Jump to content

Talk:Hyperion (Titan)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hyperion (mythology))

Comments

[edit]

Poor old Hyperion. No one has come looking for you.But Hamlet kept yacking on about you so i did. G

  • Hyperion was also the name of the main BattleCrusier in StarCraft :) Ghostalker
Put that on Hyperion rather than on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ARM planet on Total A is called Empyrian, not Hyperion. I don't feel proud about knowing this.

God of observation? I've not heard that before.

[edit]

The article claims that Hyperion was regarded as the "god of observation" along with Theia as a "goddess of sight". I have not found any reference to this any any book on mythology or Greek religion that I own. I very much doubt that this is true. The Prime Source 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Dale[reply]

Maybe related to the etymology of his name, from Hyper- meaning "over"? As in "overseeing"? --Krsont 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theia is the Goddess of sight?

[edit]

I very much doubt that Theia was ever thought to be a goddess of sight in the ancient world and unless any evidence that this is the case is given then this statement should be removed. The Prime Source 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Dale[reply]

Hyperion in fiction, is it necessary on this page?

[edit]

I think it has come to the point where this section is no longer necessary. Similar situations has arisen for many other pages on minor Greek deities where there has been some debate over whether a section should be included in the mythology article about fiction, or if this should be moved to the disambiguation page. In most of these cases the editors of the articles have decided to move the fictional references to the disambiguation page to make the article more focused and less cluttered. In this case I see no reason why not to do the same. Here is my reasoning:

  • 1. Half of the items (8/16) in this section already have their own pages and appear on the disambiguation page.
  • 2. Most of these references listed on this page seem to have minimal importance. For example, knowing that in Act 4, Scene 3 of Hamlet, Shakespeare referenced Hyperion does not provide any information about the play and is simply useless information. Writers make references to ancient deities like Hyperion all the time; this particular example is no exception. In this case it was probably included because of the renown associated with Shakespeare and Hamlet.
  • 3. This section has essentially nothing to do with the Titan Hyperion, except that it was the namesake for these references.
  • 4. Without this section the article would be more concise, encyclopedic and less cluttered.

I suggest two solutions to solve this problem:

  • 1. Remove the entire "Fiction inspired by or connected to Hyperion" section
  • 2. Move all the important and valuable references to the disambiguation page for

If there are no objections I will carry this out over the next week. Thanks, --France3470 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this site looking for Hyperion in post -classical writing: as the piece says now, there is very little to write about Hyperion as a figure in classical myth. But he inspired two long poems by Keats and Hölderlin. That seems to be at least worth mentioning? Worth explaining? 122.162.135.101 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion's etymology

[edit]

Hyperion is related to the Greek root word "hyper", meaning "over", "above", or "excessive". The root word carried itself over into English as a prefix, and is seen in words such as "Hyperbole" (an over-statement), "Hyperactivity" (excessive amounts of energy), and "Hyperventilation" (overbreathing), among many others. This should probably be added to the article, especially because the article gives the impression that Hyperion has no purpose within Greek mythology or otherwise. 24.15.53.225 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless trivia tarnishing the Wikipedia ideal

[edit]

Just a personal appeal to Wikipedians to please desist from posting useless and uninteresting trivia. The trivia section of this entry is a great example of how the Wikipedia ideal is being tarnished beyond redemption through the inclusion of such irrelevent nonsense. It weakens Wikipedia enormously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.85.59 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is, trivia sections are already a violation of Wikipedia's own rules about original research. That is sufficient reason in itself to delete them on sight. Very little in a trivia section can ever be found in any sort of secondary literature.Ekwos (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the trivia section again for lack of any sources and for being original research. If you want to include the trivia section so badly, at least find reliable secondary sources for everything.Ekwos (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion's consort

[edit]

It should be added that Hyperion's consort was said to be Theia.

ICE77 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Hyperion?

[edit]

The article says "the Sun is once in each work called Hyperionides (περίδής) 'son of Hyperion'" - but the Greek there only says "perides". Has this been misedited, or is there a reason for the mismatch? -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 11:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Hyperion (mythology) → Hyperion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: articles not moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Titan got 199,000 page views in the last 90 days, compared to 28,000 for the Simmons novel, 13,000 for the comic book characters, 9,400 for the moon of Saturn, 7,600 for Hyperion Books, 6,700 for the Keats' poem, 4,700 for Hyperion Power Generation, 3,300 for Hyperion Entertainment, 2,500 for the Hölderlin novel, 2,300 for Hyperion Records, 1,900 for the computer, 350 for Oracle Hyperion, and 220 for the journal. That's 199349/(27863+ 13291+9350+7611+6773+4745+ 3250+2517+2305+1930+351+220+199349), or 71 percent, for the Titan. Kauffner (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if you read the above, but Titan: 199,000 views, other uses: 59,800 views, so not really comparable. A large enough gap, perhaps, for the Titan to be considered the primary topic. I♦A 10:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Kauffner added to the list after I posted, no I didn't read "the above". Regardless, there are dozens of items on the disambiguation page (not just the handful Kauffner cataloged), and the prominence of the Saturnian moon in particular (despite the disparity in pageviews) means I just can't support this being the primary topic. Powers T 15:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I originally made up the list based more on what topics come up when you google Hyperion than on the DAB. Anyway, I've upgraded it, so it is pretty comprehensive now. Kauffner (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the moon is also highly likely from an educational point of view, and the poem. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The educational value exception was adopted to make it easier to designate an educational topic as primary. Here you turn it upside down and use it as reason not to designated any topic, educational or not, as primary. It doesn't seem that there is any issue of making either the moon or the poem primary. If that is the case, then this proposal has no effect on those articles. Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hyperion for a movie

[edit]

Greetings:

I'm only posting this in the "NEW SECTION" because I don't know how to comment on a WIKIPEDIA subject, and I don't want my entry to accidentally erase and/or interfere with information that's already posted.

I think this is the first time I've ever posted anything at a WIKIPEDIA web site.

So, if I'm doing this incorrectly, I hope someone will let me know.

Until yesterday, Saturday 02 June 2012, I had never heard of "HYPERION".

That was when I watched a 1974 WALT DISNEY movie, "THE ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD", at the YOU TUBE web site.

In that movie, the airship is named, "HYPERION", and seeing that, piqued my interest in learning more.

WIKIPEDIA will not permit me to include the movie's URL in this post, so you'll have to research it for yourself.

However, here is a hint:

The 1974 WALT DISNEY movie, "THE ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD", was posted at the YOU TUBE web site on Saturday 19 November 2011 by "CRYOSTATION"

By the way, I truly enjoyed watching that movie, and can highly recommend it for others.

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Mallernee Armed Forces Retirement Home Gulfport, Mississippi 39507

Epidus bow redirect

[edit]

Why does the Epidus bow redirect here if there is no mention of it on the page? I for one become very frustrated when a subject redirects and is not mentioned on the page. Andrew Watts (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.55.198 (talk) [reply]

Did Hyperion have any Roman/Latin names?

[edit]

Or was Sol always the only solar deity?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still "Hyperion" in latin sources. There's no known analogue in roman mythology (which have little on the geneology of gods in general, prior to syncretism with greek myths anyways), though Emperor Julian appearently incorporated him in his version of Neoplatonism (see main article).(talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperion (mythology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Hyperion in the Titanomachy

[edit]

The article says "There is little to no reference to Hyperion during the Titanomachy". If that is the case, what is mentioned about him?

ICE77 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Chenzw  Talk  15:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– The titan has more longterm significance, and is the source of the names of most other usages of "Hyperion" including the moon. It also has, by and large, the most pageviews. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The moon was a nameless rock until it was named Hyperion in 1847 - long after the mythical titan's name was thought up. Saying the moon has more longterm significance because it existed longer is a fallacy.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that Longfellow's novel and Keats' poem also have long-term significance, among others. The difficulty here, as far as WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY goes, is that "a topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people ... but not be the primary meaning among a general audience". I doubt the titan is actually the primary meaning for most people. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the namesake of so many topics is obviously PRIMARY for long-term significance. While some of the topics on the DAB have been around for a long time, this is clearly the "longest"-term significant one. -- Netoholic @ 09:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I generally agree that gods and goddesses should be primary over their namesakes, although I note that I've been pretty consistently outvoted on this principle. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per views of the novel, also the moon gets around a third of the vies[[1]]. Also although others might derive from the god, the moon is also important and like the Boston example the other uses aren't conceptual that WP:DABCONCEPT would likely apply, also most of the planets are primary like Jupiter are primary, the exception of Mercury probably mainly due to the element. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, don't start this again. Gods are not more notable than celestial bodies. Not to mention the other significant topics in this case. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per pageviews and WP:NOPRIMARY. Also, even if we decide to ignore pageviews and go by "importance", the moon of Saturn is quite important as well, there are lots of mythological entities but we aren't getting more moons of Saturn any time soon. Note that I just edited the disambig page to increase in prominence the science meeting. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The Titan only gets 16% of the pageviews and ranks 4th among the major meanings. No WP:PTOPIC; and this proposal is by some distance the worst failure of PTOPIC#1 ("highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term") I have seen. Narky Blert (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in the current structure of citations on this page

[edit]

This page currently has several major issues with how citations are rendered on the page, with many duplicate citations that are disconnected from each other, and a large list of references which is largely disconnected from any specific contents within the article.

