Talk:Corinthian order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Capitol" was linking to the wrong thing, like Washington DC.

From a UK perspective it's the wrong spelling anyway and should be capital, but if this is wrong for the US I apologize - it'll need looking at again.

I've slightly unsatisfactorily linked it to the disamb pag for Capital - there is no article for the architectural kind and at least the disamb page tells you what one is, so this is the current best of a bad job, I feel. Nevilley 12:12 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

None of this information is very reliable. This material is all discussed at Classical orders. Wetman 08:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I NEED HELP!!![edit]

I'm doing an A-level course for Classical civilisation and I have a question which compares all the different styles of temple, the thing is the temples we are comparing must be in I need to find three temples which are doric,ionic, and corinthian but i can't find the name of a temple that is corinthian in Greece please give me suggestions at please!!!!

I need help

Please don't post requests such as this on the discussion page. This is not a blog rather a place where you can discuss proposed additions to the article. To be fair though, I would suggest that you check out Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (it has one Corinthian column inside the cella, and it is the earliest known Corinthian column found to date) - See Bassae and Corinthian order.
Cheers 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing BCE to BC[edit]

Back in September Anonymous User: "correcrted" all the BCE references to BC. Not the kind of thing a responsible, logged-in adult Wikipedia would have done, I'm sure. I've fixed them and left a discreet commented-out reminder at the head of the html. --Wetman (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fungitecture™" [sic][edit]

The following external link has been inserted here and at various other articles: A sense of what's up with this ican be had from the following introductory statement: "The term Fungitecture was coined to describe the peculiar resemblance between certain ancient styles of monumental architecture and the fruit of one or other species of fungus. However, Fungitecture also serves as an umbrella term covering a much wider field of human endeavour, wherever fungus imagery, lore or substance may have been invoked." There are no references to any responsible peer-reviewed literature, needless to say. This does not show Wikipedia in a flattering light, in my opinion.--Wetman (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman's incompetent reference to link corrected. O8TY (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The name "Fungitecture" is a trademark and must be recognised as such. O8TY (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See also response here. [O8TY:Talk] O8TY (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence[edit]

The following statement has something wrong with it. 'The name "Corinthian" is derived from the Greeks of Corinth, although its own in Roman practice....' Could someone please fix this. I can't imagine what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Order of description is wrong in this article[edit]

Why does the description start with the Roman Corinthian order instead of the Greek Corinthian order, given that this is an ancient Greek architectural style that originated in Corinth long before the Romans started using it ? What is more amazing is that there is no Greek examples until the "history" section.÷ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This article starts with a long text that is identical to a blog: which came first?[edit]

Perhaps this blog stole text from Wikipedia, but in any case it raises questions of plagiarism. It really appears as though it was taken from a book or a paper, and it is not attributed properly. See "The Corinthian order is the last chronologically of the three principal classical orders of ancient Greek and Roman architecture..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesca1910 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the blog text with no time stamp is one long run-on paragraph, it seems likely that it was plagiarized from the Wikipedia article. A Google search in books for this text came up with no other results. Carlstak (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)