Talk:Claros
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Clarus page were merged into Claros on 7 April 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Combine this article with Clarus? edit
Isn't "Claros" the same place as "Clarus" which has its own article? Shouldn't the material in both articles be combined? 66.28.241.34 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes these are duplicate pages and should be merged. Clarus is the Latin spelling of Klaros, or Claros which is the (original) Greek. Κλάρος — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.217.163 (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the two articles both concern the same place, "Clarus" is more about the general history of the site, "Claros" (for which I have just tried to re-write the text to make it read like English) is more about the archaeology. 22 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.219 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
After a whole day of hard labor the merger is done now.--AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Factual errors corrected, suggestions for further improvement edit
After reading the article for Clarus and consulting the sources for merging that article with this article, I noticed there were some notable factual mistakes:
- The Epigoni did not flee after sacking Thebes, but the Thebans were captured and sent to Delphi by the the Epigoni after they conquered Thebes.
- Calchas was not a Trojan, was not a refugee and did not succeed Mopsus.
- According to this article (i.e. Claros) Alexander the Great consulted the oracle at Claros. But according to Pausanias it was the Smyrnaeans who did so, Alexander only decided to refound Smyrna and the Smyrnaeans asked the oracle if they should move to the new Smyrna.
I've corrected all of this now. But there still remain some more improvements to be done. Right now, the section on the excavations contains much information about the history of the site itself. That content should be moved to the appropriate subsections of the History section instead. The Excavations section should concern itself with describing the excavations if you ask me. And of course, as I've indicated with Template:Citation needed, we need a lot more sources to back up all the claims. Given the factual errors I've already discovered here, I take all the claims lacking a reference with a big grain of salt. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)