Talk:Parthenon

stylobase aesthetic is false

It was easier to follow the curvature of the rock floor than to straighten it up(since most Greek buildings sit on hill top), As an illustration, Romans would make(or just chose) a flat base floor out right for a flatter stylobate for the building to stand on. But I guess the Romans were very stubborn also, they built straight road or highway is another example. But one can not say La "Maison Caree" is lack of aesthetic, it's the squarest, straightest Roman temple building one can get. That was what the Romans do, they wanted to be perfect and had the mean to do it that way. "Entasis calculation" is another modern myth; ancient Greeks used a sculpted big tree to serve as live model-since the column has the appearence of a naturally grown tree, larger at the base and narrowwer on top. The model tree was then cut into multiple sections to further serve as models for each marble sections of the columns, it was that simple -problem now solved. Greeks might have copied the Egyptian column, but on the construction site, wooden models of sectionally sculpted and finished tree trunks were likely used for quick reference and copy as workers came from many different parts, they had to make column of the same size. Parthenon's columns were not Egyptian copy or entasis, straightly speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.15.185 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Parthenon in modern culture?

Would it be relevant to list appearances of, or references to, the Parthenon in modern media? The only thing I can think of is an episode of Wonder Pets!, but I'm certain there are others. --Procrastinatrix 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to list appearances of, or references to, the Parthenon in modern media? No. Twospoonfuls 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would Wonder Pets! add to the Wikipedia reader's understanding of the subject of this article? That what relevant means. --Wetman (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Visit

Anticipated is the 2008 visit of Athena, where once again, the omnisicient wisdom of Athena will be on display for all. /s/ dad 76.195.232.219 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Photo

I would like to propose adding this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Parthenon-2008.jpg to the article 24.215.229.202 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

I am doing an essay on the origins of government and the Parthenon is mentioned. Like the lesson I studied from, this article does not do a very good job of explaining just what this building was for. The architecture and sculptures are fascinating and all, but what was the purpose of this building? What could this building be compared to in modern times? Quietmartialartist (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

the parthenon is located in greece, where drama originated.Based on what you see in this picture,what have benn important to the ancient greeks? help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.199.164 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction regarding the marble used in the reconstruction

The refurbishment of the Parthenon is not using the same marble used in the original construction. The original Pentelic marble quarries are closed to further extraction. The marble now being used comes from the north side of Mount Pentelikon. Although similar in appearance, the marble has a higher quartz content and is more difficult to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shpike (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates are incorrect or backwards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.158 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Construction

In the construction section no reference to HOW it was built only the design and dates etc. No reference at all to the slaves etc although I gather some were paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.109.1 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Would such a reference indicate an opposition (to some other similar construction, for instance)? Would it be possible for Athenians to not use slaves for such a construction? Since the obvious answer to both questions is no, such a reference would be uneconomical and futile (and would even contradict the Parthenon’s thriftiness as well). All big (at least) western (at least) constructions of the ancient (at least) world were based in slave-labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that. And conditions and dates are important too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.214.143 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Location

This article could use some map coordinates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the pantheon

Should a "not to be confused with the Roman temple the pantheon" be added? The two names are very similar, and, for example, I frequently confuse the two. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary. One building is round and made of brick and cement, the other rectangular and made of marble. --5telios (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The potential for confusion is caused by the similarity of the names; the building materials aren't that relevant. I still don't think we need to add the note, because we expect people to read the articles; if they do so, their confusion will be sorted out. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with adding a "not to be confused . . " note and wikilink. Helpful if people can't remember (or spell) these similar words. Awien (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Um how do you do that? EG is there a template? Template:Not to be confused with the pantheon, Rome UNIT A4B1 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done the simple way I can. The clever formatting people can take it from there if they want to ^_- Awien (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Height?

Is the height of the building supposed to be given in centimeters? If so, why not convert to meters, or is (CM) some other non metric increment? If it is centimeters it should be (cm)

Thanks for pointing this out, height was wrong anyway, I corrected it. A Macedonian (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Article is not consistent with dates; some are AD/BC, some are CE/BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.140.43 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dates were being arbitrarily changed to the CE notation, which is against the established guidelines. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Section about threats to the Parthenon due to tourism needed

Just read the article and realised that there is no section regarding the threat posed to the monument by tourism. I feel that this should be included as this is not the only ancient monument that is being damaged by tourists coming to it. Would any other Wikipedians care to give their opinions on whether this should be included in either a new section or incorporated into an existing section of the article. Thanks 84.13.120.86 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the dates used in the first paragraph. They make no sence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone watching this page?

Today I noted that the lead paragraph had been anonymously edited 10 days ago, to assert that the Parthenon is NOT a temple, but was a storehouse for tributary gold!!! I have treated this highly contentious and unreferenced edit as vandalism, and reverted it. But I am amazed and dismayed that such a high profile article could contain such a dubious assertion unchallenged for 10 days! Ian Page (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Well, the edit certainly should have been reverted. However, there is some justification for claiming that the Parthenon wasn't a temple, since there seems to have been no religious cult associated with it (see the "function" section), and it's certainly right that it was used as a storehouse (which is a normal function of a Greek temple), and it may have held tribute from the Delian League—so the edit is not as unfounded as it may have seemed at first. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!Ian Page (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pic

I just replaced the lead pic, and hope this won't be contentious. The pic that was there was a very beautiful photo, but it didn't represent the building at all well, since it showed both the side, and the pediment that sustained the worst damage, and did not reveal the iconic view. In fact there was no really good image of the building as it usually appears, in the entire article.

I had recently selected that same cloudy pic as the front of the article Architecture of Ancient Greece and when I checked this out, thought that one of them needed changing and that this was the best one to change, since the building is not actually very well represented in this article. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pleiades

What does it mean that the Parthenon is "aligned" with the Pleiades? Is there a better source than the one given? (Everything on Google Books, at least, seems to be astrological, mystical stuff, not actual scholarly sources.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)