Talk:Basilica Cistern
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basilica Cistern article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Picture
it's been a while since i wiki'd, i forgot how to put this picture in the gallery, somebody help me out -Taco325i (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
For me, the light levels aren't representational and don't contribute to the 'readability' of the illustrations. Pleasant colour, though. Not a challenge- just an opinion.Mavigogun (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Clear violation of WP:OVERCAT
An editor has tagged the article with "to russia with love" category. I don't even want to know why a film is also a category! Lord knows where else it is going. This is in clear violation of WP:OC#TRIVIA which says that categorization must be germane. It should not be a "non-defining or trivial characteristic." This trivializes the basilica (and other monuments presumably), since they are apparently going around overcategorizing many significant monuments with trivial film categories. The basilica has been there a long time like many historic monuments and has seen fads come and go. Films too will pass. Presumably the monument will still be there. People could care less about some film that was shot there. This is almost WP:PR or WP:SPAM for the film since the monument is more famous than the film. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Comprehension limited by poor wording in the Medusa Column Base section
The article states "The upside down Medusa was placed that way specifically because she would be the same height right side up" in the Medusa Column Bases section. I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say here... what does that sentence even mean? If you have a cube of granite (say, carved in the shape of a Medusa head), then wouldn't it's height, by definition, be the same regardless of whether it was right-side-up or up-side-down? It seems like simple geometry to me... Maybe someone else can explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.233.202 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
2 different orientation of medusa heads
There are 2 medusa heads: 1 reversed vertical and the other horizontal oriented. It was written on leaflets at the museum that the heads have been presumebly brought there by the romans who took them from another unknown temple. Also that making medusa head in stone, avoid people looking them in the eyes to turn into stone themselves, like a mirror or something against her curse. Put the heads under earth and under water and with reversed orientation because of the curse, so that nobody can see her. I have no better explanation for the 2 orientations.151.31.126.1 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)