Talk:Bassae Frieze

Latest comment: 7 months ago by 2A02:C7C:E0AC:3200:7559:B4C0:D429:4228 in topic 'Start class'

Launch edit

The article contains a lot from Bassae when started ... but it will grow. Can you help? Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough I thought of writing an article on this a couple of years ago, but sloth got the better of me. I think I can do something with it over the weekend. Do you have any preferences about what should be added? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
One thing that might be worth doing is this: there are 10 conjectured arrangements of the frieze including the BM/Corbett one, we could make a sortable table of the thumbs of the slabs that would order them according to each different sequence. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Count me in! I could help with making the table. I need the data on the ten orders and 23 representative pics. Good idea Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, it was a three pipe problem, but I think I've matched up the Smith catalogue numbers (which are nearly universally used) and the photographer's numbers in the wikimedia commons gallery. However some are awkwardly cropped and don't always correlate one frame per slab. Smith numbers are on the left;

  • 520-1077
  • 521-1064
  • 522-1058
  • 523-1090
  • 524-1067
  • 525-1074
  • 526-1057
  • 527-1078
  • 528-1086
  • 529-1065
  • 530-1071
  • 531-1112
  • 532-1099
  • 533-1106 (some missing)
  • 534-1102
  • 535-1054
  • 536-1097+1098
  • 537-1100
  • 538-1109
  • 539-1094
  • 540-1091
  • 541-1051+1052
  • 542-1053

There are nine conjectured reconstructions tabulated in Cooper and Madigan, The Temple of Apollo Bassitas, p.39 as follows: Ashmolean, Foster, Hahland, BM/Corbett, Dinsmoor, Hofkes-Brukker, Felton, Harrison and Cooper. And a tenth by Carpenter which I think was unpublished or incomplete, I'll have to check later. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm very busy this weekend, but Monday should see some construction. I'm thinking about moving the pictures on to their sides (?) The idea would be that you would be able to see the frieze, but it might be a very tall table... comment? Victuallers (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
For me, the only important thing is to cross-reference the schemes. Beyond that making it easier for the reader to visualise the frieze is to be preferred. Maybe it would be possible to have the thumbs across the top row and make the whole table scroll? That would be wiki-mark-up black belt stuff, surely? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Work in progress ... edit

Bassae Frieze pictures are in this table. Need to change the Ash, Ash, Ash etc to be the numbers from your page 39? I will also add some alt's. Some fancier ideas of scrolling etc will have to await by discovery of how to do it. Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Dinsmoor, Hofkes-Brukker, Felton, Harrison and Cooper.Reply

THe table below shows the various proposals for how the frieze may have been originally designed to be displayed.

That is reading it from the northeast corner clockwise. I should add the compass directions too, since the number of slabs per wall is not universally agreed on. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Will do Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

References edit

Add some extra columns. Ummm about the North East West thing. If different authors reckon that the number on each wall are different then don't we need to add the NSW or E to the relevant columns? Victuallers (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Couple of things. It's Harrison OR Cooper, different schemes. I don't think Smith was proposing anything, just cataloging. Also the Smith numbers aren't coincident with the BM/Corbett arrangement, which needs to be listed separately. Do we really need the flickr numbers? Otherwise, it's looking great. I'll finish it off tonight.
I'm thinking it could be in a separate section with an explanatory introduction, so maybe we don't need the footnotes, any preferences?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 14:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
That seems to work, if you spot any inconstancies let me know. (BTW, the ( ) is for unassigned blocks.) Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy with what youve done. Looks good. My reason for using footnotes was to try and avoid writing "Ashmolean" etc as a column header. I'm using a netbook and the table is too wide to fit on my screen. However this could be done in an explanation paragraph too. We can also make the numbers disappear and just leave "North" if we want to. I'm going to move it to the main page as its now "good enough" but of course (as always) we can improve. Victuallers (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it could be optimised all all screens, probably wont work on wapedia either. And I expect there's a protocol about this, but I'd prefer to keep it as it is, if possible. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

'Start class' edit

This article seems well written, cited and presented. It is illustrated well with high-quality images so I would say a 'start' tag underestimates this page a little. For me, this page meets 'B' criteria at least. No objections if I amend this? Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do, there's still quite a lot to do on this though. 1) A survey of the fragments locations, 2) fleshing out the publication history, 3) explaining the rationale for the different orderings. Also there are problems of iconography that are considerably beyond me, that's something a curator might be interested in addressing? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not lost interest - just called away to Hoxne Hoard Victuallers (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Removal of frieze to Britain 2A02:C7C:E0AC:3200:7559:B4C0:D429:4228 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply