Talk:Delphi

Delphi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Greece Top‑importance

	Greece portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Top‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Direction of Castalian Spring?

"This spring flowed toward the temple but disappeared beneath, creating a cleft which emitted chemical vapors that caused the Oracle at Delphi to reveal her prophecies." The Castalian Spring last week was - and so far as I am aware, has always been - several hundred metres to the east of the temple and some tens of metres below it, so how is this possible? --Hugh7 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethylene?

This is just a note, but there have been convincing theories that the vapors the oracles inhaled consisted mainly of ethylene, a common hydrocarbon gas that was found in the petro-chemical rich layers of sediment surrounding Delphi. Ethylene, more potent and flammable than nitrous oxide (laughing gas), when inhaled in moderation can produce a trancelike state. the gas could have risen through fissures created by the many intersecting fault lines that run through the site.

Also, during the last years of Delphi's significance there were reports of a major earthquake that shook the region, which may have played a factor in the vapor being suddenly closed off or redirected somewhere else. That would explain why a short while later the oracle pronounced that Delphi was no longer a medium for prophecies. The general mindset is that the oracle was bribed to discredit the site, mainly because of the rise of Christianity.

from jordan schuetz

Interesting - if you have some journal papers to cite, they would be great additions. Stan 05:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

YO scientific american recnetly provided storng evideince for the cuz of the fumes, someone should reference this.

The ethylene research is now covered in detail at Pythia. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Delphic "Sibyl"?

We have a new editor who, working backwards from Thomas Bulfinch and (perhaps) echoing some Latin Christian sources, assumes that the priestess in any Greek oracle is a "sibyl". I think this is incorrect. --Wetman 05:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too propose to replace "Sibyl" with "Pythia"

... unless this is a trick to awaken her :-)

Sibyls: the Cumaean Sibyl and the Erythraean Sibyl:

[1]

The Pythia was the priestess at Apollo's oracle in Delphi.

[2]

[3]

--Odysses 15:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sibyls: the Cumaean Sibyl and the Erythraean Sibyl:

"In ancient times a prophetess who, in a state of ecstasy and under influence of Apollo, prophesized without being consulted. Famous Sibyls are the Cumaean Sibyl and the Erythraean Sibyl, who revealed to Alexander the Great his divine descent. The Cumaean Sibyl owned, according to tradition, nine books of prophecies, which she sold the remaining three to the Roman king Tarquin."Micha F. Lindemans at Pantheon.org

Lindemans would place the Erythraean Sibyl at the oasis of Ammon in Egypt's Western Desert, where Alexander consulted the oracle about his divine birth. I don't think that identification is made by any of Alexander's biographers. Let's not add to the confusion. Can we stick to drawing some simple conclusions from ancient references? --Wetman 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Pythia was the priestess at Apollo's oracle in Delphi. Jennifer Middlesworth at Pantheon.com

I have moved the reference to Delphic Sibyl to "See also". This error is repeatedly reintroduced in this article. Are US public school children still beginning with Bulfinch?

Besides, two more names relevant to Pythia , that shouldn't be ignored:

Pythian Games - Held at Delphi, second only to the Olympic Games

Pythagoras Pyth-agoras - His name was relevant to Pythia and Delphi oracle. --Odysses 18:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earthquakes, Archaeology and Modern Delphi

I used to have a couple of books on Delphi but unfortunately, I gave them away a couple of months ago. From what I remember, there was a modern town (name escapes me) built directly over the archaeological site. When it was discovered that ancient Delphi was under there, the archaeologists wanted to excavate but the people of the town weren't keen to move - until an earthquake caused major damage. At that point, the town was relocated to where Delphi is today and excavations began. Anyway, a bit of information about the excavations might be nice.

Other info it might be good to add:

The restoration of the Treasury of the Athenians was funded by modern Athens.
The Sphinx of Naxos.
What's the population of the modern town of Delphi? From what I remember, it was under 1000 in the Classical period and is still about the same size.

