Talk:Ancient Delphi

Proposed merge with Delphi

Delphi is a well-developed article with a History section that could easily accommodate this information, making it easier to find. ubiquity (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. One should bear in mind that this is a general encyclopedia, not the Delphi-pedia, hence it is not advisable to split a topic in too many subtopics unless absolutely necessary. Constantine ✍ 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the coverage of Delphi is too fine-grained, while overview articles are subpar. I however disagree with the proposed resolution. Delphi is a real Greek town where real people live, rather than just a historical site. Therefore the opposite needs to be done: While the Delphi article's history section certainly needs improvement, all in all there's already far too much detail on Delphi's ancient history, marginalizing today's Delphi. There should only be a short summary of what otherwise belongs in separate articles History of Delphi and Ancient Delphi. For now, I'd rather propose expanding this small article here to cover all periods of Ancient Delphi. Next step would be to create an overview article at History of Delphi. --PanchoS (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• Delphi in Late Antiquity → Ancient Delphi
• Delphi in the Ottoman period → Ottoman Delphi

– As stated above, coverage of Delphi is much too fine grained with overview articles missing. I therefore propose renaming these articles in line with Ancient Greece and Ancient Crete resp. Ottoman Greece and Ottoman Crete, to name a few precents, as a first step towards a full coverage of the History of Delphi (missing article). -- PanchoS (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support the renaming and the reasoning behind it. Constantine ✍ 20:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge most material about Ancient Delphi into Ancient Delphi

I'm proposing to merge most material from Delphi that specifically relates to Ancient Delphi, to the article Ancient Delphi. As stated above, today's Delphi is a fairly large modern town with real people, so even if Delphi's past may be more famous and more interesting to archaeologists and historians, the town deserves an article that, while summarizing its rich history as well, largely focusses on today's life.
Also, it's not like our currrent coverage of Ancient Delphi would be on par with higher encyclopedic standards. Our knowledge is fragmented and spread across various, rather specific articles, while a more general and comprehensive coverage of Ancient Delphi is missing. IMHO, this is the article we should direct most of our efforts to, and that eventually should become a good article. --PanchoS (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi PanchoS! If you're interested in it, then go ahead right away. Your reasoning makes sense, and per WP:BOLD you don't really have to ask for permission from anyone as long as the move of the material is done in an orderly fashion. Constantine ✍ 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for permission, I'm just publicly sharing my proposal with others, so they can join in, or go ahead independently from me. :) I also consider it necessary, since ubiquity's previous proposal asking for the opposite, is still around and not concluded. --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case I'd point to similar cases, such as Ancient Corinth and (modern) Corinth, or Classical Athens and Athens for the distinction between the modern and the ancient sites. Plus, the existence of the present article does not in itself preclude the existence, later on, of a History of Delphi article. The deciding question is whether there is enough material for the latter; there certainly is more than enough for this one. Constantine ✍ 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly disagree with PanchoS's assumptions. Many people search for "Delphi" on a search engine. They want information on the ancient site and its history. With all the due respect for the inhabitants of the modern settlement, the main article Delphi should have all the proper information on history and architecture. Please do not remove valuable information. Splitting the article into specialized articles that are harder to find on a search engine is not a brilliant move.

So, if you want to move material from Delphi into Ancient Delphi and plunge it forward, that makes sense to me. Please do not remove valuable information from the main article in the meantime. 87.9.140.146 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! To my understanding, what PanchoS proposes is to split the detailed examination of the ancient period off, which is in accordance with WP:SS. Of course the main article would continue to treat the entire topic, but the ancient history would be moved here except for a summary in the main article. Right now of course there isn't that much to move, but eventually this article has the potential of becoming quite extensive. The current article at Delphi is mostly about the archaeological site, and IMO it should remain so. The modern settlement could, if required, have a separate article. All this is of course dependent on how much material there is to justify a split. Constantine ✍ 13:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is exactly the wrong way round! Ancient Delphi is effortlessly more WP:PRIMARY than the small modern town, and if they are split that should go to Delphi (modern town). I'm not sure I see the need. This has been proposed in the wrong place, without even a notice at the main article affected. This strange article (Ancient Delphi) is far shorter than the article at Delphi, which it duplicates, and should be merged there, except I strongly suspect it is all WP:COPYVIO - the first editor added tens of thousands of bytes to a bunch of articles in a matter of ours. He seems to be going through the French 1991 guidebook systematically and translating it (not especially well). This is still copyvio. His talkpage is mainly warnings for copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is incorrect. With the proper badge being placed on the top of Delphi, that article's users are correctly notified. Secondly, noone claimed this article here to be particularly good, and if your claim about the content being copyvio is correct, it needs to be deleted. This however wouldn't change anything about the correct title and scope for a main article about Ancient Delphi being Ancient Delphi. I have no idea why that would change anything for the better, and it would probably be the only case in the English Wikipedia, but if you're seriously considering an article about Delphi's ancient period WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the town's overview article covering all periods, then you'd have to convince us with adequate evidence. --PanchoS (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have fallen flat for a while, I'm not sure why a decision was never reached. However, would it not make sense to follow the example of Ostia, where the modern and ancient complexes, being geographically distinct, are given separate pages, and a disambiguation page presented? As it stands, the Modern Delphi section is lost within the Delphi article, and reads as a separate page anyway - its own infobox doesn't even look out of place. Otherwise, the ancient site is obviously WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, given that it a) has been historically quite important, and b) is referred to more frequently in both online searches and print sources than the modern town. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

PanchoS, Cplakidas, Johnbod, any thoughts? Otherwise, since both Delphis are different settlements, I would like to follow Ostia's example and split out the Delphi article into Ancient Delphi and Delphi (modern town) with Delphi (disambiguation) as the landing page. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, since modern Delphi is an insignificant village, and the clear primary topic is the ancient site, the material about ancient Delphi should be at Delphi; the modern village can be at Delphi (village) or similar. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with that, as before - Delphi should remain about the ancient site, and I think Ancient Delphi merged there. Something like ".... near the modern town of Delphi ... " covers it - hatnotres and disams should be avoided where not needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge  Done Klbrain (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)