  1. Citations are mixed with explanatory footnotes: There is currently no distinction between citations and explanatory footnotes, making it unclear to readers whether any given note is indicating a source for the presented information, or simply a comment on the text. For example, within the family tree, most of the notes are actually explanatory footnotes rather than citations, which is not at all obvious until you look at each one. This is deceptive to readers, as it makes explanatory footnotes (which are editorial content) seem like sources themselves, rather than statements that require sources.
  2. Severe lack of inline citations: The article has a very large list of references at the bottom of the page, but almost no inline citations. This is somewhat concealed by the first issue (which is another reason why the first issue is such a problem), because while the page does have several footnotes, many of them are explanatory footnotes rather than citations. But there are also plenty of statements throughout this relatively short article, without any inline citation at all, making it unclear where they come from.
  3. Arbitrary grouping of citations: This is primarily a problem in the lead. There is a sequence of citations and footnotes, but sources are seemingly arbitrarily grouped between multiple different footnotes, each containing multiple citations. If the grouping is not arbitrary, that needs to be clearly communicated within the article.
  4. Lack of connection between citations and references: This ties into the second issue. There are various footnotes, many of which are in fact citing specific pages of the sources in the References section, but this is not at all clear. Some of them include links to the sources directly, implying that these references stand alone, with no connection to the References section further down the page.
  5. Lack of connection between explanatory footnotes and references: Even more significant than the preceding issue, many of the explanatory footnotes themselves also have citations in them, but formatted as links rather than footnotes. As it turns out (but is very unclear to readers), these in-text citations are also actually connected to the References section.

My proposed solutions to fix these issues (in descending order of my view of their importance) are as follows:

  1. Separate explanatory footnotes from citations: Have two separate sections—"Notes" and "Citations" seems to be a fairly common way of titling these two sections when a separate "References" section exists, but I'm not particularly concerned about the specific names, as long as they clearly indicate the distinction.
  2. Connect citations with references: Use shortened footnotes (or a similar technique) to connect every citation with its corresponding reference. This way, when citing different pages from the same source, it makes it much more obvious to readers that 1) the citations are referring to the same source and 2) that the source is the one described in fuller detail in the References section. This should also include doing the same to citations within explanatory footnotes—I think it would be easiest to do that via nested footnotes, but I can imagine it would also be possible to do while keeping them as in-text citations within the explanatory footnotes.
  3. Encourage more inline citations: Add {{More footnotes needed}} to the page, to encourage editors to connect the general references at the bottom of the page to the specific lines of text they support within the article.
  4. Break up arbitrary citation clusters: The arbitrary clusters of citations should be separated into individual citations for each distinct source, or combined into a single cluster of all of the citations for that single sentence.

I had attempted to fix most of these issues (although I was running into bugs with nested citations so wasn't able to resolve all of them). However the edit was reverted by @Paul August:, with an unhelpful comment that these fixes were not an improvement. --SnorlaxMonster 12:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your remarks above, and being willing to discuss this here. You’ve written a lot, all of which I’m happy to discuss, but for now I’d like to concentrate on one issue, your proposal to have separate ”Notes” and “Citations” sections.
As has been its longstanding practice, this article uses footnotes to provide citations to sources as well as other explanatory content. This is the common practice in the scholarly literature on Greek mythology. You propose to somehow separate out the citations to sources (which are themselves explanatory content, albeit short) from other explanatory information. However, it is not always possible (or good, if doing so leads to convoluted and confusing gyrations of language) to completely separate citations from explanatory comment; sometimes the two are inextricably linked. Even in the version of the article which you’ve proposed all but one of the “Notes” still contain many citations! What you seem to have done is create two sections one for explanatory material which also may contain citations, and one for bare citations. I think this is confusing.
Moreover I see no good reason to change this. The reason you give for this change is because, in your view, under the current practice: it unclear to readers whether any given note is indicating a source for the presented information, or simply a comment on the text But I don’t see how it’s unclear when they can clearly see by simply looking at the note.
Paul August ☎ 11:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyperion_(Titan)&oldid=1207681441"