I'm just brainstorming from memory here. - AdelaMae 14:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is from a visitor to Delphi, there is now no town and no sign of any town at any time

at Delphi... so all the above is pure you know what /x/ apollo 75.60.111.189 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

What is/are the correct pronunciation(s) of this word? My dictionary says that it ends with a long I sound, but I've also heard it as ending with a long E sound. Is one the English version and the other the Greek version? In any event, this should be addressed on the page. Suburban 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect link

Currently, in section "Famous Oracular Statements from Delphi", there is a linked to "Ionian", which is a redirect to "Ionic". Presumably, this should link to one of "Ionian Islands", "Ionians", or "Ionia", but I am not sure which would be most appropriate. -- Centrx 01:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section was moved to Famous Oracular Statements from Delphi, where I have simply unlinked the word in question, "Ionian". -- Centrx 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous oracular statements

The "Famous oracular statements" section is huge and unbalances the article. There's enough material to make a separate article, which I think might be a good idea; alternatively, I'd like to move the bulk of the oracular statements to the Pythia article while leaving a few responses here on the Delphi article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I have moved them to another article called Famous Oracular Statements from Delphi

As a new article it is still a stub, lacking references and much else. Any help gratefully received.

Regards John D. Croft

Removed material from Pythia

I removed the following sentences from Pythia, since they belong here:

The fame and wealth of the Oracle were enormous, and as grateful states and kingdoms came to establish treasuries in the vicinity, the temple came to function as a kind of central bank of ancient Greece, making loans for special projects. The site was also justly famous for its many works of art gathered over centuries, presented by grateful supplicants.

This doesn't fit in Pythia because these dedications and treasuries belonged to the sanctuary as a whole, not specifically to the oracle. However, at the moment there's no natural place to put them. I think a reorganization is in order; there needs to be a section that covers the entire temenos of Apollo; then the temple, altar, treasuries, and statuary can be subsections of that section. There can be another section on the temenos of Athena Pronaia (where the Tholos is), and other sections on the gymnasium and houses, if someone wants to put them in. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Oracle Authority

I would appeciate some discussion in the article of the actual source of the oracle's wisdom. Herodotus reports of people going off to found colonies based on an oracle. This is a huge commitment to make.

Are there any clues in the literature that would indicate where the oracle got her preferences regarding national politics and immigration?

My inclination is to suspect some person behind the oracle...some person that thinks there *ought* to be a Greek colony on the coast of Libya...which leads to a prophecy telling so-and-so to go found a colony. But as I read Heodotus, there is not the first hint of cynicism around the veracity of the oracle.

Bob Goethe 68.148.176.63 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Discovery Channels "Seven Wonders of Ancient Greece", the Oracle, the Pythia, gained her powers due to a fault line below the site. A Greek statesmen thus built the sanctuary on top of the fault line to effectively sell her wisdom in return for status and wealth. The Pythias 'rants and raves' were interpreted by the male Priests, therefore it was their preferences regarding national politics and immigration were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.254 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing paragraph

In this article, under the treasuries subheading, there is this paragraph: "The most impressive is the now-restored Treasury of Athens, built to commemorate the Athenians' victory at the Battle of Marathon. The Athenians had previously been given the advice by the oracle to put their faith in their "wooden walls" — taking this advice to mean their navy, they won a famous battle at Salamis."

