Parthenon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
I have been looking over this article and making edits where they appear to be needed, especially in terms of organization. It seems that there is a fair amount of information that is either repeated too frequently in different sections or does not apply to the topic of a specific section. An example would be the inclusion of the building's use as a treasury for the Delian League under "Sculptures."
I also would strongly urge switching of dates from the outdated "AD/BC" to "CE/BCE" to reflect current usage. I can make those changes over time as I encounter them. CuriosumScriptor (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No you can't, without a clear consensus from a discussion here, see WP:ERA. It may be your opinion that BC is "outdated", but many disagree - don't count on getting consensus for such a proposal. I for one would oppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you went ahead anyway, which I've reverted. This is a clear breach of policy; please don't repeat it, here or elsewhere. There were also far too many era indications. I would suggest getting the lead into 4 paras, per WP:LEAD, and moving the rather over-complicated "etymology" section much lower, with a sentence or two in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology section has become a bizarre and irrelevant hobby horse. We know the name Parthenon was a later nickname that caught on, harping on about it tells us very little about the building except to the extent that the usage of the term overlaps with the opisthodomos problem. The whole section could be dealt with briefly in a footnote. I'm actually doing some reading on this and am tempted to write a revision of the article, but promise nothing.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 10:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - so what are the pros and cons of either format, in others' opinions? CuriosumScriptor (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would also phrase it as less of an opinion than more of an academic standard. What are the reasons for keeping AD/BC? I'm not being snarky - I really would like to know. CuriosumScriptor (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See some of the many lengthy talk page proposal discussions on this - not sure I can remember any names at the moment. One reason is that great numbers of our readers don't understand it. Perhaps that's their fault for not being American graduates. It's your opinion that it is the "academic standard" and that we should follow this. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
