Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleParthenon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
February 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 21, 2004Featured article reviewKept
May 25, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 26, 2004, September 26, 2005, September 26, 2006, September 26, 2007, September 26, 2010, September 26, 2011, September 26, 2012, September 26, 2014, September 26, 2015, September 26, 2018, September 26, 2019, and September 26, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

Organization of ideas; CE/BCE[edit]

I have been looking over this article and making edits where they appear to be needed, especially in terms of organization. It seems that there is a fair amount of information that is either repeated too frequently in different sections or does not apply to the topic of a specific section. An example would be the inclusion of the building's use as a treasury for the Delian League under "Sculptures."

I also would strongly urge switching of dates from the outdated "AD/BC" to "CE/BCE" to reflect current usage. I can make those changes over time as I encounter them. CuriosumScriptor (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you can't, without a clear consensus from a discussion here, see WP:ERA. It may be your opinion that BC is "outdated", but many disagree - don't count on getting consensus for such a proposal. I for one would oppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you went ahead anyway, which I've reverted. This is a clear breach of policy; please don't repeat it, here or elsewhere. There were also far too many era indications. I would suggest getting the lead into 4 paras, per WP:LEAD, and moving the rather over-complicated "etymology" section much lower, with a sentence or two in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The etymology section has become a bizarre and irrelevant hobby horse. We know the name Parthenon was a later nickname that caught on, harping on about it tells us very little about the building except to the extent that the usage of the term overlaps with the opisthodomos problem. The whole section could be dealt with briefly in a footnote. I'm actually doing some reading on this and am tempted to write a revision of the article, but promise nothing.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 10:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Harsh but fair! Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough - so what are the pros and cons of either format, in others' opinions? CuriosumScriptor (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I would also phrase it as less of an opinion than more of an academic standard. What are the reasons for keeping AD/BC? I'm not being snarky - I really would like to know. CuriosumScriptor (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See some of the many lengthy talk page proposal discussions on this - not sure I can remember any names at the moment. One reason is that great numbers of our readers don't understand it. Perhaps that's their fault for not being American graduates. It's your opinion that it is the "academic standard" and that we should follow this. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]