I understand that the treasury of Athens commemorates the Battle of Marathon, but what does the treasury have to do with the battle of Salamis which occured 10 years later? My knowledge of greek history is not great, so if I've missed something, could someone please explain it to me. 138.38.32.84 17:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City/State Government

How was the city governed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.140.20 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The sanctuary itself was administered by the Amphictyonic Council, the neighbouring and more important Greek states had representatives on the committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.254 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pythian redirect

Why does the link for Pythian in the wiki entry for "List of technology companies in Ottawa, Canada" redirect here? The two topics are unrelated, as Pythian is a technology solutions provider, not an archaeological site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keenada (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dates

Someone has changed all dates from BCE to BC. BC stands for "Before Christ" and implies all readers are Christian. Non Christian; Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist, readers do not accept Christ, but they will accept that BCE standing for "Before Common Era" can be used as a daing system. Wikipedia has a policy of accepting either dating system, but suggests people remain by the convention in which the article was originally written. Whoever it was please revert to the original system immediately. Thanks John D. Croft 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC/AD was the first system used in this article; see [4] (from September 2002) and [5] (from May 2005). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalos

I think that a small section pointing out that Delphi was the site of the traditional Greek omphalos, which I believe they considered the centre of the universe or something akin to it, would be helpful. I came to this article looking for info on the omphalos, and couldn't find it by using this page. Thanks. Dissimul 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the oracle of delphi is in the back of the temple of Apollo at Delphi and that was / is the

location of the omphalos but drilling down deeper, that means via Apollo, there was a connection to the center of the universe, as Greek seerers saw that, with Apollo being a son of God; drilling deeper still, Apollo is the same son of God many are familiar with that will be on earth in the 2nd coming AND did visit the temple of Apollo Jan 1971 so consummating their seerers correct view point of the center of the universe, omphalos connection via Apollos / Christ now in the 2nd Coming .../s/ lil ompha jr IV 75.60.111.189 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see note 8 to the main article and its discussion of Omphalos as follows:

<<"Another very archaic feature at Delphi also confirms the ancient associations of the place with the Earth goddess. This was the Omphalos, an egg-shaped stone which was situated in the innermost sanctuary of the temple in historic times. Classical legend asserted that it marked the 'navel' (Omphalos) or centre of the Earth and explained that this spot was determined by Zeus who had released two eagles to fly from opposite sides of the earth and that they had met exactly over this place". On p.7 he writes further, "So Delphi was originally devoted to the worship of the Earth goddess whom the Greeks called Ge, or Gaia (mythology). Themis, who is associated with her in tradition as her daughter and partner or successor, is really another manifestation of the same deity: an identity which Aeschylus himself recognized in another context. The worship of these two, as one or distinguished, was displaced by the introduction of Apollo. His origin has been the subject of much learned controversy: it is sufficient for our purpose to take him as the Homeric Hymn represents him -- a northern intruder -- and his arrival must have occurred in the dark interval between Mycenaean and Hellenic times. His conflict with Ge for the possession of the cult site was represented under the legend of his slaying the serpent.">> ...

what these old myths are attempting to convey to those "seekers" are stories that are steps in the pathway to not only enlightenment but also deificiation as above mention of "Apollo ... slaying the serpent." - A FINAL step in deification, whereby the earthly applicant is permanently hooked to all creation and so God... /s/ hic haec hokie, ompha ompha diddlely do , i saw some archeo's coming fa yu ! 75.60.111.189 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result: page remains at Delphi. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delphi (disambiguation) demonstrates other notable articles using the term delphi. I think page should be moved to Delphi, Greece as per standard disambiguation practices. -- Cat ^chi? 10:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't agree - Sthenel 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Greek city is by far the most common use. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notable not only because of the Greek city itself as an archaeological site today, but also because of the oracle that made it famous, especially in academia and in classical antiquity studies. Niko Silver 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GAN

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Introduction well written, and describes Delphi but not all the sections of the article. Some sections are very short.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The sources are not sufficient to cover several uncited sections and population statistics. Source at citation 12 has disappeared from the internet
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Placed article on hold. Good luck improving the article

Can a picture of modern Delphi be added to the article?
Is the video tour of Delphi not protected under copyright law?SriMesh | talk 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication to Apollo

My HUP edition of Plutarch's Moralia reads μηδὲν ἄγαν as "avoid extremes" and not "nothing in excess". I think the case might be the same in my edition of Nicomachean Ethics.

