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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
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
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Wiktionary uses only the scientific romanization whereas we don't even list it and instead list three others. I think it's a very bad idea to use a different romanization than Wiktionary does. Most editors will copy-paste romanizations from there.
I'm not sure the Wiktionary model is necessarily the best to follow here. I don't know who exactly came up with that scheme on Wiktionary, but there is no sourcing for it being an established "scientific" system at all. In fact, it was only claimed to be that well after the fact [1], by somebody who identified it with a system that was then being presented in our Romanization of Greek page as the "scientific one" ([2]), but (a) that alleged "scientific" system on Wikipedia was at that time also unsourced, and (b) the Wiktionary system wasn't in fact identical with it (Wiktionary uses ⟨u⟩ for ⟨υ⟩, while Wikipedia was listing ⟨y⟩; Wiktionary uses ⟨kh⟩ for ⟨χ⟩, while Wikipedia was listing ⟨ch⟩).
So I think it will be much better to stick to the actual standardized and sourced system that we are presenting in Romanization of Greek now. Actually, this page lists only one serious contender for Ancient Greek, the one labelled "ALA-LC" (the table column labelled "classical" refers to the spellings of Greek names and loanwords in classical Latin, while the "Beta code" isn't really meant as a human-readable transliteration system at all). I haven't checked whether this "ALA-LC" system is identical in all points with what we used to present as the "scientific" system without sourcing earlier, but it may well be; for what I can see, it's really Wikitionary that's the odd one out here. Fut.Perf.☼09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of the article we read that Ancient Greek:
is often roughly divided into the following periods:
Mycenaean Greek , Dark Ages, the Archaic period, and
the Classical period.
In the second paragraph of the article we read:
This article primarily contains information about
the Epic and Classical periods of the language.
The Epic period? This is very confusing. No Epic period was previously mentioned. So, to which of those periods of the first paragraph does the Epic period of the second paragraph correspond?
Toddcs (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
