Talk:Zeus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

In the lead, please change the first "was" to "is"; he still is "...in ancient Greek religion". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E9E4:907C:2027:59D6 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

DonePincrete (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ZUES

zues first wife is hera . zues roman name is Jupiter he can transform into anything he wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.171.173 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a coherent comment.Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Large gap under 'consorts and children' section'

There is a large gap under that subtitle, could someone remove it? Thanks, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It says the pronunciation is /zjuːs/, yet in most dialects of english, /j/ is dropped in this case. Should this be changed to /zuːs/ or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdog1102 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Zeus and his 7 wives

A note at the bottom of the article explains that, according to Hesiod's Theogony, Zeus had 7 wives. Who were the wives and what was the order of marriage. My understanding is that the first was the Oceanid Metis.

ICE77 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See Theogony#Children of Zeus and his seven wives. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I eventually read the original text from Theogony (886-923) and resolved the issue (reason for removing unnecessary text).

ICE77 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Five sources on infancy of Zeus: documentation and discrepancies

The section on the infancy of Zeus states that "Rhea hid Zeus in a cave on Mount Ida in Crete". This is only true according to Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book V 70.1-3). Therefore, the statement should be followed by a source.

The article then lists the variants on the infancy of Zeus but none of them has a source:

1. He was then raised by Gaia.

2. He was raised by a goat named Amalthea, while a company of Kouretes— soldiers, or smaller gods— danced, shouted and clashed their spears against their shields so that Cronus would not hear the baby's cry (see cornucopia). According to some versions of this story he was reared by Amalthea in a cave called Dictaeon Andron (Psychro Cave) in Lasithi plateau.

3. He was raised by a nymph named Adamanthea. Since Cronus ruled over the Earth, the heavens and the sea, she hid him by dangling him on a rope from a tree so he was suspended between earth, sea and sky and thus, invisible to his father.

4. He was raised by a nymph named Cynosura. In gratitude, Zeus placed her among the stars.

5. He was raised by Melissa, who nursed him with goat's milk and honey.

6. He was raised by a shepherd family under the promise that their sheep would be saved from wolves.

For items 1, 4, 5 and 6 I have no clue where they come from (I would like to know).

Item 2 is in line with Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book V 70.1-3). However, Diodorus Siculus mentions Mount Idê which is Idaeon Antron (Ἰδαίον Ἄντρον) in the center of Crete and not Dictaeon Antron (Δικταῖον Ἄντρον) in the east of Crete. The only time Dictaeon Antron is mentioned is with Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 1.1.6). Item 2 should be split into two. It's not the same story.

Item 3 is inline with Hyginus (Fabulae, 139) but I am skeptical Hyginus mentioned Adamanthea since I saw notes on the Perseus Digital Library using Amalthea (I could not check Hyginus however since it's not available on either the Perseus Digital Library or Theoi). I anybody has an online source please provide it.

I have done a considerable amount of reading on the subject and I can state this for 5 texts:

• According to Hesiod (Theogony, 453-489) Cronos sired with his wife Rhea the gods Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Poseidon (“loud-crashing Earth-Shaker”) and Zeus. However, Cronos swallowed every child because he learned from Gaia and Uranus that he was destined to be overcome by his own son. Rhea was about to give birth to Zeus so she sought Gaia (“Earth”) and Uranus (“starry Heaven”) to devise a plan to save the children and to eventually get retribution on Cronos for his evil acts against his father and offspring. Rhea secretly gave birth to Zeus in Crete in Lyctus and hid the baby in a cave on Mount Aegaeon. Then she handed Cronos a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes which he promptly swallowed (thinking that it was his son).

• According to Callimachus (Hymn I to Zeus, 4-53), who clearly had doubts, Zeus was either born in Dikte (mountain in Greece) or Lycaeum (mountain in Arcadia) (4-6). Then he stated that Zeus was born in Parrhasia (southwestern Arcadia) (10). Zeus was handed over to a nymph called Neda (33-34). Neda carried Zeus from Thenae to Cnosus. The Cyrbantes (Corybantes/Curetes), the Dictaean Meliae (ash-tree nymphs) and Adrasteia laid him to rest in a “cradle of gold” and fed Zeus with the milk of the goat Amaltheia and “sweet honey-comb”. Around Zeus The Curetes danced a war-dance beating their armours so that Cronus might not hear the sound of his infant son (42-53).

• According to Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book V 70.1-3) there is no agreement regarding how Zeus became the king. He stated that Zeus succeeded Cronus in a just and customarily manner rather than violently. However, others have a different opinion and say that Cronus received an oracle that informed him that a son would take his powers by force. Rhea then gave birth to Zeus and hid him on Mount Idê where she handed her baby to the Curetes who gave him to the Nymphs to raise. The Nymphs nurtured Zeus with a mixture of honey and milk from a goat named Amaltheia. According to Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book V 70.5) “wishing to preserve an immortal memorial of his close association with the bees” Zeus changed their color to golden bronze and “since the region lay at a very great altitude [Mount Ida], where fierce winds blew about it and heavy snows fell, he made the bees insensible to such things and unaffected by them”.

• According to Hyginus (Fabulae, 139) Zeus was nursed by the nymph Amalthea who hung the baby’s cradle on a tree so that he was suspended between the sky, the earth and the sea (all of which were ruled by his father Cronos).

• According to Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 1.1.5-7) Cronus wedded his sister Rhea but since Gaia (“Earth”) and Uranus (“Sky”) prophesized that he would be overcome by his own son, he swallowed all his children starting from Hestia, proceeding with Demeter, Hera, Hades (“Pluto”) and ending with Poseidon. The enraged Rhea went to Crete when she was pregnant with Zeus and brought him forth in a cave of Dicte. Then she gave her child to the Curetes and two nymphs, Adrastia and Ida, daughters of Melisseus. The nymphs fed baby Zeus with the milk of Amalthea while the Curetes clashed their spears and shields to make enough noise in order to prevent Cronos from hearing his son’s voice.

I suggest to update the article with the notes I typed above and to clarify/produce notes for items 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the current list. The infancy section needs sources!

ICE77 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Hyginus, Fabulae 139. Paul August ☎ 11:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's the summary for item 3 which confirms the "nymph Adamanthea" is actually "nurse Amalthea":

• According to Hyginus (Fabulae, 139), when Opis (Rhea) gave birth to Jupiter (Zeus) by Saturn (Cronos) Juno (Hera) asked for the baby. Saturn at that point had already cast Orcus (Hades) beneath Tartarus and Neptune (Poseidon) below the seas because he knew that if a son was born to him, he would lose his throne. Therefore, when Saturn told Opis to give him the newborn to eat she gave him a stone wrapped in “swaddling clothes” which he swallowed. After he realized what really happened Saturn went all over the earth in search of Jupiter. In the meantime Juno brought Jupiter to the island of Crete. Amalthea, a nurse, placed him in a cradle that she hung in a tree so that the infant could not be found in the sky, on the earth or in the sea. In order to avoid the boy’s crying from being heard she called some youngsters, gave them small bronze shield and spear and ordered them to create a “ruckus” around the tree. “In Greek they are called Curetes, others call them Corybantes, but they are also called by the name Lares”.

ICE77 (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed sources 1, 4, 5 and 6 since they have no sources whatsoever. I previously provided sources for items 2 and 3 above which I updates accordingly. Feel free to add the 3 other sources I provided to the article (Hesiod, Callimachus and Diodorus Siculus).

ICE77 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This source, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology - Ed. William Smith, gives a summary of the various versions of the myths :"Hesiod (Theog. 116, &c.) also calls Zeus the son of Cronos and Rhea 1, … Before the hour of birth came, Uranus and Ge sent Rhea to Lyetos in Crete, requesting her to bring up her child there. Rhea accordingly concealed her infant in a cave of Mount Aegaeon, and gave to Cronos a stone wrapped up in cloth, which he swallowed in the belief that it was his son. Other traditions state that Zeus was born and brought up on Mount Dicte or Ida (also the Trojan Ida), Ithome in Messenia, Thebes in Boeotia, Aegion in Achaia, or Olenos in Aetolia. According to the common account, however, Zeus grew up in Crete".

I found this source on the Diktaion Andron article and it appears to confirm the two 'Cretan mountain cave' versions of the myth. I am unfamiliar with classical sources, but can confirm that these two versions of the myth (Mount Ida and Lasithi plateau) are both widely believed in Crete. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

William Smith is not an original source. He wrote in the 1800s and all he does is to paraphrase a story that is consistent with Hesiod which I already paraphrased above (Theogony, 453-489). He mentions Diktaeon Antron (east of Crete) and Idaeon Antron (central Crete) which I both visited and a bunch of other places with no sources whatsoever - therefore not much useful. Also, the reference to "Hesiod (Theog. 116, &c.)" does not even seem correct since that part of Theogony covers the Cosmogony and not the birth of Zeus. You can see Theoi (http://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodTheogony.html#2) and Perseus Digital Library (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DZ%3Aentry+group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dzeus-bio-1).

ICE77 (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of WP policy is that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred to 'original sources'. If you have been to these two places, you know that these versions of the myths are widely disseminated and believed. I can see the sense in distinguishing between versions of the myth which are borne out by known classical authors and those whose origin is unknown or uncertain. I don't see the sense of excluding those which are not known to be supported by named classical authors. This appears to me to be textbook WP:OR - effectively passing judgement on tertiary sources in order to 'validate' them. Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Athena as the last child of Zeus to be born

Note 85 says "According to Hesiod, Theogony 886–890, of Zeus' children by his seven wives, Athena was the first to be conceived, but the last to be born; Zeus impregnated Metis then swallowed her, later Zeus himself gave birth to Athena "from his head", see Gantz, pp. 51–52, 83–84."

I would like to change the note to "According to Hesiod's Theogony (886-923), Zeus had seven wives or companions. Zeus impregnated his first wife Metis and then swallowed her. Therefore, Athena was the first child to be conceived. Later Zeus himself gave birth to Athena from his head".

The reason for the request is that I do not see an indication for Athena to have been the last child to be born in the literature I have read so far - Hesiod (Theogony, 886-900 and 929a-929t) and Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 1.3.7). Yes, it is correct to say she was born after Zeus wedded Hera but I am not aware of a text that says she was truly the last child of Zeus (if you know of a text I'd like to know what it is).

ICE77 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well here's Hesiod, Theogony 901–926:

Next he married bright Themis who bore the Horae (Hours), and Eunomia (Order), Dikë (Justice), and blooming Eirene (Peace), who mind the works of mortal men, and the Moerae (Fates) to whom wise Zeus gave the greatest honor, [905] Clotho, and Lachesis, and Atropos who give mortal men evil and good to have. And Eurynome, the daughter of Ocean, beautiful in form, bore him three fair-cheeked Charites (Graces), Aglaea, and Euphrosyne, and lovely Thaleia, [910] from whose eyes as they glanced flowed love that unnerves the limbs: and beautiful is their glance beneath their brows. Also he came to the bed of all-nourishing Demeter, and she bore white-armed Persephone whom Aidoneus carried off from her mother; but wise Zeus gave her to him. [915] And again, he loved Mnemosyne with the beautiful hair: and of her the nine gold-crowned Muses were born who delight in feasts and the pleasures of song. And Leto was joined in love with Zeus who holds the aegis, [920] and bore Apollo and Artemis delighting in arrows, children lovely above all the sons of Heaven. Lastly, he made Hera his blooming wife: and she was joined in love with the king of gods and men, and brought forth Hebe and Ares and Eileithyia. But Zeus himself gave birth from his own head to bright-eyed Tritogeneia, [i.e. Athena], [925] the awful, the strife-stirring, the host-leader, the unwearying, the queen, who delights in tumults and wars and battles.

So of his children by his seven wives, Athena's birth is the last one mentioned. I think it's reasonable to assume that Hesiod is mentioning his children here in the order of their birth. But I agree he does not seem to say so explicitly, and more importantly, I can't find where the cited secondary source Gantz, says this either.

I've rewritten the note as follows:

According to Hesiod's Theogony, of Zeus' children by his seven wives, Athena was the first to be conceived; Zeus impregnated Metis then swallowed her (886–890), later after mentioning the birth of his other children, Hesiod says that Zeus himself gave birth to Athena "from his head" (924–926), see Gantz, pp. 51–52, 83–84.

Paul August ☎ 11:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Achilles

It says under the Trojan War "Achilles (his son)" but Achilles' parents are Thetis and Peleus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.77.27 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Excellent catch. I have no idea who wrote that, but that person was clearly mistaken. I have removed the parenthetical claiming that Achilles was Zeus's son. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Zeus vs. Indra

Inexplicably, this write-up omits any mention of the Vedic god Indra who rules over the Vedic pantheon and uses lightning as his weapon. At the very least Indra should be mentioned under "foreign gods".Sooku (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Zeus is cognate with the Vedic Dyaus, both derived from the Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also it's not omitted, at least not now. Indra is mentioned (and linked) twice, once in the article and once in the infobox. LjL (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Indra from infobox, since Zeus is equivalent of Brihaspati and Jupiter, not Indra. Although, lightning is common aspect. It might be the case that lightning powers were ascribed to Indra later, in Puranic period, not in Rigvedic period.

Weird creationist sentence

The last sentence in the middle part of Zeus's notable conflicts seems oddly creationist to me.

When Zeus was atop Mount Olympus he grew upset with mankind and the sacrifices they were performing on one another. Furiously, he decided it would be smart to wipe out mankind with a gigantic flood using the help of his brother Poseidon, King of the Seas. Killing every human except Deucalion and Pyrrha, Zeus flooded the entire planet but then realized he then had to restore society with new people. After clearing all the water, he had Deucalion and Pyrrah create humans to repopulate the earth using stones that became humans. These stones represented the "hardness" of mankind and the man life. This story has been told different ways and in different time periods between Ancient Greek Mythology and The Bible, although the base of the story remains true.[79]

"altough the base of the story remains true" Very weird ending to a paragraph about a mythological tale of a great flood wiping out mankind. The source is a christian website.

I´m sorry if i have made any technical mistakes. First time editing.

NvL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:AE04:7C03:4800:D0FA:A443:D100:9BD (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a sentence added, if not necessarily by creationists per se (in the sense that they believe the Christian creation myth to be literally true), by people who take the Biblical flood narrative to be literal truth (or at least close to literal truth); this has no place in Wikipedia, so I'm removing it. Hppavilion1 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That *gestures to the top comment* is definitely true. I read about it in a book on Grecian myths Dragonlover21 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)<

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

zeus is the god of lightning not thunder 117.97.179.67 (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Zeus is the god of both lightning and thunder. Dragonlover21 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

'Consort' seems a poor choice of title in the table to describe a rape victim

I note that there are differing versions of the myths. However, labelling the mortals as consorts seems to come down on the side of seduction quite heavily. My suggestion is to change 'Divine Lovers' to 'Divinities' and 'Consort' to 'Mortals'.

CeramicBird (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

In the section "Family-- Zeus and Hera" it is implied that they had Ares, Hebe, and Hephaestus, or Hera had them herself. However, only Hephaestus was possibly produced by only Hera and the other two were offspring of both, not Hera's alone. 2601:646:8600:C310:7D56:B599:A01B:5582 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not implied, it's outright stated. The article on Hebe indicates that Orphic variants on the myth (which differed regularly from the more commonly known Homeric ones) probably had Hebe as just the daughter of Hera and not Zeus. The article on Ares mentions that Ovid describes Mars as the son of Juno but not Jupiter. The idea of a solid single story is rather Abrahamic (and even that was historically fighting against a tide, resulting in Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and Islam). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

"Mythology" section, "Infancy" subsection: Change "A a company of soldiers called Kouretes danced, shouted and clashed their spears against their shields so that Cronus would not hear the baby's cry." to "A company of soldiers called Kouretes danced, shouted and clashed their spears against their shields so that Cronus would not hear the baby's cry.Wjstrazzy (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Wjstrazzy (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The two phrases are identical, I don't know what the change is supposed to be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

Zeus was the king of all gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2zynx (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Two things to consider: Zeus, though prominent, was not necessarily "king of the gods"; and, secondly, Perun is likely Neptune/Poseidon and NOT Zeus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:8200:8DB0:F1BD:18C9:B07D:9413 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No credit for the voice actor in Blood of Zeus

The way the article is currently written, it suggests that Sean Bean voiced Zeus in Blood of Zeus, rather than Jason O'Mara, who actually voiced him. I suggest the change from "Rip Torn in the Disney animated feature Hercules, Sean Bean in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010). and the Netflix movie Blood of Zeus." to "Rip Torn in the Disney animated feature Hercules; Sean Bean in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010); and Jason O'Mara the Netflix movie Blood of Zeus." Rokkema (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Rokkema

Done Though the section may be overpadded IMO. Knowing the many representations may be valid but not necessarily the players. Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Add mythological theories about Zeus's great grandfather; Ouranus's father. 25preston.guy (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Aphrodite is not the child of Zeus, she is in fact his aunt. There is an error on this page which states she is his daughter. Thanks. 209.52.62.19 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not an error. It depends on the source. Hesiod states that Aphrodite is his aunt, while Homer states that she is his daughter. NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources for mythology

I was glad to see Michael Aurel's removal of Alagonia as only sourced to Natalis Comes. He (Natalis Comes) would be high on my list of deprecated sources but others have more familiarity with the range. I've stumbled on another case today. In Zeus#Children, we've listed Athena twice, the second time as a child of Themis. The source turns out to be Diodorus retailing, with little comment, Euhemerus's extraordinary account of Uranus, Cronos and Zeus as mortal kings.[1] The same table has the Curetes as children of Hera and Zeus with the same source. Should we be inclusive and keep such mentions, or treat them as unhelpful to the reader and remove them per WP:UNDUE as simply too outré? NebY (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@NebY: No problem. The DGRBM entry made it pretty clear that information came only from Natalis Comes, who (as you've pointed out) we shouldn't be using as a source. Regarding Euhemerus's alternative parentage of Athena, this seems to get at the issue with these tables. Lack of sourcing leads to the inclusion of obscure versions which hardly add anything for the reader. The table format puts these versions right next to much more "accepted" (not really the right word) versions, leading to Hesiod being juxtaposed with Pseudo-Clement as if they're both the same. I suspect that many entries were added without looking at the actual text, and were likely copied from an unreliable secondary source (such as Theoi.com) or from other Wikipedia articles. I personally think the criterion for entry should be mention in reliable secondary sources (or at least one such source). While a table like this should be inclusive, there does need to be some sort of barrier to entry, otherwise we end up with, for example, something sourced only to Natalis Comes. Mere existence in a primary source in my opinion shouldn't necessarily warrant a place in the table (though possibly there could be exceptions?). Of course, in practice, this would require sourcing the table, at least semi-adequately (quite a big job); I suppose I can have a go... – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do agree we should be using reliable secondary sources, and wouldn't even count the DGRBM unexamined. We're editors, not compilers, and if we consider using primary sources we should be be discriminating in what we include. I do worry that in making the tables look better, I've made them seem more reliable – which said, are there any I should look at apart from the Olympians? On the other hand, checking every entry will/would be a massive task. What I have done just now is check the articles on Uranus, Cronos, Zeus and all the others mentioned in Diodorus's account of Euhemerus's satirical invention, and happily only found those entries in Zeus#Children and a sentence in Themis to remove. I'll also look for every remaining mention of Natalis Comes to see if any are citations, but not just now. NebY (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a suggestion regarding Hesiod and more obscure sources being treated the same. How about we add a table containing only the offspring mentioned by Hesiod (and maybe Homer?), and then have another table or two listing other accounts that are not mentioned by Hesiod. Or, perhaps we could denote the offspring mentioned by Hesiod in bold:

Offspring	Mother
Angelos, Ares,3 Arge, Eileithyia, Eleutheria, Enyo, Eris, Hebe,3 Hephaestus,3	Hera

Like this. I don't know if this is a good idea though. NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

indents adjusted, hope that's OK That use of bold goes against WP:BOLD and sooner or later it would be undone - often quite quickly! I've seen "(possibly)" used and on reflection dislike it; after all, we wouldn't mark any of these "actually" or "really". We could perhaps mark some as "rarely" but even so, there are some we simply shouldn't include, however we might mark them, because they're inventions (satirical, defamatory, wild Renaissance, whatever) that don't reflect classical mythology. NebY (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed "(possibly)", as it hardly adds anything meaningful, considering that such a tag could be applied to many entries in this table. Also, regarding sourcing, I am particularly concerned by how many entries in the table are cited only to Pseudo-Clement (Recognitions 10.21–3). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: I've just looked at that Pseudo-Clementine passage. Good grief. I didn't settle down and assess each claim in the dense list, but jumped to "By his own daughter Ceres he begot Persephone" and "Europa, the wife of his own uncle Oceanus", and now I can only see it as wildly deviant from classical mythology, blatantly invented for defamatory purposes, and not a reliable source. Well. I quite agree with your removal of "(possibly)" and I'd favour everything sourced to that Pseudo-Clement passage being removed or at the very least, the citations replaced with {{cn}}. NebY (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed all of the entries that were cited only to Pseudo-Clement. I checked each of their articles as I went, and could find no indication that these versions came from anywhere else other than Pseudo-Clement or had any secondary sources to back them up. Now the table's been shortened, we could maybe think about creating a separate table for Hesiod. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't we just use a separate "Hesiod" table and "other sources" table then?

Offspring and mothers (Hesiod)

Offspring	Mother
Heracles	Alcmene
Persephone	Demeter
Charites/ Graces (Aglaea, Euphrosyne, Thalia)	Eurynome
Ares, Eileithyia, Hebe	Hera
Apollo, Artemis	Leto
Hermes	Maia
Athena	Metis
Muses (Calliope, Clio, Euterpe, Erato, Melpomene, Polyhymnia, Terpsichore, Thalia, Urania)	Mnemosyne
Dionysus	Semele
Moirai (Atropos, Clotho, Lachesis), Horae (Dike, Eirene, Eunomia)	Themis

I have also noticed that the links to the Horae in Zeus's table actually link to the Muses. NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@NeoSIMIAN-Terraform: I'm warming to your separate Hesiod table. I wondered if we should add Homer, but that could complicate the table with differences and then open the question of who else might be added as authoritative. A Hesiod table would also allow straightforward secondary sourcing for the fact that Hesiod made the assertions. We'd still have to consider what we'd include in an "other sources" table and what we'd leave out, of course, and not just in this article, but it would be a good start and clear to readers. Good catch on the Horae too! I quickly looked in other articles to see if it might be an error pasted from elsewhere, but didn't find any problems. NebY (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@NebY:, @Michael Aurel: I have excluded everything with a cn tag and the genealogies already mentioned in the "Hesiod" table from the "other sources" tables in my sandbox. Should we change the tables now, or wait until everything is cited? Or should we rather not change at all? Also, what to do with the six "footnotes" that are below the tables? NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@NeoSIMIAN-Terraform: I think the separate table for Hesiod could possibly work, and if we're going to do it, I don't see any problem with going ahead and doing it now (the missing sources can be filled in afterwards). Regarding the footnotes, I think they can probably be removed (or possibly reworked?), considering that they mostly seem to mention the version in which the character in question is not a child of Zeus. If they are going to be kept or redone in some way, we should at least use proper footnotes that link (this is an example of notes being used in a table, with the notelist under the table). – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I also think could there could be a possibility of incorporating genealogy charts in the text; for example this family tree of the seven wives of Zeus would surely work well in the corresponding section in this article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now added the separate Hesiod table and have removed a few entries for which I couldn't find a reliable source. I have also removed the footnotes. –NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: I think that genealogy chart would be nice. –NeoSIMIAN-Terraform (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tdisibio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Stacey.banh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Human sacrifices

it said that zeus was not pleased with humans sacrifices so he and Poseidon flooded the world. That sounds very similar to in the story if the jews when the flood that wiped out all of man.

DMPenguin (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It sounds similar to any number of flood myths from various eras and cultures. The typical story is that one or more deities get angry and proceed to destroy the majority of humanity. Some of the myths may reflect fragmented memories of real-life floods, such as the one which is thought to have damaged the city of Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period. Others may reflect memories of real-life tsunamis, like the one caused by the Minoan eruption. Basically, people survive a natural disaster and mythmakers try to explain why it happened. Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Zeus is the god of lightning 203.206.28.227 (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In modern culture

In this edit, @Paul August: removed the entire "in modern culture" section. Although I agree that that section had too much detail and too many trivial mentions, I do not agree that the section should be removed. In fact, I'd argue that the section should be renamed "In art and culture", and cover not just modern novels and films, but also depictions of Zeus in art through the ages, including works by Titian, Rubens, Ingres, Renoir, Thorvaldsen, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in my edit summary: "No sources establishing relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject. Mere existence in some other context is not sufficient reason to warrant mention here." Sources which do establish such "relevance, significance and notability with respect" to Zeus might be found for some of these, in which case we can always add them back. Paul August ☎ 00:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh and as for a section which covers "depictions of Zeus in art through the ages", I'm all for that, provided we have scholarly sources to write from (as opposed to say just a list of examples). Paul August ☎ 00:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that reliable sources be scholarly. --Macrakis (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree on removing the entire section given that parts are well sourced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

