Talk:Parthenon Frieze/Archive 1

Elgin Marbles

There should be some shared information between this article and Elgin Marbles. zoney ♣ talk 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is, there is a see also link. The Parthenon frieze is not the "Elgin marbles" or vice versa. This article is about the frieze as an aesthetic object and its history in antiquity, its post-classical history is already adequately dealt with at Parthenon and Elgin marbles. WP certainly doesn't need another page on the repatriation issue. Twospoonfuls 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A "see also" isn't much good on its own - requiring people to follow it. To be properly encyclopaedic there should be a sentence or two referencing the frieze's "post-classical history" with the relevant links inline rather than tacked on the end (or indeed a "main article: blah" type link by the short section. Also your explanation shouldn't be necessary - the rationale for this being a separate article should be clearer from reading it (note, I do not mean adding an editorial rationale to the article). zoney ♣ talk 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote this article I knew with all the grim inevitability of a Barthesian wrestling match that someone would start bustin' my balls about the Elgin marbles. Thanks for conforming to the script. I also thought of two strategies for dealing with this. 1) not making any reference to Elgin (after all a moment's reflection will tell you he really has nothing to do with the subject discussed here) and then being a complete prick about keeping any mention of him out. Since this would stifle contribution to the piece I opted for 2) the least possible mention of the man and gently guiding anyone who wants to turn this page into Elgin marbles #2 to look elsewhere. Your understanding is appreciated.

Another thing. My explanation isn't necessary save for the fact you asked. The rationale for this article is the same for any other one - the phenomenon exists. If you don't think that's justified feel free to tag it with a speedy delete. Twospoonfuls 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not party to some kind of deletionist/merging crusade, and the rationale for this article is quite justified as far as I'm concerned. Your explanation is also reasonable, I can understand the problem to some degree. It was merely that I read this article, and thought that considering that yes, it is connected to the Elgin mess, it should be briefly mentioned to explain as much - even if it's not the main focus of this article. As far as I'm concerned, it's only reasonable to have no mention at all if it were the case that the see also wasn't necessary. I'm also neither English nor Greek; as such I do not have any particular sentiment on the matter, my concerns were merely from a point of view of having various Wikipedia articles giving the context of their connection to other articles.

In any case, the present reference in the opening section seems sufficient as far as providing the context of the connection. zoney ♣ talk 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

i dont really think so 216.125.24.242 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)