Talk:Ancient Greek architecture

message: I checked the rest of the site, and Google, and Yahoo, and the only source that comes up is this article. I think it would be a better idea to use a word that people actually know! Or perhaps this is a vandalism attempt? Throw in a stupid word to fool people? Whatever it is, somebody please fix it. Seir Corall 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the ---- is "clegstrophome"?

message: Isn't Heracles a hero, not a god?
--VSimonian([talk]-[contribs]-[email]) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heracles 

message: I have just now discovered that there is a Wikipedia article called Greek temple which is very well researched an written, and contains much of the info that I have just included here! 
However, it doesn't appear in the little Ancient Greece  box at the bottom, so it hasn't been properly categorised. Would have saved a lot of work, if I had known it existed! 
Amandajm (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh how annoying! 

message: I added a new section on domestic architecture by splitting-off the paragraph on the subject at the end of the "Early Development" section. I added a link to WP:Oikos, which could have been about the domestic architecture of ancient Greece but is primarily on the oikos as a socioeconomic unit. It does give a floor plan of what may or not have been a "typical" house at some point. That illustration also needs work since it is partly in Polish instead of English. We need more on the architecture of the ancient Greek house, of which a great deal is known and which was fairly stable but certainly changed from the Mycenaean to the Hellenistic eras especially where wealth differentials were prominent. The palaces of Hellenistc kings were similar to, if somewhat grander than, the houses of the non-royal wealthy, for example.
There is also the interesting difference between the urban house which shared walls with neighboring houses and the free-standing house. Which brings us to the barely-mentioned subject of urban planning, Hippodamus, the well-studied domestic architecture of Olynthus, etc. 
Perhaps the section on "Types of buildings" should be renamed "Types of public buildings or the "Domestic architecture" section be placed as a subsection under "Types", which would call for other subsections then, such as Temples, Theaters, and so on, of which there is currently some inconsistency, there being a later section on temple plans but not theater plans, etc. I see that there are WP articles on several important theaters but also no article on the architecture of the ancient Greek theater as such. And that's just for starters. There is much to do here on ancient Greek architecture. Blanchette (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed some of these problems. I think that the way to go from here is to write a number of specific articles on the subjects you have brought up, and link them to this one. Amandajm (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ancient Greek house and other needed content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ancient Greek architecture. 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/20080819195306/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2004/or2004b.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2004/or2004b.pdf
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) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no mention of the Megaron structure anywhere on the Ancient Greek architecture page. There is a diagram for a later type of porch-containing house layout (under "Types of Buildings"). However, I believe that the Megaron is important enough to warrant mention, and a link to the Megaron Wikipedia page. This structure was used at the Mycenae citadel, Pylos, Tiryns, and other places. Lawrence L.P. (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Megaron structure 

message: WP:CITEVAR clearly says that it is "[g]enerally considered helpful" to "impos[e] one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles", which the project deems "an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit." The entry version you are currently defending has a blatantly inconsistent inline citation style. Examples include: 
*inlines with surnames and no book titles (i.e., Boardman, Penrose, Higgins, Lawrence, etc.),
*inlines with full names and no book titles (i.e., Donald E. Strong, Banister Fletcher, John Boardman, Helen Gardner, Marilyn Y. Goldberg, William Rostoker, Elizabeth Gebhard, Örjan Wikander, etc.)
*inlines with full names and book titles (i.e., Nikolaus Pevsner. An Outline of European Architecture),
*inlines with full(ish) bibliographical details including publication year (i.e. T., Neer, Richard (2012). Greek art and archaeology: a new history, c. 2500-c. 150 BCE. New York. ISBN 9780500288771. OCLC 745332893),
*inlines with no publication year to help differentiate a single author's multiple publications (especially in cases where an author publishes works in the same year). 
So even without the project's other pillars, WP:CITEVAR has no issue with the standardization of the entry's inline citations. 2605:AD80:0:186F:14AB:5559:73A9:85BD (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of rewriting the article, most of whose references will be replaced eventually, as most are rather old and general. Not all the points you cite above are actual inconsistencies, and others are extremely minor ones (see FAC over the years).  That is totally different from what you are doing (and have done at other articles).  If you want an example of "inconsistent citation styles", see what you did at Gorgoneion, which was already using sfn (not entirely consistently) & you started adding using your favourite (and rather unusual) harvardb (but not replacing the other). Here, you are not adding anything to the text, just fiddling with the referencing style, using one that I, as the only person currently expanding the article, don't know how to use (and don't want to learn).  This is classic cite-banditry - just to be clear, I don't consider it useful, but a nuisance waste of time for me, & of no benefit to the reader. Even if the style were seriously inconsistent, WP:CITEVAR says that the single style to use should be discussed and agreed on talk, whereas you have just imposed your usual style, not in the article previously, and edit-warred to reimpose it.  So please go away - obviously as a roving ip with evidently considerable WP experience, going down the ANI & sockpuppet investigation route with you would be still more time-consuming, though I expect productive in the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And what do you call your disruptive, slow-warring anti-AGF behavior? Cite-sanctification? Or do you think that your edits are justified by casting passive-aggressive aspersions (i.e., roving IP = sockpuppet) designed to summon the "powers-that-be" in the hope that they use their "holy banhammers" in order to "delete unholy editors" from any discussion? But let's not go down that rabbit hole. Now your suddenly invoking the "rewriting process" is clearly an excuse to keep sloppy referencing work (minor and major) intact while using legal tactics to stonewall constructive edits to an entry that supposedly "anyone can edit". And if I'm wrong on that point, then at least you're not helping your case by conflating coding style (i.e., sfn, harvnb) with substance (i.e., reference material) since it makes no difference to me whether an entry uses sfn, harvnb, or both. For all I care, an article can have parenthetical citations as long as each inline has a surname, publication year, and page number altogether linked to its corresponding publication listed on the entry's bibliography. So if an editor decides to change harvnb to sfn or vice-versa, then there won't be any argument from me unless the inlines don't work or the reference information is incomplete/incorrect. And do stay focused since we're not discussing the Gorgoneion article though in its defense it not only has standardized references (regardless of style), but also has additional inlines (i.e., Gimbutas) and more complete inlines (i.e., Fischer), which readers actually appreciate (did you forget about WP:V in your fixation on WP:CITEVAR?). Lastly, I won't change whatever coding style you decide to use when you start rewriting this entry provided that the inlines work and the reference material checks out. 2605:AD80:0:186F:D91C:EC20:6F01:B3CA (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well I will take the last bit. You are mistaken though if you think WP:CITEVAR is happy with a mix of different templated styles; it isn't, and a high proportion of rows on articles are about this situation. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CITEVAR