Talk:Colossus of Rhodes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)