This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Colossus of Rhodes 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
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. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Re the edit war currently in process ("Antigonus' army" vs "Antigonus's army"), I agree both formations are gramatically correct but much prefer the former. The Manual of Style says both are acceptable provided usage is consistent within an article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colossus of Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If Pliny says it stood for 56 years, and the earthquake is pretty reasonably dated to 227/6 BC based on other sources, why does it say it was completed in 280? Shouldn't it be 282, with construction beginning in 294? Any reasons to independently date it to 292/280 or that Pliny is wrong (other authors saying 54 years)? Cornelius ( talk) 03:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The third opening paragraph attributes the disposal of the statue's remains to Muslim conquerors, and yet the Destruction section further down the article makes the case for why that hearsay from a single source was likely propaganda. I suggest putting emphasis on the shaky nature of the information in the intro, or its exclusion from the article. 152.32.99.207 ( talk) 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Colossus of Rhodes 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
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. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Re the edit war currently in process ("Antigonus' army" vs "Antigonus's army"), I agree both formations are gramatically correct but much prefer the former. The Manual of Style says both are acceptable provided usage is consistent within an article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colossus of Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If Pliny says it stood for 56 years, and the earthquake is pretty reasonably dated to 227/6 BC based on other sources, why does it say it was completed in 280? Shouldn't it be 282, with construction beginning in 294? Any reasons to independently date it to 292/280 or that Pliny is wrong (other authors saying 54 years)? Cornelius ( talk) 03:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The third opening paragraph attributes the disposal of the statue's remains to Muslim conquerors, and yet the Destruction section further down the article makes the case for why that hearsay from a single source was likely propaganda. I suggest putting emphasis on the shaky nature of the information in the intro, or its exclusion from the article. 152.32.99.207 ( talk) 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)