Talk:Macedonian phalanx

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thegodofchaos. Peer reviewers: Nealthane.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

split question
Hello! I'm new here and enjoying every bit of Wikipedia! I have a question for somebody with more experience in this. I've been looking at a page, macedonian phalanx, which mix up the infantary and the cavalry. Fix it means remove much information from this page to a new one. Is this OK? Isn't this removing value from the existing article. But then again, if i create a page for the cavalry, won't be repeating of information? I'm a bit lost... Muriel Gottrop


 * This is really a question for village pump or at talk:macedonian phalanx. Perhaps you just need a new title - Macedonian battle tactics or something?

Muriel, just go ahead and do what you think is best. It is common practice to split off information from one article into another if it improves the overall encyclopedia. -- Stephen Gilbert

re-creation from redirect
Cplakidas, please observe the difference between the page content before the original page and the current one... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also history left over at Macedonian phalanxes. Should it be merged too? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the first point, yes, so what? There is no rule that says that the page has to be recreated exactly as it was before it was converted into a redirect. Ideally, both the present and former content should be merged into the article. I just felt it odd that a) there was no dedicated article on the Macedonian phalanx and b) "Macedonian phalanxes" is an unreasonable title. As for "Macedonian phalanxes" itself, the article's history is quite distinct, I don't know how the history merge could or should be performed, this is a question for an admin I suppose. Constantine  ✍  14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was simply - if you're merging, merge as much as you can. It looks like it was a copy&paste move before. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No picture of the actual phalanx formation?
This article doesn't contain any pictures of the actual Macedonian phalanx. It has a link to the Macedonian spear, and THAT article has a diagram of the phalanx. Horrible editing. Needs fixing.

Use of the word artillery
I think that the word artillery in the last sentence of the article is quite irritating. The term artillery is contemporarily used in reference to long-range, large-caliber guns such as mortars and cannons, as well as, their operating unit. However, I am aware of the fact that siege machines like catapults and balistas have historically been refered to as artillery and I see that the use of this term is not technically wrong. Furthermore, though I cannot claim by any means that I am an expert, I am not aware of any weapon other than a catapult that has been invented by the later classical antiquity and could possibly be considered an artillery piece, so I think that such a generic term is unnecessary. All in all, I believe that the term should be changed perhaps to a more specific and appropriate one or have at least its hyperlink replaced and, if applicable, have a citation added for further study. Gkoutentakis (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)