Talk:Basilica Cistern
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basilica Cistern article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Picture
[edit]it's been a while since i wiki'd, i forgot how to put this picture in the gallery, somebody help me out -Taco325i (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
For me, the light levels aren't representational and don't contribute to the 'readability' of the illustrations. Pleasant colour, though. Not a challenge- just an opinion.Mavigogun (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Clear violation of WP:OVERCAT
[edit]An editor has tagged the article with "to russia with love" category. I don't even want to know why a film is also a category! Lord knows where else it is going. This is in clear violation of WP:OC#TRIVIA which says that categorization must be germane. It should not be a "non-defining or trivial characteristic." This trivializes the basilica (and other monuments presumably), since they are apparently going around overcategorizing many significant monuments with trivial film categories. The basilica has been there a long time like many historic monuments and has seen fads come and go. Films too will pass. Presumably the monument will still be there. People could care less about some film that was shot there. This is almost WP:PR or WP:SPAM for the film since the monument is more famous than the film. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Comprehension limited by poor wording in the Medusa Column Base section
[edit]The article states "The upside down Medusa was placed that way specifically because she would be the same height right side up" in the Medusa Column Bases section. I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say here... what does that sentence even mean? If you have a cube of granite (say, carved in the shape of a Medusa head), then wouldn't it's height, by definition, be the same regardless of whether it was right-side-up or up-side-down? It seems like simple geometry to me... Maybe someone else can explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.233.202 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
2 different orientation of medusa heads
[edit]There are 2 medusa heads: 1 reversed vertical and the other horizontal oriented. It was written on leaflets at the museum that the heads have been presumebly brought there by the romans who took them from another unknown temple. Also that making medusa head in stone, avoid people looking them in the eyes to turn into stone themselves, like a mirror or something against her curse. Put the heads under earth and under water and with reversed orientation because of the curse, so that nobody can see her. I have no better explanation for the 2 orientations.151.31.126.1 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect name and translation
[edit]"The Basilica Cistern (Turkish: Yerebatan Sarayı - "Sunken Palace", or Yerebatan Sarnıcı - "Sunken Cistern"),"
The official website, www.yerebatan.com, uses only the name, Yerebatan Sarnici, which according to Google Translate is "Basilica Cistern" in English, not "Sunken Cistern". "Yerebatan Sarayi" is not used at all on the official site and in any case translates as "Basilica Palace", not "Sunken Palace". Kokkieh (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible 15th century accounts
[edit]Is this cistern accessible from the Hagia Sophia? Two separate 15th century visitors to Constantinople -- Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo & Pero Tafur -- report being shown an immense cistern they describe as being "beneath" that church. If that cistern is the same as this one, then I can add some useful links about its history. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's accessible from the Hagia Sophia. They don't mention it on the tour of either place. Maybe it was at one time? Maybe it still is and they don't want anyone looking for the entrance? Also seems unlikely they would have built such a large structure immediately over the cistern, but it's possible. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Hagia Sophia may have had its own water system "underneath". I do not know. A question would be "why?"
- What the visitor sees today is the entire cistern which definitely does not run underneath any other major structure. Were there pipes from one to another? Perhaps. Student7 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- C-Class Archaeology articles
- Low-importance Archaeology articles
- C-Class Architecture articles
- Mid-importance Architecture articles
- C-Class Civil engineering articles
- Low-importance Civil engineering articles
- WikiProject Civil engineering articles
- C-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- C-Class Greek articles
- Low-importance Greek articles
- Byzantine world task force articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- C-Class Middle Ages articles
- Low-importance Middle Ages articles
- C-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Low-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- C-Class Water articles
- Low-importance Water articles