This is false information about everything for example zeus is the greek god for thunder,lighting, rain, and winds NOT LAW or Order 2600:2B00:8B0C:B900:E4B6:E9CD:4CBB:AFEF (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"Transformations" table

As tables are currently a topic of discussion, does anyone have any opinions on the table we currently have in the "Transformations" section? I'm not sure we need such a table, as I would have thought that covering that content in the article's body would have been a better idea (and I think all of the significant transformations are already covered in the first paragraph of the "Affairs" section). It also mixes in content which comes from Orphic accounts, and I think that a discussion of Zeus's role in Orphic literature would be best suited to its own section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not know about you, but I have an easier time finding information on tables and lists, rather than the prose text in the body of any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's lists tend to be better than its FA and GA articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sure. We can wait for the perspectives of other editors. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan. It largely repeats information that's already in the text, takes the transformations out of their context, mixes cosmogonies, and suggests that all the stories have equal standing and authenticity. It also suggests that this is a particularly important aspect of Zeus that needs to be broken out into a table so that the reader can see it clearly and grasp that ... I don't know what. It doesn't show anything useful, like a table of melting points or densities; it doesn't tell a story like a series of monarchs; it's not a profile like a demographic breakdown. I fear it leaves the reader baffled, wondering why they're being shown it, what they're failing to see.

I could imagine a section on artistic representations of the transformations down the ages (largely pictures of women in various states of undress and arousal, of course), but as illustrated text or with a gallery. NebY (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Those were pretty much my thoughts exactly. And a section on artistic representations, including of those transformations, might be a good idea. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think the "Transformation table" (with modifications?) might have some merit, especially if combined with a section discussing this. Using some disguise to seduce/rape seems definitely to be a Zeus-related theme. I would be surprised if this is not discussed somewhere. A good place to start looking would be Cook's seemingly exhaustive Zeus (all of which is available online, I believe). The section "Affairs" seems mostly about such disquise-conquered "affairs". As for the table itself, one issue I see is that some of those listed in the table (Ganymede, Nemesis, Rhea, and Persephone), whose "affairs" (is a rape an affair?) are not discussed in that section of the article, so perhaps they should either be discussed there or removed from the table. Paul August ☎ 14:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep it in for now, and see what can be done with it. Yes, the "Affairs" section might need renaming, since it perhaps doesn't apply particularly well to everything covered there – would you have any alternative suggestions? I chose "Affairs" because that was what most sources used, and I couldn't think of anything which seemed more accurate. I think the "Affairs" section (or whatever we have it called) is the most appropriate location for such a discussion of Zeus's transformations, as without those transformations any discussion of Zeus's other "affairs" would be lacking. The reason the section perhaps seems underwritten (or terse) is because I opted for a structure of "transformations", "persecutions by Hera", "affairs with goddesses", and "male lovers", because that seems to be similar to how most sources treat the matter in their discussions of Zeus, and I saw the potential for an affair-by-affair structure to get far too long, with the content contained in the section less relevant to Zeus himself in the end.

As to why figures such as Ganymede and Nemesis are not present, that was because I only got halfway through writing that section before becoming distracted elsewhere ;-), illustrated by the last two above-mentioned sections not yet existing. As to Rhea and Persephone, I think a section devoted specifically to the role of Zeus in the Orphic theogonies (and Orphic literature overall) is warranted, assuming it is kept well on topic, and I think that it would be good to keep Orphic versions restricted, for the most part, to that section.

As to the table itself, I fear that the average reader would look at it and take it at face value, assuming that all of the versions contained within are equally "valid", without realising that stories such as Zeus sleeping with Rhea or Persephone in the form of a snake are far from "standard". I think it depends on whether we think there is benefit taking those pieces of information out of the text and displaying them in a table as well. Do we think there is particular added value in doing that if they are already covered adequately in the article's body? Also, if we do keep the table, should it stay in its own section, or should it be moved into the "Affairs" section (or whatever we call it)? – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: I appreciate all the various issues you and NebY have pointed out with the table. And I don't think the table necessarily needs to be kept. I believe that you are currently the one most familiar and with this article and likely its subject, so your opinion carries a lot of weight with me. I am sure whatever you decide will be an improvement.

Also I didn't mean to imply that the "Affairs" section needs renaming, its really a reasonably good one-word description to cover all the various relationships being discussed there, even though using the term to include rape might be considered by some a bit of a stretch. But I suppose something like "Other sexual relationships" might be an alternative. (By the way using the loaded-term "rape" to describe the actions of a god can be problematic, we should be careful not to use the term unless secondary sources use it. For example, it is currently popular to describe Medusa, according to Ovid's account, as being raped by Poseidon, but it is far from clear that that is what Ovid meant, see note 7 at Medusa#mythology.)

I agree that the bare table in its current form could be misleading. So if we are to keep the table, then I think it should ideally be in a section that discusses these "transformations", and introduces the table with explanations which address the potential misunderstandings you've pointed out (We could also include a third column titled say "Notes" which contain such explanations). As for the possible added-value of presenting this content in tabular form as well as in the text itself, provided the issues you've raised can be adequately addressed, then yes I do see some benefit. But ultimately this is a matter of subjective editorial judgement, and I would be happy to defer to yours. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Michael, Paul; "Affairs" is a bit difficult, as much for the implication of duration. We do have tales of disguise and deceit that suggest rape rather than affair in modern terms, but even in the Rape of Europa, not so much force and violence as with, say, Poseidon. I'm warming to "Other sexual relationships" (yes, despite my cavil that a brief encounter doesn't mean they have a relationship).

We may be using "transformations" a little unconventionally; I think it's more often used for permanent changes, the Metamorphoses and suchlike. I see Zeus has been put in Category:Shapeshifters in Greek mythology but that seems unconventional too; "disguises" comes to mind.

If we keep a table then yes, it belongs with the myths concerned - which does of course beg the question whether we should repeat the information, whether choosing that to repeat exaggerates its significance and so on. I'm still not a fan.

Agreed too that the Orphic theogonies and literature should have their own section and not be intertwined with the more mainstream belief system; indeed, I'd remove them from the table at once (assuming we keep it) even if they're not yet in their own section. NebY (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paul August: Thankyou for your considered (and kind) response. Since I think (I'm assuming?) we all agree on removing the two Orphic versions from the table, I will do that now, and I will also move the table up into the "Affairs" section and collapse it as a temporary solution. NebY, since you're very good with these tables, would you have any suggestions on how we might place it? I've also thought that putting the ref tags ("") into a separate column might be an idea? – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NebY's recent edit] is well done. I had, at one point, considered switching the columns but forgot about it. I think this fixes several problems. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! A very small thing: in a table with so many names, I do prefer lower-case "eagle" or "bull", otherwise it looks as if they're names too. NebY (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added caps to "when desiring" as well for consistency. Personally, I think capital letters look better, though that's based purely on aesthetics, so of course we can change it back for any functional or guideline-related reasons. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I now feel I made a mistake changing "a bull" to "bull" and so on, which was then capitalised. Tables often work well if you can read across them in a way that would fit into a boiler-plate sentence with maximally simple grammar, e.g. Zeus disguised himself as xxx when desiring yyy. But while it's fine to say Zeus disguised himself as Apollo, it's possibly quite confusing to say he disguised himself as Bull. I'd like to switch back. OTOH, I know it's working pretty well and I'm wandering into diminishing returns. NebY (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think just "Bull" is fine (actually better as it's more concise). Paul August ☎ 19:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Michael Aurel@Paul August I've had a go and wrapped several changes into it which may not all be acceptable, but could easily be changed back.

• We've seen a plain-text heading undone, and I don't find the appearance of a collapsed captioned table helpful (examples below), so I've gone for a subsection heading again

List of disguises used by Zeus

Disguise	when desiring
eagle or flame of fire	Aegina

or

List of disguises used by Zeus

Disguise	when desiring
eagle or flame of fire	Aegina

• Swapping columns, placing disguises first, seems to fit it being a list of disguises better
• That column header "when desiring" was a spur-of-the-moment heading, after I'd considered "for" and "object of interest", because "love interest" makes me twitchy (lust, maybe?). I've no strong preference for it but thought I'd try it out.
• I've tried it without and with a column for references. It feels inconsistent to elevate references so, but see what you think.

NebY (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@NebY: Looks good. I don't necessarily mind whether we have one of the tables you've given above, or whether we have a separate section, though I can see that the former might leave the reader unsure of quite what they're getting when they click "show". The "Disguises" column first also looks to be an improvement. As to the column for references, it was an idea simply for visual purposes, and something I had seen elsewhere (these two are the only examples I can think of at the moment); it shouldn't really matter whether we have it or not. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, on a somewhat related note, we currently have two tables for children: one for Hesiod, and one for "other sources". I can't quite remember when we did this, but I don't think it necessarily makes sense to have a separate table for just Hesiod (despite his importance as a source). I think whatever we do with the tables, they should be moved up to a "Children" or "Offspring" section (behind the "Affairs" section), and need to have prose added in some form. One of my issues with the current situation is that we have chronologically disparate sources such as Homer and Tzetzes sitting next to each other, being presented with the same weight. This is what motivated my idea of splitting the single table into multiple tables (maybe 3 or 4?), which would allow us to place sections of text in between each one, and differentiate somewhat between sources. The major downside I see is that doing this would mean we lose the functionality of being able to sort a complete table. The alternative is we merge the current tables into a single table, and then write a general prose introduction. I do think prose is needed, though, whatever we do, as pieces of information such as Zeus being the father of Heracles should be mentioned in the article's body. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding prose makes complete sense. The creation of a Hesiod table sprang from Talk:Zeus/Archive 2#Sources for mythology in January 2022, and in many ways it's the same concern, that we're flattening our data out so that it all seems of equal weight. I wonder if rather than having multiple tables, we could add a column for, say, primary source / according to, and perhaps another for that source's period or century. This would allow Homer to be distinguished from Tzetzes, and the reader could sort on that column. I hesitated to suggest it before the table was hidden, for fear it would make the table see unduly important, but we have more freedom now. NebY (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly the easier solution: we just add those two columns (which should prompt the addition of cites which are currently missing), we move the section, and then write a general prose introduction. I will post below a version with the two columns added shortly, so we can see what we think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@NebY: Ok, I've tried adding "Primary source" and "Date" columns to the table. Ignoring the gaps (and missing sourcing), is this roughly what you had in mind?

