Talk:Statue of Zeus at Olympia

message: I note that Temple of Zeus has been redirected here.  I just wish to mention that there is a Temple of Zeus that forms part of Agrigentum's Temple of the Valleys, and that as part of WikiProject Sicily, an article will be written on it.  It might be best to name it Temple of Zeus (Agrigentum).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm not going to just take it out, but I recommend we do. The image shown does not match the description of the Statue at all. Zeus in the image is shown holding what is probably a bolt of lightning in his right hand, and with his left resting on an orb. Further the massive cedar throne does not seem to be in evidence. (Anonymous) Test message
:A good point, except for the deletion recommendation. I've corrected the caption to read "A fanciful reconstruction of Phidias' Statue of Zeus, in an engraving made by Philippe Galle in 1572, from a drawing by Maarten van Heemskerck" --Wetman 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image doens't match description 

message: Doesn't make much sense.... Unless the fire was so hot it caused it to crack (I'm assuming it wasn't so hot to make it melt). Malamockq 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might spoil the ivory a bit... --Wetman 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can a fire destroy a statue made of stone? 

message: This article has used BC/AD right from the start  and has used it for over 7 years without any problems at all. BC/AD is the original dating system of this article and of all other 'ancient wonders of the world'-articles (consistency speaks for itself). An anonymous user changed it towards BCE/CE a couple of months ago . Unsurprisingly this was his only edit. Said change was against protocol (it was not requested, it was not debated, and it was not agreed upon) and he didn't even mention it on the edit summary (one can only wonder why). Such behaviour should never be rewarded and most of us know of the agreement: "don't change the dating system needlessly, original systems have the home advantage, and never change it without debating and agreeing upon the issue first". There are no logical reasons to change the most popular dating system overwhelmingly used in the English language (BC/AD) in favour of a so-called "neutral" dating system (BCE/CE). AFAIK this is the English language wiki and not the Political Correct language wiki. Many readers don't even know the BCE/CE system at all. Flamarande (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies: I see now that this article has used the convention BC/AD from the start. I was thrown off by the sneaky change. Most of the sneaky "corrections" run the other way.--Wetman (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology is required. To be honest my experience has been to the contrary. :) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/CE vs BC/AD 

message: I'd like to request that the section on Phidias' workshop be moved to the article on Phidias, or at least perhaps mirrored. The section seems out of place, located as it is in an article on one of Phidias' works. The discovery of the workshop is an amazing event, and readers of the larger article on Phidias would certainly benefit from reading about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.Hartley (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied the section "Phidias' workshop rediscovered" into the article on Phidias, as requested. It was a good suggestion. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Phidias' Workshop 

message: I've rewritten the Introduction adding a brief description of its form and eventual loss, and improved the coin caption (moving it up the page to where it more clearly belongs). But the Description section immediately after needs slight amendment too. Some sentences aren't clear (e.g. "and it was half occupied with the width of the aisle of the temple built to house it", and also a "loose" half-sentence "...in the 2nd century AD. a most extravagant image of ancient furniture." - is this meant to be a quotation from Pausanias, or was "most extravagant" someone's POV?). Also the date of origin could be clarified/expanded in the Description section. Encyclopedia Britannica states 8 years to construct, and a date of 430 BC, while the article Intro originally stated made in circa 432 BC. Compare Everyman's Smaller Classical Dictionary (1952) which states only that "The statue was dedicated in 438'". I'm guessing from all this that the statue was perhaps dedicated at the outset of construction and completed over the next 8 years following. So I summarised as '"made ... in circa 438-430 BC" in the Intro, with the hope that someone with greater knowledge will eventually expand on this in the Description section. Pete Hobbs (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved Introduction, but Description section needs work too 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Statue of Zeus at Olympia. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011052417/http://www.library.northwestern.edu/homer/html/application.html to http://www.library.northwestern.edu/homer/html/application.html
*Added  tag to http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Archaeopaedia/244
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Link reproduces a search page, no content. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified