This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
In the USA, the spelling "amphitheater" seems to predominate. (This seems to follow the German spelling.) The spelling "amphitheatre" appears to be the dominate spelling in the UK (following the French). The article should reflect the US spelling in some way. The spelling in the actual name of the article is another can of worms.
Why should it? It's not a US invention.
Do we really need this section? So called modern 'amphitheatres' aren't amphitheatres at all - they aren't the same shape, are incosistant with the name, and they do not have the same function. Should we really be sanctioning the misuse of the term? 128.243.220.22 ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"In chariot racing,two types of chariots were used. The quadriga was a four-horse drawn chariot whereas a biga was a two-horse drawn chariot. There were also four colours of racers: red, green, blue, and white." Do we really need this? This article is about amphitheatres, NOT chariot racing. -- C7796E2C 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted chariot racing sentences. -- C7796E2C 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Where are the amphitheatres of classical Greece on this page? Starting with Rome seems like a big omission.
What is the sense of showing images of theatres which are not amphitheatres? One of them was even labeled as amphitheatre! If no one gives a good reason for this images (which are at best confusing since someone may think they show amphitheatres) then I will remove them from this page -- Enlil2 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to help a friend with a college project and I was wondering if anyone had a list of outdoor ampitheaters built by the WPA program. If so can someone either post it or send me a link on my talk page. Thanks for the help!
Am I the only one who says the 'ph' as if it's 'p'? Cameron Nedland 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The classic Greek amphitheatre is, to my knowledge, only half circular, and the romans might have thought of Colosseum as an amphitheatre, but it shurely is a derivation of the original.
Per Hafnar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perhn ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
@ Jaydavidmartin, Dimadick, Olivier, and Mark Miller: hi. An open-air theatre is NOT the same as an amphitheatre, since normally it is of a semicircular shape, rather than a round or oval one, and has a stage at the lower front end, not a central arena. It corresponds to the shape of a Greek or Roman THEATRE, not AMPHItheatre. I don't know how to remove a redirect, I hope you a) agree and b) know how to undo it. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Were amphitheatres really suitable venues for chariot races? Thinking of length, turning radius, and starting-gates & boxes. Maybe only such a huge one as the Colosseum, but if there were only 1-2-3 exceptionally large amphitheatres capable of it, then it's hardly worth mentioning. Arminden ( talk) 04:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Deb, Olivier, Jaydavidmartin, Dimadick, Olivier, and Mark Miller: hi. Bomgardner's book is quoted from the 2000 edition (Routledge, ISBN: 0415165938, 276 pages), which has no preview at Google Books. The 2002 edition ("Psychology Press" = also Routledge, ISBN: 0415301858, ALSO 276 pages, reprint), does have snippet view at Google Books. I doubt the two differ in content (basically the same publisher, same number of pages, "reprint"). On page 37 of the 2002 reprint, probably identical to p. 37 of the 2000 edition cited at footnote 8 (now 9, after my addition), there is NOTHING even remotely related to what it is supposed to say. Also, that footnote is set at the end of a long, multi-sentence paragraph, which makes is hard to know if it was even meant to cover the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence. As of now, the entire paragraph, from "Ancient Roman amphitheatres were major..." to " designed for athletics and footraces.", is as good as unsourced. It contains what I placed in the topic above this one, the dubious claim that amphitheatres were used regularly for chariot races, which seems wrong. This makes it perfectly clear why it's important that we have an accessible source quoted after each and every sentence.
The next three footnotes (Bomgardner p. 59, 62, 201–223) are not available to me today on Google Books, but should be checked for similar problems, as this is the foundation of the entire article. Arminden ( talk) 03:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
We have 3 types in the lead (ancient, modern, natural), but only 2 elaborated in the article in dedicated sections. The section on modern/contemporary amphitheatres was thrown out from the article w/o explanation by anonymous editor in 2018 (see here); I've put it back in. Of course it should be updated, sourced, processed, etc. Arminden ( talk) 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
In the USA, the spelling "amphitheater" seems to predominate. (This seems to follow the German spelling.) The spelling "amphitheatre" appears to be the dominate spelling in the UK (following the French). The article should reflect the US spelling in some way. The spelling in the actual name of the article is another can of worms.
Why should it? It's not a US invention.
Do we really need this section? So called modern 'amphitheatres' aren't amphitheatres at all - they aren't the same shape, are incosistant with the name, and they do not have the same function. Should we really be sanctioning the misuse of the term? 128.243.220.22 ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"In chariot racing,two types of chariots were used. The quadriga was a four-horse drawn chariot whereas a biga was a two-horse drawn chariot. There were also four colours of racers: red, green, blue, and white." Do we really need this? This article is about amphitheatres, NOT chariot racing. -- C7796E2C 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted chariot racing sentences. -- C7796E2C 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Where are the amphitheatres of classical Greece on this page? Starting with Rome seems like a big omission.
What is the sense of showing images of theatres which are not amphitheatres? One of them was even labeled as amphitheatre! If no one gives a good reason for this images (which are at best confusing since someone may think they show amphitheatres) then I will remove them from this page -- Enlil2 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to help a friend with a college project and I was wondering if anyone had a list of outdoor ampitheaters built by the WPA program. If so can someone either post it or send me a link on my talk page. Thanks for the help!
Am I the only one who says the 'ph' as if it's 'p'? Cameron Nedland 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The classic Greek amphitheatre is, to my knowledge, only half circular, and the romans might have thought of Colosseum as an amphitheatre, but it shurely is a derivation of the original.
Per Hafnar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perhn ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
@ Jaydavidmartin, Dimadick, Olivier, and Mark Miller: hi. An open-air theatre is NOT the same as an amphitheatre, since normally it is of a semicircular shape, rather than a round or oval one, and has a stage at the lower front end, not a central arena. It corresponds to the shape of a Greek or Roman THEATRE, not AMPHItheatre. I don't know how to remove a redirect, I hope you a) agree and b) know how to undo it. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 03:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Were amphitheatres really suitable venues for chariot races? Thinking of length, turning radius, and starting-gates & boxes. Maybe only such a huge one as the Colosseum, but if there were only 1-2-3 exceptionally large amphitheatres capable of it, then it's hardly worth mentioning. Arminden ( talk) 04:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Deb, Olivier, Jaydavidmartin, Dimadick, Olivier, and Mark Miller: hi. Bomgardner's book is quoted from the 2000 edition (Routledge, ISBN: 0415165938, 276 pages), which has no preview at Google Books. The 2002 edition ("Psychology Press" = also Routledge, ISBN: 0415301858, ALSO 276 pages, reprint), does have snippet view at Google Books. I doubt the two differ in content (basically the same publisher, same number of pages, "reprint"). On page 37 of the 2002 reprint, probably identical to p. 37 of the 2000 edition cited at footnote 8 (now 9, after my addition), there is NOTHING even remotely related to what it is supposed to say. Also, that footnote is set at the end of a long, multi-sentence paragraph, which makes is hard to know if it was even meant to cover the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence. As of now, the entire paragraph, from "Ancient Roman amphitheatres were major..." to " designed for athletics and footraces.", is as good as unsourced. It contains what I placed in the topic above this one, the dubious claim that amphitheatres were used regularly for chariot races, which seems wrong. This makes it perfectly clear why it's important that we have an accessible source quoted after each and every sentence.
The next three footnotes (Bomgardner p. 59, 62, 201–223) are not available to me today on Google Books, but should be checked for similar problems, as this is the foundation of the entire article. Arminden ( talk) 03:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
We have 3 types in the lead (ancient, modern, natural), but only 2 elaborated in the article in dedicated sections. The section on modern/contemporary amphitheatres was thrown out from the article w/o explanation by anonymous editor in 2018 (see here); I've put it back in. Of course it should be updated, sourced, processed, etc. Arminden ( talk) 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)