Talk:Macedonia (Greece) Voyage Tips and guide

The subdivision of Macedonia in West, Central- and East brings no additional information but is just confusing, or unnecessary. My suggestion would be to bundle the info all in the main article and to delete the subdirectories west, middle, east. Is it really necessary in a travel guide to list the administrative regions? There is Wikipedia for that. I think touristy places should be described here. DocWoKav (talk) , 26 January 2019

@DocWoKav : Is this the final structure of this region? If so there is still a lot of work to do. The city articles in this region need to have the {{isPartOf}} parameter updated and the remaining old regions redirected. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Traveler100 : In my opinion the remaining old West-, East-, Central-Macedonia can be deleted. Than remains the change of FYROM-Macedonia into North Macedonia and to delete the (Greece) behind Macedonia, because the confusion about what is Macedonia is finally solved. DocWoKav (talk) , 15 February 2019

I don't agree with your last suggestion. The now-North Macedonia is also part of Macedonia. I think that Macedonia should be a redirect page only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think this region should stay as Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia article should become a disambiguation page or Extra-region page. But the other action still stands. Sub-regions have been removed the breadcrumbs of the city articles need to be updated. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although Greek patriotism says Macedonia is only Greek your proposals are of course right. DocWoKav (talk) , 15 February 2019

I think this reorganisation has caused some problems. The following regions have been left without a parent region: Chalkidiki which has 3 sub-regions, Pella (region) Pieria Serres (region) Thessaloniki (region); about 25 cities, too many to be merged into this region. But some or all of these should be merged as only a few articles in each. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DocWoKav: please stop reorganising and deleting regions until you have explained what the end goal is. No one can correctly help fix the problems with the structure if the end state is not clear. So discussion may need to take place. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion, at least as a starting point is to have a sub-region for Chalkidiki. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, seems I was too fast. I just put all the regions you mentioned directly to Macedonia. God knows who created all this region articles in a small country like Greece. Lets put all on Macedonia without any sub region would be my proposal. DocWoKav (talk)

Some of the sub regions need to be cleaned up first, for example city location may need to be created to handle the points of interest listing in regions like Northern Chalkidiki and Serres (region). you may find that you are looking at over 30 city article in Central Macedonia. Alternatively some of the smaller rgion articles can be made city articles covering an area of small settlements and remote beaches and historical ruins. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at Kassandra, Sithonia and Northern Chalkidiki. How can all this information be handled in the Central Macedonia article? Propose a method of handling these areas. Should city article be merged? Should more city be created? Can these sub-regions be merged to Chalkidiki region? Look at this in detail and propose a good solution, then others will be willing to help do the leg work of cleaning this area up. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you agree I can put 1) the Info of Northern Chalkidiki into Chalkidiki. 2) the Info of Serres (region) into Serres. Than Northern Chalkidiki and Serres (region) can be deleted. DocWoKav (talk)

That is a possible start but does not solve how to address sub-regions like Sithonia. Need to understand the big picture of where things are going. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I do not understand the problem properly. I think that with Chalkidiki everything is ok as it is. The arrangement Europe> Greece> Northern Greece> Macedonia (Greece)> Chalkidiki> Sithonia is right in my eyes and needs no change. I suggest piece by piece to eliminate the mess with too many regions and villages without valuable content. DocWoKav (talk)

I think Chalkidiki region structure is in a good state. Other regions of Macedonia (Greece) should be looked at removing. Suggested plan of action.

• Move listings in sub-region pages into city pages. If settlement page does not exist near listing(s) then create one for the municipality it is in (or the major town of that municipality).
• Add all cities to Macedonia (Greece), except those in Chalkidiki
• Merge any other useful text and pictures in sub-regions either to city pages or to Macedonia.
• Redirect sub-regions to this article.
• Evaluate all city articles, if are a good size or can conceivably be expanded to usable keep, if small and no chance of improvement look at merging with another nearby city article.
• Once have good list of city articles see how main Macedonia (Greece) looks and re-discuss if sub-regions need creating.

Should help get rid of the current confusion and mix of minor sub-regions. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, the discussion of the regions has been completed, so we can remove the region discussion template from the article. Is this correct? Ground Zero (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

We don't put detailed listingsin region articles. They should go into the articles for the cities they are closest to. Wikivoyage:Region article template says:

"Individual listings should be placed at the lowest available level of local page (a district of a huge city or the city page for a small town)."

