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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Finnish. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
View a machine-translated version of the Finnish article.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Finnish Wikipedia article at [[:fi:Filippos II]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated|fi|Filippos II}} to the talk page.
I would like to propose changing the main heading to ‘Philip the Great.’ It already redirects from this name, and we have been adding ‘Great’ to the deserving in recent years, such as for Constantine and Louis XIV. I think most who study Philip would agree he was a genius, both militarily and diplomatically; he united the Greeks; he conducted himself tactfully, benevolently, and clemently; he was shrewd; and is one of the transformative figures of antiquity. I know Demosthenes would disagree(XD), but I invite other historians to the debate of if we should give him the ‘Great’ title. -Alexander 141.126.243.47 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that "many modern historians agree" on the plot to murder Philip not being instagated by Alexander or his mother. We only get five pages from one book written by a greek national cited for these claims. To claim that this is some sort of consensus based on that and the logic provided in the article is not sufficient evidence for such a strong claim according to my own standards of source criticism and I think the wording should be changed to something along the lines of "some modern historians" or that more citations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.158.190 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why there's these discrepancies between these articles, they're father and son so it would be logical for the articles to be homogenous and look almost similar, so why in Alexander's article there's something and in Philip there isn't? Lonapak (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The only thing that would matter is if Phillip is called Basileus in reliable sources. Articles generally attempt internal consistency first, consistency between articles matters much less and is almost never justified in the context of ancient history. Remsense诉17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's already the title basileus in the first sentence of Philip's article, so wouldn't it be better to just put it under his name like in Alexander's article? And basileus literally means king, which he was from 359 BC to 336 BC Lonapak (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also why in Alexander's article it's specified ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon but in Philip's it's just ancient kingdom of Macedon? All of this makes no sense or logic to me Lonapak (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We reflect what the sources say. If you want to improve the article, do so while consulting sources. Nothing else to it. Remsense诉17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source. An editor putting something in one place is not itself a reason for putting it another place. Consult the relevant reliable sources for a change. Remsense诉17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so who says which is which and who decides what to add and what to remove etc? Who and why decided that my contribution to be removed and why is that person "over" me? Lonapak (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise, I've already explained how we write articles and I don't think repeating myself will help. Anyone can contest any unsourced content in an article, and it may not be readded unless a source is provided, generally. Remsense诉18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything to do with sources as I am not adding anything new, the words "basileus" and "ancient Greek/Greece" are already present in the articles, but in Alexander's which is his son it's more detailed than in Philip's and it looks better like that, so how can I petition to add these in the article like they already are in Alexander's article? Lonapak (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable in a reliable source. All you need to do is cite a reliable source that shows Philip had the title of Basileus. Shouldn't be that hard. I don't feel like repeating myself. Remsense诉18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an infobox is to to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Even if it's verifiable that "Basileus" was Philip's main and normal title in ancient Greek (though presumably not in ancient Macedonian), would that be a key fact which readers can identify and comprehend at a glance?
I still didn't receive the answer on why on Alexander's article it's written ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia and on Philip's it's only ancient kingdom of Macedonia, anyways, Ancient Macedonian was a (Northwest) Greek dialect(Doric most likely) or a separate Hellenic language, but it's clear they used the Greek alphbabet and it was almost identic to Greek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tabletLonapak (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what other articles say, the content of every article is decided according to its own body of reliable sources. Remsense诉19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bibliographical source (Adrian Goldsworthy's new book on Philip II) and a user deleted it with the comment that I added a bibliographical source that is not cited in the article. I would like to point out that I added it 1) because it is a bibliographical source and appropriate for further reading whether or not it is cited in the article and 2) because I randomly checked other books listed in the bibliography (eg I don't think Edward Anson's article is referenced in the article, but it is listed in the bibliography). I leave this up to more experienced Wikipedia's. Ictinos4 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what a Further reading section would be for. If a source is included in a Bibliography section, the implication is that it is part of the bibliography. Remsense ‥ 论08:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_01.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)