Talk:Pella

Greece Start‑class High‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

In Greece, it's a "royal tomb" even if it was not made for members of a royal family— "it's a term" User:Matia.gr tells us, reverting my edit. I say that's a lotta baklava. Anyone agree? --Wetman 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is inappropriate. Read WP:CIV, revise your edit, and then maybe we could talk about it. Got it? talk to +MATIA 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA on Fr, but here it's split into two overlapping sections - I'd like to do the FR trans & see this go FA, the way these two articles stand this is unlikely.Bridesmill 02:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC). Actually, this is confusing - We have Pella Prefecture, Pella, and History of Pella - the latter two overlapping. Somehow the talk page for Pella is here at Pella Prefecture. I'm confused.Bridesmill 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged; I am working on the FA trans at my Sandbox.Bridesmill 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider this overlap with the 'Alexander The Great' and 'Macedonia' pages, but surely there has to be a greater emphasis on the Alexander story as the reason we are discussing Pella today (no offence intended to current inhabitants!)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.25.141 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your argument "Slavic has nothing to do with this city. If we put a Slavic translation of this name, then let's put the Cantonese, Spanish, French etc. translations too. There is no need for it" sounds polemic. The town was (and still is) known by this name in Slavic, and Greek Macedonia had (and still has) slavic-speaking inhabitants, so it is not totally out of question that "Postol" was a historical name of the place. It was after all the birth place of a Bulgarian/Macedonian nationalist, so it must have had at least some Slavic population (if you do not assume that Misirkov was born by chance there). So the question is here: how notable was the name "Postol"?  Andreas  ^(T) 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think that Pella/Agii Apostoli did not have a historical name Postol or why you think this name is not notable. What is your opinion on; the proportion of Slavic-speaking population of A.A. before the population move in 1913, the name used by the Ottoman authorities. If possible, give reliable sources on your claims.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User Deanhellene, on a recent edit summary, you say:

The town of Pella is in Greece. Slavic is not spoken in Greece. Pella has been a Greek town since ancient times and has never had anything to do with the Slavic people or language. Better explanation?)

It is certainly true that Pella has been part of the Greek state for almost 100 years. But this tells us nothing about what languages have been spoken there. Indeed, South Slavic dialects were widely spoken in what is now Greek Macedonia. --Macrakis 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis was bold and split the article (he did not populate the new article, though). Good point because it seems that A.A. was not a continuation of Ancient Pella, Was there a time when there was no settlement there? Was A.A. founded independently of ancient Pella? Then indeed we need two articles. But disambig notices have to be added, and also all the links have to be checked. I could do this.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done  Andreas  ^(T) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I did do a few, but wasn't as systematic as you. Thanks. --Macrakis 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture is very common to the south and mainly produces fruits.

This was not English; I have replaced it. If the fruits in question grow on trees, like apples, orchard, (or perhaps grove for olives, oranges and other citrus). If they are bush fruit, like berries, recasting may be justified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or Pella vs Pella, Greece. Heh, nice precedent we're setting here... Now go on and split all modern Greek towns from their history. And while you're at it, go split those of the other countries too. Merge now. NikoSilver 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this article talking about Ancient Pella, while Pella, Greece is talking about modern day Pella? That could be one of the reasons for the two articles. We could rename this to History of Pella, and then rename Pella, Greece to Pella. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, you are right saying that we cannot split every article on a city between present and past. However, in this case, there is a rationale, see above under #Split. See also the split between Constantinople and Istanbul. Generally, many places in Greece have been renamed after independence, not only in Macedonia. In many cases, an Ancient Greek place name was revived, for example Menidi was named Acharnes after the ancient Acharnae. I would suppose that with Menidi it is the same case as with Pella: the ancient settlement was abandoned at some time in history, later a new settlement was created nearby, and at some point after independence, the new settlement was given the name of the old one. In the case of Amphipolis, the articles were indeed merged[1].  Andreas  ^(T) 21:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but it looks quite silly to create two stubs out of one article. I'd merge regardless and I'd make sure the abandoned settlement issue was specified (and sourced). I don't follow the rationale that says [temporary abandoned settlement] equals automatically [article split]. It really doesn't have to be that way when the content is rather poor to begin with. Lack of continuation is not a reason for split. It is a reason for simply saying so. NikoSilver 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]