Talk:Seleucus I Nicator

message: Aldux, There is no evidence whatsoever for your claim of Seleucus having any success against the Mauryas. If anything, the vast majority of historians (your unnamed and questionable sources being the exceptions) advanced the opposite. Ancient Western historians, Justin through Strabo, would've been celebrating this "advance" to Pataliputra. Moreover, Seleucus would not have voluntarily ceded half his empire, especially for 500 elephants (they would've been his anyways according to your notion). There's enough of this philhellenic fantasy floating around on other pages. Please don't add to it. Regards, Devanampriya
:Half his empire? Where did that come from?80.217.145.164 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: What was his religion? I think it must be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No religion in infobox? 

message: "A cult of personality formed around the later members of the Seleucid dynasty and Seleucus was later worshipped as a son of god." Which one? JanderVK (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of "god"? 

message: Pls, let me do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavfrombc (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not in keeping with WP:ERA (no topic-related reason given, no benefit to readers, article seems to be consistent and long-standing in BC style). DMacks (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As above. I prefer BCE and if given adequate reasons would support it, but I see no reasons. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I usually use BCE when creating an article, but the proposed change is inconsistent with our guidelines. Khruner (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC should be changed to BCE 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: is basically the same as what's parked at Wiktionary but both are unsourced and, frankly, dubious. (a) This guy doesn't come up a lot in conversation and English (mis)pronunciation is going to be whatever feels natural to native speakers, which at least in my neck of the woods is going to involve the vowel /ɛ/ at some point. If there's no solid agreement or obvious mispronunciation, we don't need to list the IPA here at all. (b) If there's actually an accepted scholarly pronunciation, fine, provide it and source it. If there isn't, remove it from the lead () and we can start laundry listing variants at Wiktionary. (c) The language mess in the lead is actually very well formatted, but it's still a mess. The article would be better served by shunting most of it down to a #Name or #Names section and only leaving the Greek and its transliteration in the lead sentence. — LlywelynII 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove the IPA pronunciation as unsourced. The sources that you've found in your second comment suggest to me that there is no standard pronunciation. Once that's gone, I don't think the language mess is long enough to justify a separate "Name" section. Furius (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pron