid or at best High because as per the WPGR importance scale it meets the requirement of Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area (for Mid) or Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent (for High). --Kimontalk 01:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a good discussion to have, but I would encourage everyone to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#Priority since it is a project-wide guideline. Taso, no one is trying to denigrate Corfu (or any other place in Greece) but there is a hierarchy of importance of the article to all of human knowledge. Everything can't be Top importance or even High importance. Based on the foregoing discussion, I will revert the Class to Start and the importance to Mid. Argos'Dad 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot possibly agree with this reversion in the middle of a discussion. I don't even understand why we are having it. It is redundant and unnecessary, but since we are having it anyway Wikipedia etiquette demands that we don't do reversions in the middle of the discussion without achieving anything approaching consensus. The original assessment of the article was B with top priority. It should be left that way until a consensus emerges otherwise. As far as the Geography and urban landscape section the geography of Corfu is widely known. A few citations lacking in this area are hardly reason to downgrade this great and comprehensive article, one of the best about Corfu on the web or elsewhere including Encyclopaedia Britannica, to the silly, for its calibre, start status. And why all this rush to judgement? What makes it so urgent that we have to revert the original assessment of this article in mid discussion without achieving anything approaching consensus in total breach of Wikipedia tradition? Dr.K. 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let's not exaggerate the importance of this ratings. These are tools that make easier our life here, and help to: 1) the categorization of articles, 2) the amelioration of articles. To the point:
  • In the scale of importance I would rate the article as "high", although "top" is not completely unjustifiable (the island is internationally recognized), but, personally, I reserve the "top" rating for topics of panhellenic interest (see also the examplaes given in the project's "priority scheme"). But can we also dismiss "mid"? Again, this discussion here proves that as good as we may write down these importance criteria (and I think that Kimon, Michalis and Argos'Dad did a great job, and we should stick to the current phrasing we adopted to the project after extensive discussion), there are always some cases, allowing more than one ratings, and being interpreted in a different way by different users. This is somethink that I am afraid we cannot resolve; it is inherent to a system run by people with different subjective estimation of things - we can find a common ground in most things but nor everywhere. After all, do not forget that some projects do not focus their attention so much on the importance scale. I think that MILHIST do not even have such a rating. More important is the quality rating. Then, let's speak about it.
  • I proposed in the past, and nobody objected the adoption of the B-class criteria that first the MILHIST project introduced. One of this five criteria is the proper citing (I do not focus so much on the infobox - the article fulfils other parametres of this criterion, such as photos). When whole sections of this article are uncited, it is clear that "Corfu" article do not adhere to this criterion. With the addition of some more citations, so as all the sections to have some sources, the B assessment is fair. But, right now, I would also rate it as "start". In any case, again this is not an "official" rating. GA and FA are the "official" ratings of Wikipedia. So, the solution here is IMO simple, in order to make this disagreement here redundant: the editors of the article further to improve it, cite it properly, work a bit on the prose, fix some extremely long captions, and then submit it to WP:GA. If the article achieves GA status, then nobody will be able to question unilaterally its status.--Yannismarou 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yannis thanks as always for your well considered points. I agree with your comments (and Kimon's high end estimate) on setting the importance of the article as high as well as the need for further citations. I will not argue this subject further especially with a valued friend with whom I basically agree. I thought I was going to take it easy for a while here but now I found a new job trying to find citations and fix captions etc. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. 12:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think that Yannis' proposal is the best and would put this issue to rest. If the article does achieve GA status (and I hope it does), then we can debate to our hearts' content on the priority/importance of it :) --Kimontalk 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Kimon. Your suggestions about improving the article are valuable (I withdraw my comment about technicalities that I made on the project page) and I will use them to further improve the article. One last request though. In the Greek Nomos infoboxes I noticed that the image caption doesn't appear even if present, as for example in the Mykonos article, the caption, in edit mode, is Hora but it doesn't appear in the article view. Since I would like to put a caption under the Pontikonisi picture I would appreciate if you could fix this. Thanks and take care. Τάσος (Dr.K. 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Skyline caption[edit]

I think it done now. The parameter for the caption under the skyline image is caption_skyline --Kimontalk 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's great. I appreciate the fast response. Take care. Τάσος (Dr.K. 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Uncited sentence removed[edit]

The following sentence was removed because it was uncited: The significant Italian-speaking minority also mainly left and in many cases was expelled and Italian property appropriated by force. If reliable citations can be found it will be restored. Dr.K. 00:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Early History[edit]

Should the sentence ... 'This opposition came to a head in the early part of the 7th century, when their fleets fought the first naval battle recorded in Greek history (about 664 BC)' ... refer to "the 7th century", when the date is actually BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Fixed.Dr.K. 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Which historical source mention that Phaecians where the first inhabitants of the Corfu? (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the local tradition Corcyra was the Homeric island of Scheria, and its earliest inhabitants the Phaeacians. and [1]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Feudum Acinganorum[edit]

