body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Why arent ancient/medieval Greek Kingdoms like the Macedonian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Myceneans, Minoans, Cycladics, Greek City States and so on included in the „Establishment“ part of the info box?[edit]

Almost every other country has a bigger establishment section with kingdoms from antiquity or middle ages till present being listed in the establishment part of the info box. One of the only countrys who dont is Greece. DaManFrFr (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the entities you listed amounted to a state of "Greece". Several of them weren't even "states" to begin with. The first time in history there actually was a state called Greece was in 1830. And even independently of the name, there never was any single state whose territory was even roughly coextensive with what is now Greece either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But where a kingdom was situated or what its name was shouldnt matter as long as it was ruled by Greeks and spoke Greek. Like Georgia wasnt called Georgia till the 10th century, yet its establishment section spans until the Kingdom of Colchis(13th century BC) although not having the same name as current Georgia and also not having the same territory as modern Georgia. DaManFrFr (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. That section is about the establishment process of the present-day Greek state, not more and not less. There are certain cases where such a history legitimately goes a long way back (think of present-day France, which actually has an unbroken continuity of state-hood from the early medieval Frankish kingdom), and there may be cases where it makes sense to include earlier predecessor kingdoms even in the absence of direct continuity, if these can be shown to have served as historical models for later modern nation-building (think of medieval "Poland", "Bulgaria" etc.) But just because some historical entity was X-speaking or ruled by members of ethnicity X doesn't automatically make it part of the establishment of a modern state of X. The Georgia page you cited is just a very bad example – Wikipedians sometimes do poorly-thought-out things, and just because they did that on one article isn't a reason to do the same on another. Much better models to consider would be the articles on Italy, where the establishment section legitimately begins in 1861, or Iraq, where it starts in 1932. That's as it should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement that infoboxes in articles about contemporary states should only present "establishment process of the present-day" states, and this does indeed justify harckening back to much earlier times only in those cases of "unbroken continuity" for many centuries as is the case of France. However, Future Perfect at Sunrise introduces another criterion of inclusion, stating that "there may be cases where it makes sense to include earlier predecessor kingdoms even in the absence of direct continuity, if these can be shown to have served as historical models for later modern nation-building (think of medieval "Poland", "Bulgaria" etc.)". I think that, were this criterion to be adopted also in the case of Greece, references to events about the establishment (and disestablishment) of the eastern Roman Empire should be included in the article's infobox. For, the Byzantine Empire clearly served as a historical moden for the modern Greek state during the first century of its existence, in terms of the construction of a legal system for the modern Greek nation-state, of its national ideology and the goals of foreign policy. Since this is taken to be across the encyclopedia the standard for inclusion , as it truly seems to be, judging by the infoboxes of articles on Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania and Bulgaria (i.e. almost all countries bordering Greece along with Serbia), then it seems reasonable to adopt the same (in my personal view erroneous) criterion in the case of Greece as well and include events relating to the establishment of the eastern Roman Empire in the infobox. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with "too long" tag[edit]

@Nikkimaria

The fact that other countries' articles are much larger in size, but bear no "too long to read" tag, makes your edit somewhat "unfair".

Greece's article is currently —2 Novemer 2023— at 313,954 bytes

Examples of country-articles exceeding Greece's byte-size but having no tag:
India, a featured article of 315,818 bytes,
Israel (at 402,037 bytes),
The United Stated (316,851 bytes),
China (at 352,561 bytes) and more.

Excuse my tone, but unless you manage to provide me with a rationale supporting your edit, or with a set of suggestions on improving the article by properly reducing its size, and if you are unwilling or unable to explain why the other articles bear no such tag, I'll have to revert your edit as unjustifiable and/or biassed.
Thank you, L'OrfeoSon io 13:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article size is measured in readable prose rather than raw byte count. By that metric this is the longest of the articles you mention - nearly double India. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Thank you for your swift answer, and, again, excuse my somewhat defensive tone. I was unaware of the means of assessment. This being considered, the comparisons I made above do not hold up. In any case, the prose could be reduced in a manner that the meaning is not shattered. In time, maybe, I'll try. L'OrfeoSon io 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental country?[edit]

This article has the Transcontinental countries category, but is only listed (and considered) as a country in Europe. Shouldn't it be removed? Deiadameian (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Cinadon36 07:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the description of Greece as a "transcontinental" country is still also in the article (in the geography section), and conversely the country is also still mentioned in the List of transcontinental countries article. I have no strong feelings either way whether it should be – in one sense it clearly is, factually, transcontinental, but on the other hand it is very rarely described as such in outside sources for all I can see. We may need to live with the fact that there is no commonly accepted definition of the term and, more importantly, no factually consistent practice of using it out there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the page's categorization, it is only listed as "Countries in Europe" (compare to both Portugal and Spain being also listed as "Countries in North Africa"). What I am saying is, a country can't both be transcontinental and also only belong in one contintent at the same time. Deiadameian (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not super-consistent, but there's no law that requires us to be consistent when there is no consistency in real-world usage in the first place. I don't think readers would expect to find Greece in a category of "countries in Asia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that readers won't expect to find Greece in a category of "Transcontinental countries" either. Like I said, a country can't be transcontinental when it's associated with only one continent, like Greece is. Deiadameian (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is: Greece is technically a transcontinental country. But the amount of Asian territory it holds is disproportionately smaller compared to the European territory it holds. Plus it doesn't help the fact that these "Asian islands" in question, are so, in a geographical context only; they still are politically and culturally considered to be part of Europe. Just like Cyprus which is Asian geographically, but European in every other way. This unique case makes it too complicated to simply apply the standard encyclopedic criteria here. But in either way, it cannot be questioned that term "transcontinental" here is used in a purely geographical context, and that some of Greece's territories, such as Kastellorizo, are indeed, part of the Asian continent. So the best solution to all this is to simply accept the fact that Greece is transcontinental in a geographical context, but avoid giving it more significance than there is about it. It only complements to the well-established fact that the country is geopolitically noted for being situated at the crossroads of the continents. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the fun of it: In the 1990s, this sign stood in the harbour of Kastellorizo, the 9 square km Greek island that most certainly technically is in Asia, lying just 2 km off the Turkish coast and 125 km from the nearest Greek land. The text down right states proudly: “Europe starts here” --T*U (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories