Talk:Heraclea Lyncestis

Institution that manages it
Well, the article says that It is in charge of the local institution "Museum and Gallery of Bitola". Should we maybe include this photo of the "Museum and Gallery of Bitola" (the administrative building, I mean)? Guitardemon666 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Now that I see the text a bit better, it seems that the ruins are in charge of the Museum :) :) We ought to change that one too, I think. Guitardemon666 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
I am going to correct manipulations of a banned user as per sources. Please discuss before editing. Thank you. Jingby (talk)

Please explain why the edits were removed? There is nothing offensive in them. Is it offensive to add the Macedonian name to a historical site within the Republic of Macedonia?

Wisco2000 (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for a Greek territorial map
A better map showing the area of territory Greece lost through time relative to the ancient Greek city-state of Macedonia (during Philip) would be helpful in understanding the modern Ignatia road most of which is still in Greece. The northerly route around the lakes is interesting because it shows the preferred route was not in the topography of the south, probably due to natural features which proved to be impassable obstacles most likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.62 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Greece was formed as a state in the 1800s. There was no such things as Greece, not even as a concept, in ancient times. So, saying this and that happened in Greece, or quoting sources who write Heraclea in Northern Greece, is simply not correct, it is spreading misinformation. Ancient Greek city formed by the king of Macedonia? I mean please! Ancient Macedonian city founded by Philip. Again, there was no such thing as Greece at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:281:24A0:F8EA:781F:A9F9:6091 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The name of the city in Slavic
This article is about an ancient city, not about the contemporary archeological site. Macedonian language wasn't used at that time. It was codified in 1945. When the city was active its name was written in Greek and Roman languages. By the arrival of the Slavs it was already abandoned. Jingiby (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I never disagreed with that Jingiby, but then I came across Antioch which includes the Turkish name. Maybe the Macedonian name would be warranted here, just a thought. -- Local hero talk 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a third opinion here. Jingiby (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be nice, but I don't think a dispute exists here currently so I don't know if officially requesting one at WP:Third Opinion is warranted. I'll add the Macedonian name and if you or anyone disagrees, we'll take into account their rationale. Just browsing around a bit more, I've found Bassianae includes the Serbian name. -- Local hero talk 00:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Antioch does not include the Turkish name... The article is about the ancient city, there is no need for the translation in modern Macedonian or any other modern language. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you noticed that I wrote the Antioch comment in February of 2014... As I mentioned in my edit summary, Persepolis includes the Modern Persian name and Troy includes the Turkish name. The Macedonian name seems to be likewise relevant since the site is in the Republic of Macedonia. If a consensus here decides to remove it, that's fine too. -- Local hero talk 03:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As Jingiby mentioned before, the article is about an ancient city, not about a contemporary archeological site like Persepolis and Troy, and modern Macedonian language was not used in antiquity, obviously. Hence the use of modern Macedonian in an article dealing with an ancient city is at least unencyclopedic, even if the city is now in the Republic of Macedonia. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Jingiby (now a banned editor) did not dispute the addition after I made it. Heraclea Lyncestis was an ancient city and is now an archaeological site within the Republic of Macedonia. I'd say Macedonian is as relevant as Modern Persion is to Persepolis, Turkish is to Troy, and Serbian is to Bassianae. -- Local hero talk 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ...None of which are particularly encyclopedic. It's useful for tour guides to use the local, modern name (so that tourists that see signs for "Hisarlik" know they are headed in the right direction), but an encyclopedia?  I just don't see how this is useful to our readers.  Athenean (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If the ruins of the city are currently in Macedonia and a Macedonian name is used by locals to refer to the site then I think it's perfectly acceptable to record that name. What would not be acceptable would be if the city no longer existed at all and a made-up modern name was added to the article for purely nationalistic reasons (i.e "the site is now in Macedonia so we're bloody well going to give it a Macedonian name even if that name has never been used in reputable non-nationalistic sources"). This does not appear to be the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point, however an ignorant reader could be misled to believe that the modern Macedonian name was used in antiquity along with the Greek and Latin names, which is not the case as well. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That can be pointed out in a footnote. It's not a reason not to include it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree to that. How should we do it? Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks neat, I'll just move it after Latin, per chronological order. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heraclea Lyncestis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427003831/http://www.nbrm.gov.mk/default-en.asp?ItemID=061547767D9F93459B8971DBBE74A75A to http://www.nbrm.gov.mk/default-en.asp?ItemID=061547767D9F93459B8971DBBE74A75A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Excessive disambiguation in footnote [1]
I recommend changing the contents of the footnote to only state "Not be confused with the ancient Macedonian language". This is enough for disambiguation between the two languages. This article is not about the Macedonian language, if users wanted to compare the extinct language to the modern language, they can see the corresponding articles.

