Talk:Pyramid of Cestius
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2004 comment
[edit]![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2007. Further details are available here. |
A temporary page was made for this listing. --Gonville 05:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Relative size compared to Egyptian pyramids"
[edit]"Oddly, the Pyramid of Cestius is the 4th-tallest pyramid of the ancient Mediterranean world, being surpassed in height only by the three main Pyramids of Gizeh." This statement is at odds with the information found in the article on "Egyptian Pyramids." Several pyramids outisde Giza are listed there that are taller than 50 meters, and that are larger than the third-largest pyramid at Giza.
- Yes, thass a mistake (a dumb one of mine, leaning on a secondary source when in fact I ought to know better); why didn't you edit it out? Bill 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
See Also
[edit]Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- One further point. This list, when it includes the disputed assortment of pyramids, becomes a fine example of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Hiberniantears 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pyramid of Cestius. 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/20110728145930/http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/news.php?id_n=7819 to http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/news.php?id_n=7819
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Pyramid of Cestius page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Pyramid of Cestius" page.
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- B-Class Architecture articles
- Mid-importance Architecture articles
- C-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- C-Class Italy articles
- Mid-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- C-Class Cemeteries articles
- Low-importance Cemeteries articles
- Wikipedia articles as assignments