Talk:Acropolis of Athens

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Start‑class Top‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Athens Start‑class Top‑importance

	Greece portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Athens task force.

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class High‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page seems to get hit with a heck of a lot of vandalism. Is there any particular reason why? -Joshuapaquin 16:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. No sources, either. -Rich

- Probably because many people have been there, are planning to go there, or are studying it in school, which would heighten the article's visitation beyond most Wikipedia entries. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Church? Monotheists? Those who don't believe in the gods? Or people who just plain hate Athens? -Elysium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.219 (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a picture with this underneath "The Acropolis and the Propylaea in a 1846 painting by Leo von Klenze." Should that be a 1846 or an 1846???

Early human occupation - The Bronze Age

As much as I like Athens, why is there an entirely speculative article on occupation of the Acropolis during the Bronze Age. If there is no archaeological, textual or epigraphical evidence this entire entry is pure conjecture by the Wikipedian author (85.76.123.252, July 17,2005). This section should include stronger language denoting its speculative content and would have to provide a source pertaining to the supposed speculation, in order to remotely qualify it as viable encyclopaedic content - otherwise it is simply speculative opinion by the author. Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Cyclopean walls is proof enough. It is the most characteristic attribute of all major Late Helladic (Late Bronze Age) sites in Greece. There is also ample ceramic evidence, a well excavated mycenean underground fountain, several excavated deposits etc. etc. etc. But you are right on the sources issue... some inline citations wouldn't harm anybody. I' ll see what I can do--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link?

The link under the "Cultural Significance" header refering to the Panathenaia festival does not link directly to the festival, but to a game like the Olympic games that are a part of the festival. Should we fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.76.184 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todays featured photo "Parthenon from south" should be included in the article, becouse it's beautiful and relevant.

The headline says it all. Andy McDandy (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Huzzah the fork club attacked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.148.75 (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Greek, but this one comes the second after Giza's pyramids, third beeing Colosseum of Rome and 4th Azteck's pyramid, 5th great wall, 6th Petra, 7th Taj Mahal

"Acropoleis" is a pedantic plural

Although this is an article about a Greek site, the article is written in English and should be understandable to an international audience. The Wikipedia Manual of Style holds that "when a foreign word has been assimilated into English" it "takes an s or es plural, not its original plural". The word "acropolis" most certainly has been assimilated into English and, therefore, should have a plural form according to regular English rules of grammar.

If we were writing in Greek (in Romanized script), we'd use "acropoleis" as the plural. But we're not writing in English, nor are we writing for an audience who can generally be expected to recognize plurals made according to Greek grammatical rules. Furthermore, if we want to be pedants, why stop at Greek plurals. Why not also use Greek case rules and decline nouns according to whether they're nominative, accusative, genitive, or dative? And why stop at Greek? Why not also follow grammatical rules of Arabic for Arabic plurals, Turkish for Turkish plurals, Russian for Russian masculine plural datives, Latin rules for plural gerundives, Sanskrit rules for Sanskrit dual instrumentals? Well you get the picture. The reason we shouldn't do this is that such adherence to the grammatical rules of the language from which a word is borrowed would render articles difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Interlingua 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]