Talk:Trilithon

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roman monolith

Hello. On what grounds is repeatedly well-sourced material such as Ruprechtsberger removed? The trilithon, just as much as other gigantic monoliths in the ancient quarry such as the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, were cut for the Roman Jupiter temple. There is no "mathematical invalidity" whatsoever in these monoliths and any comparison with the Egyptian Pyramids is fringe, these monoliths are Roman, not Egyptian. Please refrain from further anonymous unfounded reverts as they begin to border vandalism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any three stones (such as those at Baalbek) can suddenly be called a trilithon. The current Wikipedia definition says that there must be two stones supporting a third. Kortoso (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Units

Feet? Really? At the same time there are tons.. --Mustvalge (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]