It literally means "nothing in excess", but "avoid extremes" is a reasonable way of capturing the meaning. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to clearly separate mythology from history

Right in the first paragraph mythology and history are mixed without any indication of which is which. --gabrielrussell

Edit Request - BBC Radio 4's In Our Time broadcast

BBC Radio 4's In Our Time is a 45 minute discussion programme about the history of ideas, with three eminent academics in their field, hosted by Melvyn Bragg. Each edition deals with one subject from one of the following fields: philosophy, science, religion, culture and historical events. It is akin to a seminar. The entire archive going back to 1998 is now available online in perpetuity.

An edition about Delphi was broadcast with Paul Cartledge, A G Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at Cambridge University; Edith Hall, Professor of Classics and Drama at Royal Holloway, University of London; Nick Lowe, Reader in Classical Literature at Royal Holloway, University of London.

You can listen to the programme on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00txj8d. Would you be able to include this as an external link?--Herk1955 (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

There is currently no History section whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.101 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split into Ancient Delphi

The article currently provides a lot of valuable information on history and architecture. It is easy to read and complete. While I understand that some leads can be rephrased, it would be a disservice if valuable information was removed from this article. I appreciate those who want to plunge forward and add more content on a specialized Ancient Delphi entry, but please do not unnecessarily trim down this article. It is really uncalled for, in my opinion. 87.9.140.146 (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Delphi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Where are the assessment comments? Personally I think it deserves more than a B

Last edited at 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Origins/Dedication/Oracle/History sections

I propose to reorganise these sections into firstly a History section to make them more logical, time sequential, and to remove repetitions. Rjdeadly (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delphi. 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/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr:80/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Delphi. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Apollo

The section on this temple is a little unclear because it's called different names at the beginning but then there's a brief description of the of the myth surrounding the first temple of Apollo at the end. Maybe it would be helpful to start out with the background and then continue with the descriptions of the architecture of the temple. The article does a really good job focusing on the architectural designs and reconstructions of the temple, and the links are helpful since I don't know what many of the styles used in the temple are called. Overall I think it does a good job describing the temple and it gives insight into the language of the time by the carvings that say "Know Thyself". The article also mentions how the temple was destroyed in the name of Christianity to remove all paganism, so it goes further than descriptions and comments on reasons for destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarafrost (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the pic size

I'm giving it. Earlier it seemed to distort the layout but with lengthening of the box, which will get longer, and changes to the outline, it seems to fit fine, as long as nothing else goes below it. There are a lot of changes to go on the article. The bottom is still totally out of control but I can't get to that yet. More to go on the geology and topography, and the archaeology too for that matter. Whew. Big article but important I guess.Botteville (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Parke book(s)

The article relies heavily on books by Parke, too heavily (I think). He wrote in the 1930's and '40's. I wondered about the extensive quoting in the notes section. I don't think that is legal; they are not short quotes for educational purposes. The editor reproduces at least a whole page. In investigating that I understood why. Every book Parke wrote has been made unpreviewable. SOMEONE has managed to establish a monopoly even though the book was digitized at U. Michigan and originally went for free. But, you can still get a look at Internet Archive if you register and borrow it for an hour. However, WP seems clear on that. I can't put a url in to a site that requires registration. So, what to do? Well, I'm listing Parke as a source with cite book, so we don't continue to have to look for the unfindable. Then, the long quotes have to go. I can still cite Parke. But, the world has gone on since 1939. Other authors are possibly even more important. Fair game?Botteville (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the appeal of wanting to include long quotes from sources which aren't freely available, but it is problematic. If nothing else, articles are meant to be written in a summary style so content should be summarised. I thought that linking to resources that require registration was permissible? For example, academic journal which aren't open access need a subscription for the content to be accessed but there are plenty of links to them. It seems like a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps {{subscription required}} would be useful in this case?

As for relying on Parke, I would be cautious about using it too much. I'm not familiar with Delphi but it is a well known site and there will have been a lot of work in the last seven decades. So I'd suggest that Parke can still be cited, but anything which can bring in more recent research would be good!

In short, what you suggest sounds good to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Neville. I take it we have consensus. I use a lot of articles that require subscription but I do not give a link to them. The user is entitled to look on his own. The policy is not entirely consistent. For example, I opposed the citing of JSTOR because unless you belong they offer pay-per-view. I took a beating on that one, as most persons wanted JSTOR. There is even a JSTOR specification. Finally JSTOR let me join and that solved the problem. Tje part about registration can be found under help:external links. I presume the registration requirement wouldn't be on for links and off for references. Of course, I mean only for the url= part of the spec. You can cite anything as long as it is encyclopedic and not on the "bad" list. If it is they will let you know. But, you can't give them the link. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The oddest article on Wikipedia

I came back to this article to check something and discovered that it had https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delphi&type=revision&diff=1011433384&oldid=979839299 changed in a weird way.] It reads awkward and its full of geology, which must surely be of limited interest to those interested in the ancient site. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. User:Botteville seems to have gone overboard on this, but there's no way it should be at the top of the article at this vast length (especially when the lead is rather short and poor). For now I've moved it to the bottom, but really I think it should be split off to Geography and geology of Delphi or something. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was the ODDEST article, would you really? There is plenty of odd stuff on here. I found the article in a total state of disarray. No basic organization. Material repeated. I got into it through the pictures, which were even worse. A shame, because there are a lot of fine pictures. I did what I could on the pictures, and reorganized this one somewhat. I don't agree that this is an especially long article. There are lots a lot longer. I presume you are using hyperbole to say you would like to see it shorter. Go ahead, make it shorter. What, exactly, are you waiting for? I'm not taking responsibility for the perfection of the article, only making it better. Naturally, there is plenty of room for other opinions. Now, for the geology, that is an interesting question. SOME geology is relevant, especially in the natural configuration and stability of the site, and the reasons why it became the seat of the oracle. I started in on that. Then I found there was not much anywhere on those topics even though stub articles have been set up. A lot of what you might say should be in those other articles. So, I didn't know how much to say here. What I did was switch over to the geology articles for a while. I'm not done with Delphi. I will be back at some point, when I understand the geology of the region much better. It doesn't bother me that you moved the geology. Fine. Or that you think it is odd. It was always odd. The problem is to unodd it, and name-calling isn't too useful. I note your suggestion to move the geology to a different article. I suppoe it depends on how much is going to be in there. You wouldn't want to say NOTHING - Delphi is inherently geologic. I do not have an opinion right now because I am looking at the geology of other articles. But, more importantly, the rest of it needs a lot of work still. The main cause of the length is that the previous author(s) - whoever - wanted to list the architectural features of the site in separate sections. I don't disagree with that but once you do it the article becomes longer. I have not found a way around that. Even it you have only introductions and see mains in there, it is still long. Let's face it, Delphi is a complicated place, and maybe needs a longer article. I know this reply is a bit long. I just wanted you to know some of the problems. Whatever you do here I'm probably not going to oppose, although I may do supplementation or minor corrction. One of you said you went back to check something - I can't imagine what. Wasn't it where you put it, or what? So what is your conclusion, you want to revert everythiong I did and go back to an accumulated array of disorganized material? This article needs a lot of work. Have you got the stomach for it or do you only do mainly name-calling? Such an approach would NOT be odd around here.09:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What I was proposing was moving the relevant sections off to Geography and geology of Delphi, leaving short summary sections here in the usual way. I certainly agree other parts of the article need expansion, & the overall length is not a problem yet, still less after that proposed move. Buut as it was the G&G section, right at the top, gave an unbalanced read. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Delphi - and I think my picture of the columns is pretty good - and yes there are some geological aspects that need addressing. The spring, the gases, the landslides that affected the site and helped preserve it. but goodness, do we really need to know the details of the valleys around Itea? A brief mention, and a link to Geology of Delphi where someone who knows this stuff can spread themselves. The historic site is about the buildings, the cultural practices, the location in context to the Greek city-states. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relief on the geology

I read the geological criticisms and replied above. Basically what I said was I would get back to it when I knew more. It seems to me now that is not enough. I need to make up my mind. So, I'm pushing the process ahead a bit. I considered the suggestion to create an article on the Geology of Delphi. Not a bad suggestion, but actually there are some existing stubs that can take most of this material. I'm not saying we can't benefit by a Geology of Delphi article. I'm not ready to write it and I doubt if most of you are. Geology is pretty steep. A lot of the apparent "oddness" is geological. Geology can be construed as odd by non-geological persons. But there is a way to get some relief from it. I'm moving the Pleistos Valley stuff to the Pleistos river, a geological topic. I or someone can deal better with it there. Now, geology is not the same as geography. I believe the geography should be up front as general orientation to the site. The reader should know that Delphi was founded as part of a Mycenaean Greek complex in the valley. So, it is actually more archaeological; let us say, archaeological topography. I plan to put some of that back up front under a non-geological brand name.

I appreciate your critiques but it is possible to critique without the name-calling. Let's put on a better show than cat-calling and hooting. Leave that to the politicians. For the other criticisms, well, I was trying to keep what other people had written as much as possible. If you don't like that, rewrite it yourself. The intro is too short, you say. Someone else would argue, and probably will, it is too long. Why don't YOU write it and the rest of us will look at it. Geology is not the only place where one might suggest another article. The history and mytholgy are likely to be long also. Why don't YOU take a hand, tell us what should go here and what should be moved or split into its own article. Anybody can sit on the periphery barking but only sled-dogs are going to move the sled.12:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is this by, and who is it adressing? Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon - sorry I forgot add the tilde. Why, it is addressing YOU and the other commenter in the last subsection. Odd indeed! Are we Americans supposed to shift feet in awe as the authoritative British haul out their suggestive meaningful intimations that only they can comprehend? What am I, odd? On WP it is best to avoid such emotional epithets and stick to specific criticisms. What exactly does "odd" mean? Moreover, I didn't go overboard or whatever you said I was. I kept looking for support material and was not finding it, so I chose to try and compensate here. It ended up being too much so I left it in favor of beefing up the support articles. They turned out to be mainly stubs. I did mean to get back to this to clean it up but apparently I delayed too long. If you want to bicker any more about it, find someone else to fight with. But, I see by your thanking me for my edit that you aren't going to fight. For the moment I want to bring "Pleistos" up to speed. There needs to be SOME geography in "Delphi" and I believe it should be up front so the reader will know where he is and why. I guess I will have to split my time. Also previously I had to do some rearranging to get everything in logical order. I notice there are other stubs or short articles dealing with some of these historical and mythological topics. If you feel inclined to help out you could take those on. Otherwise I will have to do it myself. That will produce some shortening. But, as I said, the site has all these architectural features that someone wants to include, and the sum total is not short. If I do not answer you right away it is because I am busy. WP does not have space for name-calling.Botteville (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone threw a single pink sock onto my front lawn this morning. I thought to myself, "That's odd."

Wikipedia has a house style, and most articles read pretty bland. Personality and sparkle is not what you generally get here. Just the leaden presentation of facts clumped together in some sort of order. So. when I find an article that reads different, it's an oddity. That doesn't mean that any of the editors are off-the-wall, round-the-bend, rocks-in-the-head wacko bananas. Just that it reads odd in comparison to every other article on the site. No offence intended. And, as an aside, I find the Pommie sense of humour a bit edgy sometimes. Mr Bean, for example. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Apology accepted. Got to work now.Botteville (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"End of Delphi"

The article generally reads well, but style of the section "end of Delphi" jars. It seems overly casual in the way it talks about its subject. Paul Koning (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Koning I completely agree! It's extremely odd. 2601:445:601:37D0:F442:1C47:EBD6:9A55 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]