Talk:Pythagoreion

There is also the article Pythagoreio. It's about the same object --Odythal (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Strongly object - The articles are not on the same subject. Pythagoreion is about the ancient (excavations) site, Pythagoreio is about the modern town. Pythagoreion is much more noteworthy, as a world-heritage site. Unfortunately the article about it is extremely lacking. Lophostrix (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I merged the articles. The article texts were talking about exactly same subject, town Pythagoreio (in Katharevousa: Pythagoreion), previously known as Tigani, whose ancient remains are in the Unesco World Heritage List. It was even false to present "Pythagoreion" as some separate ancient town, because it was not known by that name in the antiquity – it was known as town of Samos (not the same as modern town of Samos). --Tomisti (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Now the only problem is that many language versions had copied the same misleading two-articles-for-same-subject solution from here, with the same partly erroneous content. I fixed those Interwiki links which I could: some town related links were linked with Pythagoreion and some with Pythagoreio. To make things even more complicated, Greek Wikipedia has a separate article for the Municipality of Pythagoreio (but only one article for the town and archaeological site). --Tomisti (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tomisti, although I'm sure you believe you are "right" and there is no "question" about it, please do not merge articles without reaching a consensus. At the very least, you should have raised your concern here in the talk page and wait for my (or others) reply. The way I see it, is that the ancient site is a totally different "entity" than the modern town: they are not exactly in the same place (the ancient site is on the hill overlooking the modern town), and the UNESCO inscription mentions specifically the ruins, not the town. The fact that they share a name does not mean they are the same thing. This is a similar situation to Ostia Antica and Ostia (Rome), or Tel Megiddo and Megiddo, Israel, where there is a distinction between the ancient and the modern site. It also makes sense for the reader, since whoever wants to read about the ancient site of Ostia doesn't care less about the modern neighborhood, and whoever wants to know about Kibbutz Megiddo doesn't care about some old ruins nearby (which are also an UNESCO site). The fact that the ancient site had a different name in antiquity does not matter here, since the article is about the site (as it is today, and the name it has today). The article about Samos should describe the history, and refer to the ancient ruins, as indeed it does. Lophostrix (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had prepared the merge already before your comment on 16 September, and forgot to check this page for any new comments. I'm happy with the current solution, if article Pythagoreion is really made to handle only the archaeological site and not the modern town. In its original state the article seemed to be nothing more than a shorter duplicate of Pythagoreio (it even seemed to be totally unaware that there is a separate article about the town). Also, UNESCO site related templates should then be removed from Pythagoreio. I made proposals: town only, UNESCO site only. I think the merge templates could be removed, if those are OK. --Tomisti (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem - no harm done. That was exactly my intention. I agree that the UNESCO site is very lacking, hopefully someone will add to it eventually, as it's hard to do it without actually being there (not much information online). I will remove the merge tag, as be both agree. Lophostrix (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)