Talk:Amphitheatre

message: 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.
:I agree that it is odd for the British spelling to be used here and with theater. Although the latter form is fairly commonly found in the US, the same cannot be said for amphitheater. What's the logic by which the British form is used here and not elsewhere? Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediately after writing this, I realized that the convert function also uses British spellings for metric units, to wit, "kilometre".Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:ENGVAR. In short, Wikipedia articles can be written in any variety of English, and once chosen the variety should not be changed.  Sandstein  19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling Amphitheater/Amphitheatre

message: 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)
thread_title: Contemporary 'Amphitheatres'

message: "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)
thread_title:  Do we really need this? 

message: Where are the amphitheatres of classical Greece on this page? Starting with Rome seems like a big omission.
:Good point. Please feel free to add info. olivier 07:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:But Greek theatres aren't amphitheatres; they're just theatres. An amphitheatre is one that's enclosed all the way round. Edbrims 07:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical age

message: 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)
replies: text: Wrong images removed. --Enlil2 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of images, as wonderful as the Colliseum picture is, it isn't the best at illustrating what an ampitheter is.  A nearly identical image also appears in the gallery towards the bottom.  Cacophony 05:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Am I the only one who says the 'ph' as if it's 'p'?Cameron Nedland 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently not, because there's a redirect page set up from ampitheatre — a spelling that would seem plausible to someone who pronounces the word as you do.  Do you say it that way for convenience, or is it an alternative approach to the Greek (thus giving "amp-hibian")? —142.206.2.11 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ph is the latin transliteration for greek φ which was at that time spoken as an aspired p, i.e. p+h. The pronounciation of Greek has varied many times, now φ = f, which is btw nothing special since there are also alternations between p and f in other languages, e.g. semitic languages. Therefore, a pronounciation with p would be historically correct, but would sound a bit strange nowadays. --Enlil2 19:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I knew that (not to sound like a dick).  But I do say am-'f'ib-i-an.Cameron Nedland 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then you are just inconsistent ;-) --Enlil2 15:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about it :(Cameron Nedland 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.14.204 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Half circular 

message: 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)
replies: text: Apparently there are very rare cases where open-air theatres are indeed amphitheatre-shaped, such as here. It should be mentioned at "amphitheatre" (if it isn't already) that the popular use of the term is widespread and it confuses amphitheatre with any sloping auditorium more or less resembling an ancient theatre (w/o amphi-). But apart from that, "open-air theatre" doesn't fully belong with any of the existing articles, so plain, unqualified redirects are wrong. Is there any umbrella term to bundle them on and cross-reference, I don't know, maybe "public arena"? Arminden (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like I was wrong, it's about the difference between ancient amphitheatres vs the modern use of the term, which does cover open-air theatres as well, as long as the seating is sloping. Made this more visible in the lead, matter almost closed, as one caveat remains: One can have a flat open air theatre with a raised stage instead of sloping seating, like a drive-in movie theatre or an improvised theatre in a park for instance, which would still not belong here. Arminden (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open-air theatre: incorrect redirect! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed that claim for this reason.  None of the sources cited seem to support the "amphitheatres were used for chariot racing" thing; even if it sometimes happened that wasn't the primary function Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big enough & suitable for chariot racing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main source not at Google Books, apparently misquoted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern/contemporary amphitheatres back in, but needs a lot of reworking