Talk:Colossus of Rhodes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colossus of Rhodes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece High‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Antigonus

Re the edit war currently in process ("Antigonus' army" vs "Antigonus's army"), I agree both formations are gramatically correct but much prefer the former. The Manual of Style says both are acceptable provided usage is consistent within an article. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of edits re the above - the original text said Antigonus's army - which is grammatically correct - so why change it?? Denisarona (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because both are acceptable but one is clumsy? Note I am not one of the warring editors. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly remember being taught in fifth grade that there's no "s" after the apostrophe if the word ends in "s" or "z". While it might seem odd to not have it after "z", I'm pretty sure most feel it's weird to have it after "s", so I agree.Cornelius (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colossus of Rhodes. 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/20080511043528/http://www.presseportal.de/pm/55502/1174399/gruner_jahr_p_m_history/ to http://www.presseportal.de/pm/55502/1174399/gruner_jahr_p_m_history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Construction Error? (282 not 280)

If Pliny says it stood for 56 years, and the earthquake is pretty reasonably dated to 227/6 BC based on other sources, why does it say it was completed in 280? Shouldn't it be 282, with construction beginning in 294? Any reasons to independently date it to 292/280 or that Pliny is wrong (other authors saying 54 years)? Cornelius (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the exact dates, the reference to "BC" is incorrect. It should be "BCE" for "before the common era." I say this because other articles refer to the dates as BCE, and the date constructed (started and finished were 12 years in another article) vs. the later date the statue fell due to earthquake was a smaller number (thus BCE). Someone who knows the actual dates should also correct the term BCE. 97.75.227.24 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theophanes

The third opening paragraph attributes the disposal of the statue's remains to Muslim conquerors, and yet the Destruction section further down the article makes the case for why that hearsay from a single source was likely propaganda. I suggest putting emphasis on the shaky nature of the information in the intro, or its exclusion from the article. 152.32.99.207 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have added a note to this effect in the text (and footnoted Conrad, as per the fuller discussion below). Gabrielbodard (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]