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 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted December 21, 2004 Featured article review Kept May 25, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 26, 2004, September 26, 2005, September 26, 2006, September 26, 2007, September 26, 2010, September 26, 2011, September 26, 2012, September 26, 2014, September 26, 2015, September 26, 2018, September 26, 2019, and September 26, 2020. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Athens Top‑importance 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 GreeceGreece Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Athens task force. Women's History Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

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]

Harsh but fair! Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 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]

Not clear, to me anyway, what this means. Some explanation would be nice. 2607:FEA8:E0DF:5AB0:B486:9DE3:A630:D67B (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template nonsense - removed. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all

I have copied or moved some content about the damage sustained to the Parthenon and its sculptures from the article on the Elgin Marbles. I have also copied some background information about Elgin's removal of sculptures from the Parthenon. The content includes some more recent scholarship than was previously in this article.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert nut according to the page about Morean War on Wikipedia Otto Wilhelm Köningsmarck was commanding the land forces not Morosini: "Following a recommendation by Morosini himself, the veteran Swedish marshal Otto Wilhelm Königsmarck was appointed head of the land forces, while Morosini retained command of the fleet."

Would that not mean that Otto Wilhelm Köningsmarck was in charge for the army that fired on Parthenon not Morosini? 95.197.157.42 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a curious relic of the early internet; cobbled together from personal web pages and magazine articles, it hasn't had any improvement since 2004! I'd like to help, but can't do it all myself. Perhaps we can thrash out a plan of improvements here?NoontideDemon (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could volunteer to convert the citations from the <ref> to sfn format. Template:Sfn format is much more flexible, and it helps enormously with editing since the text is not filled with references. It will take some time due to the number of references that need to sorted out into different categories (books, journals, etc).A.Cython (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. That's a good idea. I don't suppose there's a bot that could help? More generally, I think this article could tolerate being shorter. Many of the sections look like straight copies of the daughter articles and could be pruned. Some could be simply excised. But let's see what others think.NoontideDemon (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of a bot that can do this. But during this process, we can separate old sources (some are from 1920s) and more modern scholarship. We can also double check whether the sources still support the latest version of the text. Whenever I do this clean up I tend to find mismatches (as the text evolved since the citation was used) or that the links (if it was an online article) does not exist anymore even in Internet Achieves, which in that case it can be removed. It is a tedious process, but greatly helps to segregate the reference information from the main text.

Size wise, it is below 8000 words, which does not necessarily warrens trimming or cuts WP:TOOBIG. Maybe a clean up (copyedits and some rewriting into smaller thematic paragraphs) and making more cohesive in style and structure.A.Cython (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense! The article has changed enormously since the last version in 2004, when for one thing it had no inline citations (as was typical back then). In raw byte-size it is now over 10x the size. The 160 citations now are the usual mixture, but contain many proper books. What appear to be User:NoontideDemon's only edits to article space are to this article in two huge edits in recent days. Starting your editing career by drastic changes to an important article is normally an absolutely terrible idea. I hope somebody will look at these edits carefully, and not be afraid to do a total revert if they feel this is best. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many good references, yes, absolutely, well-organized, no. Some maintenance and upgrades are required, since as you said the article has increased over the years. Let's assume good faith here until proven otherwise. A.Cython (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, @Johnbod I am in the process of checking the recent large edit by NoontideDemon [1]. There are issues of copyright with the text being too similar to sourced material. I had to revert the edit as this is a serious issue. I provide an example:

• Sourced material (Tournikiotis, 1996, p.86): "In other respects, the smaller yet emblematically significant Ionian elements are common knowledge: the mouldings of the triglyphs, metopes, capitals and panels, the sculptured Ionic eggs and darts, the Lesbian cymas of the ceiling beams and the cornices beneath the pediment, the sima which is identical with an Ionic moulding, and the leading cover tiles."
• Recent change: The Ionic features of the cella were the frieze, the (hypothesised) pillars of the opisthodomos, the mouldings of the triglyphs, metopes, capitals and panels, the sculptured Ionic eggs and darts, the Lesbian cymas of the ceiling beams and the cornices under the pediment, the Ionic moulding of the sima, and the cover tiles.

I have reverted the main text back to last stable version until this is sorted out. @NoontideDemon please do not revert back as this will cause issues. A.Cython (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoontideDemon You just mentioned in my talk page that you won't revert [2] and yet you did so [3]. I did not offended you, but the strong similarity in the first couple sentences of your large edit sparked concerns, which is a fact. Reverting back before other users go though is not helping, nor any claims that anyone offended you. It needs a collaborative effort and these actions point otherwise. I would suggest to better familiarize with WP policies. Note that I am been going through your edit and I find other issues causing concern, e.g., there are issues of injecting WP:POV. For example:

• The choice of an octostyle building might have been motivated by a desire to increase the width of the naos to accommodate the cult statue of Athena; the breadth of the cella is 70% of the temple, substantially more than comparable Doric structures, and mainland Doric favoured an in antis pronaos.
• There is nothing in the sourced material at the particular page (Korres in Tournikiotis, 1996, p.86.) that claims the motivation behind these choices was to accommodate the cult of Athena. There is a relevant statement at page 92, but does not point to these specific features, but rather as the temple as a whole for being a "double temple". A.Cython (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]