| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editI have not disturbed the existing text, but have added a section describing the more major buildings in some detail--Anthony.bradbury 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Temple dedicated to Apollo?
editI added the citation needed template for the statements concerning the dedication to Apollo, appearing to me almost unique in the literature and worth of a specific reference.--Filos96 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
On the site an explanation says that the temple erroneously attributed to Neptune (second temple of Hera) is actually a temple of Apollo in his role of a healer.46.5.253.24 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
another illustration for "rediscovery"?
editFrom the Met. Haven't uploaded to Commons yet because there will be a bulk upload at some point. —Luis (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fully protected
editTime to stop reverting and start discussing ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with it in its current form. I can't see any possible justification him or others breaching the NPOV policy by inserting his own personal opinion which is of course irrelevant. After all, "Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not and "WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." doesn't seem to leave much doubt. 120.17.171.85 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)