Talk:Angkor Wat
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angkor Wat Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
Maximum Block Weight
The article states a maximum weight for sandstone blocks of 1.5 tonnes, this would mean a volume of around 20 cubic feet per block. I have just visited the site and there are many blocks of stone far in excess of this volume. I measured one pillar in a colonnade at 12 ft by 1.5 ft by 1.5 ft with many more of similar dimensions - thereby giving a volume of around 27 cubic feet. Then on the second level near an exit is an abandoned block of 52 cubic feet. On the third level the entrances are flanked by great pillars which were inaccessible to the public (as it was a special day for Buddhists), they are possibly twice the dimensions of the ones in the colonnade. All of this suggests that the maximum weight of any block is at least 3.5 tonnes. Iain 10:08, 14 February 2017
Featured article
This is quite a good article. I think with an expanded history section and inline citations, it could be a featured article. Tuf-Kat 05:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Citations should be easy enough- I've got everything I used to hand. I found a great old French pic for the History section, and I'm working on a plan of the temple which should see the light of day fairly soon. Mark1 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Missing citation / dubious claim
Under construction techniques is the line: Moreover, unlike the Egyptian pyramids which use limestone quarried barely 0.5 km (0.31 mi) away all the time, the entire city of Angkor was built with sandstone quarried 40 km (25 mi) (or more) away.[74]
The claim about where the Egyptian pyramid limestone came from I think is false, see e.g. https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/world-cultures/ancient-egyptian-collection/ancient-egyptian-collection/pyramid-casing-stone/#:~:text=The%20limestone%20casing%20blocks%20came,The%20Great%20Pyramid%20casing%20stone.
Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2024
Script error: No such module "protected edit request". "change Hindu-Buddhist to Buddhist" Dhanrajmingar (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- File:X mark.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
After its first notice posted in January 2023, I think some of the concerns outlined are still present in the article. Some parts of the article, like "Conservation" need to be updated, and there are uncited statements. Should this article be posted at WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)