"points of interest (such as those mentioned in "See" sections) should not usually have markers in region articles but should be linked to the bottom-level article where they have full listings."

I am moving the listings here so that they can be transferred to the correct articles. Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a visitor wants to find out about a region, I think cities, special landscapes, important cultural sites and beaches should be mentioned briefly, as more detailed information is available in the sub-articles. I don't want to have to open every sub-article to decide whether a region is of interest. This should be apparent at a glance. But that's just my opinion. DocWoKav (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is exactly how region articles should be written. They should briefly mention the places to see and things to do in prose. They should not have templates listings and map markers.

Wikivoyage:Region article template says: "Almost always, individual listings (including detailed contact info for restaurants and hotels) do *not* belong in a region or sub-region page. The region-level description is a brief overview only...." Ground Zero (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That differs from the other language versions of WV. I wasn't aware of that. Sorry for causing you unnecessary work. DocWoKav (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• 40.7235921.658751 Petres. This is an archaeological site of a Hellenistic city, offering beautiful views of the nearby lake. Built in a strategically important location on the slopes of a 720-metre-high trapezoidal hill, it towered majestically over Lake Petra and the fertile plain. Petra flourished in the 2nd century BC. Thanks to the Via Egnatia, it developed into an important trading centre with lively exchanges with many Greek cities. However, the settlement was destroyed and abandoned in the middle of the 1st century AD during the Roman civil war.  
• 40.75922.5192 Pella. Pella enjoyed its heyday in ancient times, when it was the capital of Macedonia. During this period, the country was ruled by two of its most important kings: Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great. Pella was conquered by the Romans in 168 BC, and an earthquake destroyed the city a few years later.  
• 40.487722.32053 Vergina. The ancient capital of Macedonia is famous for its ‘must-see’ royal tombs, which are a World Heritage Site. Not much can be seen of the tumulus of the royal tombs from the outside. With a diameter of over 100 metres, it was once 12 metres high, but the real attractions lie inside. One tomb is said to be that of King Philip II (father of Alexander the Great), while another is believed to be the final resting place of Alexander IV, son of Alexander the Great. Visitors can see the remains of the original tombs and reconstructions that give an impression of what the complex once looked like. The mosaics and murals inside the burial chambers are well worth seeing. The grave goods are displayed in showcases. Philip II's bones were found in a golden larnax depicting a sun, which today adorns the flag of the Greek province of Macedonia, as well as (in modified form) that of the neighbouring Republic of North Macedonia. The larnax also contained a golden oak leaf wreath. One of Philip's wives was buried in this tomb alongside a golden diadem and richly decorated purple fabric.  
• 40.3975522.617244 Pydna. In classical times, this was the Macedonian kingdom's most important port city. The small, photogenic archaeological site is located close to the sea.  
• 40.176422.4915 Dion. The extensive excavations of the ancient city are well worth seeing. They lie at the foot of Mount Olympus, which was once a place of worship for Zeus, the father of the gods.  
• 40.591723.79466 Stageira. The birthplace of Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of antiquity and teacher of Alexander the Great. It is a rewarding and scenic archaeological site.  
• 40.82123.8497 Amphipolis. It was once an important ancient city on the Pangaion Hills and Via Egnatia routes.  
• 41.1458622.903738 Palatianos. The site's location was key to controlling the only pass from Kilkis to Kerkini. People first settled there in the 10th century BC, and the settlement developed into an urban centre between the 4th and mid-1st centuries BC. The second visible settlement phase was during the Roman period. The city was rebuilt during this period and experienced prosperity from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD. However, it was later destroyed for reasons that are unclear.  
• 41.01324.28679 Philippi. This is the most important archaeological site in northern Greece, and it is a World Heritage Site. This is particularly because of the Apostle Paul, who founded the first church here and performed the first baptism on European soil. The extensive complex is situated in beautiful countryside. Ancient plays are performed in the theatre every summer.  
• Via Egnatia. The old Roman road to Byzantium passed through Macedonia. Some sections of it are still preserved today.   Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply