Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Greek architecture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dale Wallace, Pim3nt3l, Cameronwall, HicksAlia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What the ---- is "clegstrophome"?

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)


Heracles

Isn't Heracles a hero, not a god?

--VSimonian([talk]-[contribs]-[email]) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Will Durant in his The Life of Greece (p.41), says that Hercules was the son of a Greek aristorcrat, Amphitryon, and the god Zeus. Also according to Durant, "After his death he was worshiped as hero and god, and since he had had countless loves, many tribes claimed him as their progenitor." (The Life of Greece (p.42)). Dadadaddyo (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Plebians were in rome not in greece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.160.236 (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reduced from B to Start

Here are the B rating criteria:

The article meets the following five criteria:

  • It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  • It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  • It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  • It is free from major grammatical errors.
  • It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

All these boxes were ticked B by whoever did the assessment!!

  • It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
It has five references, one to a book published in 1893 on temple orientation and all the other references are to books specifically about Roof Tiles.
  • It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
No it doesn't. It doesn't describe the common form of a Greek Temple. It doesn't say that they had columns around them. It doesn't mention the word "pediment". It doesn't attempt to describe the "orders".
  • It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
No it doesn't! It doesn't have an introduction to the subject, but leaps into the History in a very obscure manner that presupposes a knowledge of Mycenaean architecture.
  • It is free from major grammatical errors.
I haven't checked. hardly important given the other glaring gaps.
  • It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
No it doesn't. It has precisely ONE picture, and that one is of a completely restored (i.e. of nearly all new parts) building, out of all the magnificent examples of genuine buildings that have survived. IT DOESN'T HAVE A PICTURE OF THE PARTHENON, FOR ZEUS' SAKE!

facts and figures

  • This article currently has 50 people watching it to make sure it doesn't get vandalised.
  • This article has been editted over 1500 times since 2006.
  • This article got 17,675 hits in the last 30 days.

Well, I suppose that I only have myself to blame. When I rewrote Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture and Renaissance architecture, I should have looked at this and rewritten it, as well.

But the fact is that there is a team of people dedicated to architecture articles, and I'm not the only one on it. How could fifty people watch this thing and none of them realise that it doesn't have an introduction? How can fifty people miss the fact that the inner room of the temple "may have another row of columns" when the description hasn't bothered to tell us that the temple has any columns at all, either inside or out? How could anybody on the architectural team raise this Top Priority architectural article to B status without noticing the lack of Introduction, the lack of information, the lack of illustration and the lack of references?

I sound as if I'm raving, but when I find a hole in Wikipedia so large that you could sail the entire US Navy through it side by side, then I am desperately embarrassed.

Why the f. didn't somebody at least point this out to me?

And to you fifty watchers, well, I suppose you were all lulled by the fact that it had been given B status into thinking that it really was an OK article, and all that was needed was to maintain it! I'm gunna track down the person who did that and ask questions!

Amandajm (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Checked the assessment
and discovered that at the time that the article was assessed it contained a little more information than it does now. It actually described the columns around the temple, for example. However, there were glaring errors such as the statement that there were two orders.
There were also a number of illustrations. Where on earth have they gone? Why hasn't somebody noticed in the last 1,500 edits? Amandajm (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"No major omissions"?! Under Roman stuff, Romans lived in houses and mansions (domus and villa, respectively), but Greek stuff mentions coast and islands. It's official then, Greeks live elsewhere than Greece! Should I tell GRE FinMin Varofalakis that refugee status is official, or is the double standard of Roman Vs "provincial slave trash" going to be fixed in my lifetime?

If Wikipedia is ever peer-reviewed BEFORE publishing, I'll sign on; until then, twitter @anonomouse1981 71.189.91.189 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (15 June)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as suggested. There may be more support for Ancient Greek architecture, but as CWenger points out below, it would be good to have a focused discussion of that title, with wider input from the community, before moving the page. That discussion has already been initiated below, so we'll go ahead and close this one. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Architecture of ancient Greece → Architecture of Ancient Greece – The name Ancient Greece refers to a civilisation/culture. The word "ancient" is not simply being applied as an adjective in the same way as "old" or "previous" might be used. I presume that the individual who moved the page was unaware of the convention in referring to "Ancient Greece". But now that Architecture of Ancient Greece exists as a redirect, I can't get around it! Amandajm (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with that! I have put this up for a DYK, on the grounds that its a rewrite, rather than expansion. It got deleted bit by bit until there's only a couple of paragraphs from the original 11,000 bytes left. Amandajm (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid they don't count replaced text (unless copyvio), on increased size. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, maybe I should delete it then? Oh, I've just noticed it's 3.35 am! I'm glad I don't have to go to work tomorrow! Amandajm (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia prefers lower case, and the capitalization Ancient Greece (as though it were somehow distinct from Greece) is a Victorianism; ancient Greek architecture may well be an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose: I was very surprised to see that Wikipedia does not seem to treat "Ancient Greece" as a proper noun. So although it looks appropriate to me I cannot support this move. However, I also oppose a move to Ancient Greek architecture because I think the current name sounds more natural. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral on capitalization. Our article titles on the ancient civilizations appear to be consistently lower-case "ancient", but the article contents themselves tend to be a mix somewhat favoring capital "Ancient" when used as a noun phrase. For example, the parallel Architecture of ancient Rome to Architecture of ancient Greece but both then capitalize it in the lede and elsewhere, and then we have Political institutions of Ancient Rome. "Ancient Greek architecture" solves the problem but I oppose this solution because it is less clear (better to emphasize that it is architecture from a certain named historical era rather than simply old architecture that happens to be from a certain place/culture). DMacks (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: CWenger, Septentrionalis, if Wikipedia appears to "prefer" "ancient Greece", (as stated above) then it is that preference which needs to be revised. Wikipedians write the MOS, as well as the articles.
The term "ancient" can refer to almost anything old. The Byzantine churches of Greece are undoubtedly "ancient" but they do not belong to the civilisation termed "Ancient Greece". St Pauls Cathedral, London is an "ancient monument", built at the end of the 17th century CE.
On the other hand, parts of the Middle East and Italy fall under the banner of Ancient Greece" because the term describes a culture, not just a location. Likewise "Ancient Rome" describes a civilisation that covered, not one city, but a vast geographic area. This is much more than a "Victorianism". It is pertinent.
As pointed out above, within articles, the upper case is consistently used.
The reason why so many article titles have lower-case "ancient" can be as simple as this: perhaps sometime in 2008-9, some wiki-purist, familiar with the MOS, but totally ignorant of the conventional naming of these cultures, tore through every article, moving the pages without discussion. The problem is that a completely artificial precedent is then created, and a return to the original requires a stupid discussion in which other Wiki-purists do a little search, and say "Oh No, you can't do that!" without being aware a) that academic convention is being flouted, b) that the page was moved without discussion in the first place
Basically, "ancient Greece" is silly, and wrong. There needs to be a clear definition between the name of a culture, and something that is simply "past" or "old".
Amandajm (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Further: I have looked at the history and discovered that the page was moved by Akhilleus on 28 Oct 2006.
Recommendation
It should be moved to Ancient Greek architecture, as suggested by Johnbod, above.
The reasons:
  1. It avoids any conflict between "ancient" and "Ancient" by having the word first and automatically capitalised
  2. The topic here is not the ancient architecture within a location called Greece. It's the architecture of the Greek people, whether they were on the mainland, the islands, or Italy.
Amandajm (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Amandajm, you could well be right, but this probably needs to be discussed in a wider forum than this move request, for example Talk:Ancient Greece. An RfC might be appropriate. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I'm just a bit overloaded, trying to get the article completed. Given the number of hits it gets per month, it needs to be finished. Amandajm (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proportion and optical illusion

This is just FYI, I do not have time to expand or fix it, but the golden ratio discussion does not read right. It does not explain how the Greeks knew about the ratio being present in plant spirals, etc. I am not sure they did. And of course just the use of the ratio in the selection of a rectangle involves no progression. And the key may well be not the progression, but the fact that removing a square gives back a similar rectangle - as in the 3rd diagram on the golden ratio page. Anyway that ratio equation does not seem to fit well, it stands out there even more uncomfortably than the current Greek finance minister justifying his budget to goddess Angela. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree, but I never agree with you anyway. I will let it go given that the topic is of little interest to me, although you are flat wrong on the plant issue - it is scientific, not New Age, but the Greeks probably did not know about it. Signing off. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Putting the connection of spirals to plant motif down to "New Age" seems a little short sighted to me. I don't think any Art historian would make a comment like that.
FYI: My battered old Banister Fletcher, first published in 1896 and still retaining most of his original material in the Greek Architecture section, shows, on page 126, Sir Banister's drawings of the development of the Ionic Volute.
The page shows:
  1. Drawing of a volute clearly based on a lotus, from a tomb in Cyprus
  2. Sir Banister's botanical drawings of a lotus plant, partly and fully open
  3. A wooden bracket capital from Cordova (illustrative of the origin of the flat spreading top of the capital in wood construction)
  4. A drawing of a nautilus shell
  5. Lycian tomb (with Ionic capitals)
  6. A drawing of a capital with spiralling plants from an Egyptian wall painting
  7. A drawing of a ram's head with large spiralling horns
  8. A drawing of a motif from a painted pot from Cyprus
  9. Five examples of the use of the spirals (always paired like horns) from various archaeological sources
  10. Next ('"'very interesting'"'!) is a little drawing of how you can twist a piece of thread around a seashell, tie the end to a pencil and unwind it like a little spirograph (did you have one of those as a kid?) making a perfectly mathematical golden mean spiral on your page. WOW! I must try it!
  11. The next picture shows "Goldman's method" of projecting a spiral of the same shape, mathematically.
  12. A couple of architectural studies of Ionic volutes, and sections.
I haven't been around for quite as long as Banister Fletcher, but I had started pondering the association of natural growth patterns with the Ionic capital about fifty years ago. I lived in rural Australia, and was quite unaware of anything one might term "New Age". On the other hand, I was very familiar with ram's horns, tree ferns, grape vine tendrils and garden snails. I must say I was delighted when wee Hughie Dolan (a product of the Glasgow School of Art) explained the "Golden Mean" to me sometime in the early 60s. I was also thrilled to bits when my mother planted a row of little "oyster plants" and I realised that they were the Classical acanthus.
In the light of this, please give your "New Age" criticism a rest! I find it rather irritating! Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the idea that "the golden mean" was used in Greek architecture has been debunked among archaeologists and art historians for several decades. The most relevant discussion appears in Richard Padovan Proportion: Science Philosophy, Architecture (1999) which traces the history of the Golden Mean being applied to Greek temples to John Pennethorne Elements and Mathematical Principles of the Greek Architects and Artists (1844), however Pennethorne's argument uses mathematical slight of hand and superimposes rectangles and spirals on drawings, which is deceptive as photographs have optical distortion. Ultimately he only proved that Greek temples vaguely resembled perfect mathematic proportions, but not that Greek architects used them as the basis for their constructions. Although he was wrong, he has been quoted and cult following has grown up around trying to spot the golden mean in architecture. This doesn't mean that Greek temples aren't breathtakingly sophisticated and mathematically complex, it is simply not possible to build a building using irrational numbers to define rectilinear dimensions - even LeCorbousier (the only architect who has every really tried to build a golden mean building) failed in the 20th century. JJ Coulton Greek Architects at Work (1977) is the masterpiece on Greek Architectural analysis, in which the great sophistication of temple architecture is illuminated, but it is never once assumed that the Greeks built using anything else than regular increments and fractions in their constructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.128.182 (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh how annoying!

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)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. -- Hadal (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Architecture of ancient Greece → Ancient Greek architecture – After discussion, I propose this change to Ancient Greek architecture in preferenc eto the previous proposal Architecture of Ancient Greece because it avoids the conflict with those who insist that the wikipedia preference is for lower-case "ancient" rather than "Ancient". Amandajm (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but once a number of titles have been changed by someone who doesn't fully comprehend the convention in the way "Ancient" is being applied, then Wiki-purists follow the precedent and change things that ought not be changed, under the misguided impression that it is Wiki policy. I am prepared to do the rounds and request moves for inappropriately named article. But it will mean going through this process a number of times, because many of the articles in question started out with the appropriate name, and have been moved away from it. That process blocks the namespace, and means that a discussion has to take place every time.
What this means is, that I will do a blitz on the articles and put in the move requests. Then we need everyone else who has commented, to run around and lend support to the discussion.
Another category of articles that I have been moving, mostly successfully, are those that use brackets around the placename, instead of a comma. ie. Temple of Olympian Zeus (Athens) instead of Temple of Olympian Zeus, Athens. Brackets in headings are only necessary when the bit in the bracket has nothing to do with the title, location or usual description of the subject, but is put in to distinguish it from an identically named subject: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (movie), and John Brown (abolitionist). I am also trying to standardise whether the words "at" or "in" are included, instead of a comma eg Temple of Artemis at Ephesus can become Temple of Artemis, Ephesus. This is the way that most buildings on wiki are referred to. eg.St Mary's Church, Hardmead, St Mary's Church, Hartwell, St Mary's Church, Pitstone Amandajm (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The ancient Greek house and other needed content

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)

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)

Recent edit-warring editing disagreement

I reverted a recent edit because it contained the repetitive and unnecessary demonstratives "that of": [1]. Only to be reverted by Amandajm using a loud edit-summary containing a word in all capitals, one statement followed by an exclamation mark and another ending with a question mark succeeded by an exclamation mark ordering me to Leave it alone: (Undid revision 581989203 by Dr.K. (talk) Do you mind?! This Caroline REALLY knows how to write! Leave it alone.). It is worth noting that Amandajm did not address any issues of substance to justify her reversion of my edit but reverted me based on the rationale: Do you mind?! This Caroline REALLY knows how to write! which I find really weak to say the least. The text with and without the repetitive demonstratives "that of" is as follows:

Before the Hellenic era, two major cultures had dominated the region: that of the Minoan (c. 2800–1100 BC), and that of the Mycenaean (c.1500–1100 BC).

and

Before the Hellenic era, two major cultures had dominated the region: the Minoan (c. 2800–1100 BC), and the Mycenaean (c.1500–1100 BC).

I think the text in the second quotation, without the multiple "that of", sounds more natural and flows better than the one in the first which is repetitive and sounds stilted and bookish. After all we are not trying to lecture the reader and we should avoid unnecessary repetition. This is what good copyediting is about; is it not? The opinion of other editors is welcome. If it is not forthcoming I will seek a third opinion. I also don't appreciate Amandajm's belligerent tone and loud tactics which I find incompatible with the community-based editing environment of Wikipedia and a thinly-veiled attempt at bullying. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Response I apologise unreservedly for being so abrupt with Dr. K. in my edit summary.
I was delighted to fine Caroline's edits which were excellent. The repetition of the "that of" is grammatically correct and states what is meant most precisely and in an encyclopedic manner.
I find it hard to believe that Dr.K. have brought this matter to this page, in order to push for language which is "less stilted and bookish" on the grounds that we are not "lecturing" the reader. That is perfectly correct. We are not "lecturing" here at Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia. And if repeating the words "that of" makes for precise and encyclopedic expression, then the words should stay in.
If anybody was going to be upset by Caroline's changes, then that person would be me, as, apart from a few tweaks, the entire written content of the article, as it presently stands, is by me.
The use of capitals was essentially to emphasise my faith in [User:Caroline1981]'s ability to write in a thoroughly encyclopedic manner, a skill which, in general, is greatly lacking in this encyclopedia.
I notice that Dr.K has both reverted my change and has accused me of "edit warring"
DrK. please explain, for my benefit and everybody else's how my single reversal of your change to an edit (a carefully considered, scholarly and well-written edit) made by a different contributor entirely, constitutes edit warring and requires listing on this page.
Let me put it to you that the person who has insisted on making a change is Dr.K. who has reverted my edit. This ""edit war"" is a matter of Dr.K.'s invention.
Should I complain of "bullying" by being accused of edit war Or, having apologised for my unfortunate manner, should I apply to myself that advice of such wide appliction "Get over yourself"?
Amandajm (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Your statement That is perfectly correct. We are not "lecturing" here at Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia. And if repeating the words "that of" makes for precise and encyclopedic expression, then the words should stay in. is a valiant attempt at turning my original argument on its head, but don't break out the champagne just yet. It is precisely the repetition of the demonstratives "that of" which is both unnecessary and redundant and makes the sentence sound like a lecture and not an encyclopedia. The funny part is I am defending what you apparently wrote in the first place. Now that Dr. Macrakis has chimed in, perhaps you can accept that your original edit was in fact the superior one. I just can't believe how surreal this conversation has become. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dr.K., I have observed that am not the first person that you have accused of edit warring within the past month. There is also Macrakis, who, unlike me, made a full explanation for the change, before being accused by you of edit warring. This appears to be a tactic that you use, that others may well perceive as "bullying"
Amandajm (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, the Macrakis incident was from the 16th of September, so your statement I have observed that am not the first person that you have accused of edit warring within the past month. is not accurate because this incident was two months ago. Second Macrakis made two reversals of the same statement:

It can be reasonably assumed that since Byzantium lost its dominion over southern Italy in 1071 AD, the Komnenoi must have paid a lot of attention to the castle since Corfu by default became the frontier to the west of the Byzantine Empire between the 11th and 12th centuries, serving to separate and defend Byzantium from its dangerous foes to the west.

which he first removed here and I restored here without mentioning edit-warring, only to be reverted again and then I mentioned the edit-warring on my second edit: [2]. Perhaps in your case with one reversal on your part, your action did not fall under the technical definition of edit-warring by repeatedly reverting another editor's edit. So, technically you did not "edit-war", although your edit-summary was alarmingly loud and hostile and that led me to believe that you would continue reverting since you seemed vehemently opposed to my edit. My apologies therefore for classifying your action as edit-warring. On the other hand you going out of your way to dig information from two months ago, then falsely claiming it was within the past month and then reaching the unfair conclusion that it was "bullying" is WP:AGF-defying. The definition of what constitutes edit-warring is sometimes unclear and reasonable people can disagree about it and it is not "bullying" to refer to a reversal of an edit as "edit-warring". But what is pretty clear is abusive edit-summaries of the kind you subjected me to are clear attempts at bullying. I realise that you have apologised for that but then you went on a witchhunt to dig up doubtful examples of alleged "bullying" on my part. That is not exactly recognising your abuse of edit summaries to subdue other editors the impact of your edit-summary. I would have hoped for a better indication of a true understanding of the bullying effect of your behaviour and your abusive edit-summaries of that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As for the interaction style, though Amandajm's edit summary was poor (and she has now apologized for it), I think Δρ.Κ. overreacted. I agree that accusing someone of edit-warring after a single, minor re-revert is not constructive and does not contribute to a civil atmosphere here.
That said, I'd say it reads better without "that of". As Strunk and White say, Omit needless words. --Macrakis (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that I overreacted given the vehemence in Amandajm's edit-summary. I also don't think that technical disagreements of what constitutes edit-warring are a matter of WP:CIVIL. But I do agree with your point of omitting needless words. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A very minor point here: I did indeed RAISE MY VOICE, because, unfortunately, edit summaries don't seem to give the option of using italics. My emphasis was not intended to insult the complainant, but merely to emphasise how very highly I regarded the language in which User Caroline1981 had rephrased a section that I had already taken considerable care over.
I think that this much palaver over a minor matter of expression that does not impact on the meaning a great, (with all the boxing of examples and so on) is inappropriate.
It must be apparent to Dr.K. that however much he/she may choose to disagree, I am in agreement with the writer of the sentence. That makes two of us.
But it is really not so very important. It is merely more precise, the way it was written.
I continue to be offended by the inappropriate heading to this discussion.
Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have revised the heading. I also accept your further clarifications in good faith and in that spirit I will strike some of my comments above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you also Amanda. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Greek_architecture/Archive_1&oldid=1252277782"