I can't find a lot on this. Is it real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's here: Feudum Acinganorum. Good point. Dr.K. (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive number of headings[edit]

Really should be cut down or new subarticles created. Look at featured article such as Sarajevo or New York City. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Michellecrisp for your fast reply. I'll study these articles and see what can be done. If you have any ideas (and the time!) about this please go ahead and reorganise as well. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No problems! we're probably in different time zones but that's the global nature of the internet! I think the History of Corfu deserves its own article. given that it has a long and significant history. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Your idea about making History a separate article is something that I considered in the past as well. The French Wikipedia has a separate History article for example. But the French "History of Corfu" article is really comprehensive and of greater depth than the current history material contained in this article. I think with proper care so as not to completely strip the article of a history component, a segment can be moved to the new History article. However History segments that are already small will not contribute too much to a new article. They would need to be expanded and researched further so as to be comprehensive and stand on their own rather than just being snipets of info. A simple copy and paste job will not be satisfactory. This is the main reason why I did not as yet imitate the French example. Dr.K. (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above, but you can start and then eventually build up to its own solid article. Am also thinking of moving notable people into its own article as seen on many city articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both your points. Please start as required and I will help along the way. Thanks and talk to you soon. Dr.K. (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it due to lack of in-line citations. Here are some things to improve before renomination:

  • Add in-line citations to the text.\
  • Take care of all citation needed tags.
  • Only the first word and subsequent proper nouns should be cap in headers
  • Read MOS:BOLD for appropriate times to use bolding.
  • The bullets in Corfu in film and myth should be turned into prose.
  • The references should be formatted with Template:cite web.

Good luck improving the article in the future. Nikki311 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" Achilleion section[edit]

There is an article on Achilleion (Corfu) which contains ALL the references. I even put the pictures of some of the references on the Achilleion (Corfu) article. They are the information windows at the Achilleion site. They contain all the history of Achilleion and if you magnify the pictures you can read the text. There is no reason to repeat this information here. Please stop tagging the Achilleion section here as unreferenced. Dr.K. (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience[edit]

For your convenience please refer to the table below:

Picture Comment
Greek National Tourist Organisation information window at the Achilleion Grounds
For your convenience I put the picture with the history of the Achilleion here. Just enlarge the picture and read the text. This is the main reference. It is located outside the gates of Achilleion.
Sterbender Achilles with Herter 1884 Berlin signature detail at the Achilleion Palace
You can also click on the Achilles picture to see the signature of its creator sculptor Ernst Gustav Herter .
thumb|300px|Triumphant Achilles (linked only due to copyright restrictions)]

The picture of triumphant Achilles as described in the section

A wrestler, (one of a pair), in the Garden of Achilleion. The view of the surrounding hills can be seen in the background
And you can see the hills and valleys from the Achilleion Gardens in this picture

Tourism section[edit]

Most of this section is unreferenced. I'll give it a month or so and if no citations are found the tagged claims will be removed. Dr.K. (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New Link on infobox[edit]

I was reverted a few times recently with this being the latest revert. This website appears to be official but has many tourist links such as hotels and tourist activities and I consider it for this reason not to be up to encyclopedic standards. Anyway I consider such a link not to be a good candidate especially for infobox inclusion as it lowers, IMO, the standards of what is acceptable in an infobox. I would appreciate any comments. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out my talk page: User talk:El Greco#The Official Site of the Prefecture of Corfu & User talk:El Greco#???. Same thing with the Corfiot. El Greco(talk) 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks El Greco. He seems to think we are obliged to accommodate it. I don't think it belongs in the infobox of all places but I am not going to revert war over it. Not a good habit. I reported comments on WP:ANI. It is ongoing. Take care. Τάσος (Dr.K. (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
I've removed the "external link" one. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not any form of tourist directory. As such WP:EL and WP:NOT are both relevant. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we remove that link from the articles User:Corfiot posted it to? El Greco(talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate chart[edit]

The figures in the lower far right box are incorrect. They currently display the average rainfall per average month; they should display the total amount of rainfall for an average year. Werdnawerdna (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the arrangement is correct. Under the header of each month's name the lower boxes display the monthly value of each quantity (temperature, rainfall) per specific month. Then the column under the header "Year" implies (and displays) the monthly average of the same quantity averaged out over twelve months, i.e. the whole year. The problem is that the rainfall can be summed over a year to provide a yearly total sum, but the yearly sum of temperature does not make sense. So the infobox by necessity can only acommodate monthly averages over a year, since it can only use a common header. Also this is a generic problem with all weather infoboxes. If it's got to be fixed, it has to be fixed at the source, i.e. the code of the infobox itself but I think before fixing it we may have to suggest it at its talk page. Personally I don't have a problem with it because if we make the header "Yearly average per month" it makes it too long and it affects the aesthetics of the infobox. But that's just my opinion. Thank you for the interesting point nonetheless. --Dr.K. (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Improve the Music[edit]

Music is so important for Corfu. I appreciate that the music section can be improved, I hope editor will have some patience.Trompeta (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Corfu in Literature[edit]

Is it of any relevance that Corfu was a semi-important topic in Nabokov's Lolita, as the main character's one true love dies there before she comes of age? I think it would be noteworthy, considering there is already a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Corfu Town or Corfu Island ?[edit]

This page is Good about the "Corfu Town" but very poor about "Corfu Island" Corfiot (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusingly, the page on Corfu Town is called Corfu (city). Perhaps North Americans would call it a city but it would be classed by Greeks as a town? Headhitter (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it is still classed as a city (πόλις) in Greek. The term "town" is used by some in the English language but I haven't checked their reason for doing so. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks,Dr.K. Perhaps then we should restrict use of the term "Corfu Town" to refer to the old part of the city only. Headhitter (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Headhitter. I think you may very well be right. It sounds right. Especially, if the old part of the city is commonly referred to as a town. But I am not completely sure about this, since I haven't checked this detail. However if you have some information about this please feel free to make the change. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The limits of what is, and what is not, a city differ in various cultures and countries. The Ancient Greek concept of πόλις is pretty clear. I also note that according to the city article in an English context a common criterion is to have a cathedral, something which Corfu has had since about the 5th century. (There was an Apollodorus or Aletodorus, bishop of Corcyra, signing at the Council of Ephesus in 451.) Here in France we would primarily consider the population criterion (the usual limit being 5'000 inhabitants) but I'll let native English speakers be better judges. Anyway by all this counts, Corfu is a city and not a town. I guess the expression "Corfu town" is formed in analogy with other smaller islands having an eponymous chief town, but we can probably hear or read "Corfu city" just as often. Place Clichy (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Especially with your analogy with the smaller islands. I find the mention to "Corfu town" to be misinformed and I support the use of "Corfu city". The only thing remaining here is to establish this by some reliable sources and we are set. I checked both Google for Corfu city with 8,050,000 results and Corfu town with 1,920,000 results. So Corfu city is the WP:COMMONNAME. Corfu city also has the majority is Google books: Corfu town 52,300 and Corfu city 62,800. Now we can replace the usage of "Corfu town" accordingly. The only reason I did not do this search earlier is that this subject is a bit low in my priorities, but thank you both for helping clarify this. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Early history: Oligarchic Democratic revolution[edit]

This appears to be backwards (though typically in line with the Randian misconceptions of dominant Wp editors!). The commoners who supported democratic Athens, revolted against the oligarchs who sided with oligarchic Sparta.

"In the fifth year of the Peloponnesian war (427 BCE), Athens' ally Corcyra fell victim to internal strife, a vicious struggle between the commons, allies of Athens, and the oligarchs, who were eager to enlist the support of the Spartans." "Skirmishes broke out in the city, between the commons, who enlisted the aid of the slaves, and the oligarchs, who hired mercenaries, which ended with the oligarchs being routed,"

— Zarit"

--John Bessa (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Corfu[edit]

There is a new article History of Corfu awaiting review. This article already has an extensive history. Is there any reason or need for a separate article? I am not going to review this new article, but I will await comments here or on Talk:History of Corfu. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a GFDL violation, direct copy-paste from this article without attribution. I put it up for deletion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All those lionesses[edit]

Thank you for the courteous notice of your reversal of my edit. Please clarify in the caption that "lion" is a part of a title that you can cite with a reference. If you mean to imply a formal title, please use a format, such as italics or initial caps, which makes that clear. I am comfortable with that formality. Many museums catalogues have items that are misidentified in long-standing titles. While recognizing the title, clearly, clarification is within our mission of providing correct information to our readers.

Beyond that, I see no logical reason for any of the other edits that were reversed (seemingly because of the one word in a caption not identified as a formal title). I will repeat the other edits which point out the presence of lionesses where misidentified as lions and the inclusion of that information for the reader, if missing.

The lioness has some distinctive physical characteristics that ancient artists were explicit in portraying no matter the ignorance of modern collectors, who often misidentified the subjects. Perpetuating such an error ignores potential cultural ramifications that may be quite relevant to understanding past cultures. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you cannot repeat the other edits either because they happen to be your personal observations. So you cannot call any animal depictions "lionesses" if they are not described as such by reliable sources. That would be WP:OR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Corfu Joke[edit]

In the 1957 movie Desk Set (based on a play of the same name) the words "Corfu" and "curfew" are confused for comedic effect. I will leave it to an editor to judge the merit of adding this piece of trivia to the "Corfu in film" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Corfu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks like at least a B grade article to me - should be reevaluated soonest. Mikebar (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)