Have a look the article for Troy which states the corresponding Turkish name without any footnotes, even though it's a modern language which was not present around the time. I will also like to state, like Troy in Turkey, Heraclea is a major historic site in North Macedonia which is enough to justify having the Macedonian name without excessive disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beat of the tapan (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. The first sentence or two is just unnecessary detail for its intended purpose. -- Local hero talk 03:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not unnecessary. The disambiguation plays an important role in not misleading people. The ancient macedonian language and the macedonian language of the republic of north macedonia are entirely unrelated yet bear the same name so it's unique cause for confusion. Also, as i stated before, Troy is not a relevant analogy. There was no ancient language present in Troy called "Turkish", so there's less need to disambiguate there. That analogy would only work if the Turkish renamed their language to 'Trojan'. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As I stated, having only Not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language in the footnote is enough to disambiguate the two languages which share the same name and therefore erasing such confusion that you keep on bringing up. Going on of how the language didn't exist at the time is not the context of this article, for such details see Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonian language. Wikipedia is not just about clarity, but also for having information presented and organised in a concise manner Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As an explanatory note for the name, something more than just: "Not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language" is needed to make sense. Something like: "The name for the site in the modern Slavic Macedonian, not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language." Just "Not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language", would make sense for an explanatory note for the language, but in that case the note should be moved to just after the language name "Macedonian". Paul August &#9742; 11:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article about the "macedonian language" is full of inaccurate information and propaganda, the kind that gives wikipedia a bad reputation. I don't feel comfortable relying on that article to inform people who visit this page...each individual article needs to strive to make internal sense. I agree with Paul August's comment about the footnote being in the wrong location. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I didn't say that the current footnote is in the wrong location. The current footnote starts out: "Note that this is a modern name for the site ..." which is discussing the name so that part of the note (at least) is in the right location. Paul August &#9742; 13:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for the note in question:
 * Heraclea Lyncestis, also spelled Herakleia Lynkestis (Ἡράκλεια Λυγκηστίς; Heraclea Lyncestis; Хераклеа Линкестис ), was an ...

Paul August &#9742; 13:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I support that suggestion. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Make that two. Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I've implemented my suggested change. Paul August &#9742; 11:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Taking a longer look at this, there still maybe redundancies in the footnote. The terms Slavic and modern seem be redundant since the Macedonian language is pretty much internationally recognised under that name, rather than "Slavic" Macedonian. Therefore I recommend dropping the Slavic term. Dropping the term modern instead will also work in resolving redundant information,but again, given the term Slavic Macedonian is rarely used nowdays anywhere outside of Greece, I would not suggest this. Beat of the tapan (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the term 'slavic Macedonian' is only used in Greece. However, for the purposes of disambiguation in this article, I think i agree with you. I think it is fine to drop one of the words slavic or modern. It can read as either "modern Macedonian" or "slavic Macedonian" but it doesnt need to read "modern slavic Macedonian". Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Of the two "modern Macedonian" or "slavic Macedonian", I prefer "modern Macedonian", since that will be, in my opinion, more meaningful to most readers. I will go ahead and make that change. Paul August &#9742; 11:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)