Offspring	Mother	Source	Date
Heracles	Alcmene	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Persephone	Demeter	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Charites Aglaea Euphrosyne Thalia	Eurynome	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
	Eunomia	Orphic Hymns
	Euanthe or Eurydome or Eurymedusa	Cornutus	1st cent. AD
Ares, Eileithyia, Hebe	Hera	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Apollo, Artemis	Leto	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Hermes	Maia	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Athena	Metis	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Muses Calliope Clio Euterpe Erato Melpomene Polyhymnia Terpsichore Thalia Urania	Mnemosyne	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Dionysus	Semele	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Horae Dike Eirene Eunomia	Themis	Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Moirai Atropos Clotho Lachesis		Hes. Theog.	8th cent. BC
Aegipan	Aega, Aix or Boetis	Hyg. Fab.	1st cent. AD
Tyche	Aphrodite	Pindar	5th cent. BC
Hecate	Asteria	Musaeus
Heracles		Athenaeus	3rd cent. AD
Acragas	Asterope	Steph. Byz.	6th cent. AD
Corybantes	Calliope	Strabo	1st cent. AD
Coria (Athene)	Coryphe	Cicero, DND	1st cent. BC
Dionysus	Demeter
Aphrodite	Dione	Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Asopus	Eurynome	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Dodon	Europa	Acestodorus
Agdistis	Gaia
Manes		Dion. Hal.	1st cent. BC
Cyprian Centaurs		Nonnus	5th cent. AD
Angelos	Hera	Sophron	5th cent. BC
Eleutheria
Eris
Hephaestus		Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Pan	Hybris	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Helen of Troy	Nemesis	Cypria	7th cent. BC
Melinoë	Persephone
Rhea		Athenag.	2nd cent. AD
Zagreus		Nonnus	5th cent. AD
Dionysus
Dionysus	Selene	Cicero, DND	1st cent. BC
Ersa
Nemea
Pandia
Persephone	Styx	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Palici	Thalia	Servius	4th/5th cent. AD
Aeacus	Aegina	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Damocrateia		Pythaenetus
Amphion, Zethus	Antiope	Hom. Od.	8th cent. BC
Targitaos	Borysthenis	Hdt.	5th cent. BC
Arcas	Callisto	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Britomartis	Carme	Paus.	2nd cent. AD
Dardanus	Electra	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Emathion		Nonnus	5th cent. AD
Iasion or Eetion		Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Harmonia		D.S.	1st cent. BC
Myrmidon	Eurymedousa
Cronius, Spartaios, Cytus	Himalia	D.S.	1st cent. BC
Colaxes	Hora	Valer. Flacc.	1st cent. AD
Cres	Idaea	Steph. Byz.	6th cent. AD
Epaphus	Io	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Keroessa		Nonnus	5th cent. AD
Saon	Nymphe	Dion. Hal.	1st cent. BC
Meliteus	Othreis	Ant. Lib.	2nd/3rd cent. AD
Tantalus	Plouto
Lacedaemon	Taygete	Paus.	2nd cent. AD
Archas	Themisto	Istros
Carius	Torrhebia	Hellanicus	5th cent. BC
Megarus	Nymph Sithnid	Paus.	2nd cent. AD
Olenus	Anaxithea	Steph. Byz.	6th cent. AD
Aethlius or Endymion	Calyce
Milye, Solymus	Chaldene	Steph. Byz.	6th cent. AD
Perseus	Danaë	Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Pirithous	Dia	Hyg. Fab.	1st cent. AD
Tityos	Elara
Minos	Europa	Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Rhadamanthus		Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Sarpedon		Hes. Cat.	6th cent. BC
Arcesius	Euryodeia
Orchomenus	Hermippe
Agamedes	Iocaste
Thebe,	Iodame
Deucalion
Acheilus	Lamia	Ptol. Heph.
Libyan Sibyl (Herophile)	Lamia	Paus.	2nd cent. AD
Sarpedon	Laodamia	Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Helen of Troy, Pollux	Leda
Heracles	Lysithoe	Cicero, DND	1st cent. BC
Locrus	Maera
Argus, Pelasgus	Niobe	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Graecus, Latinus	Pandora	Hes. Cat.	6th cent. BC
Achaeus	Phthia	Servius	4th/5th cent. AD
Aethlius	Protogeneia	Apollod.	1st/2nd cent. AD
Aetolus		Hyg. Fab.	1st cent. AD
Opus		Pindar	5th cent. BC
Hellen	Pyrrha	Hes. Cat.	6th cent. BC
Aegyptus	Thebe	Tzetzes	12th cent. AD
Heracles		John Lydus	6th cent. AD
Magnes, Makednos	Thyia	Hes. Cat.	6th cent. BC
Aletheia	No mother mentioned
Ate		Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Nysean		Ap. Rhod.	3rd cent. BC
Eubuleus
Litae		Hom. Il.	8th cent. BC
Phasis		Valer. Flacc.	1st cent. AD
Calabrus, Geraestus, Taenarus		Steph. Byz.	6th cent. AD
Corinthus		Paus.	2nd cent. AD
Crinacus		D.S.	1st cent. BC

Of course there are issues with the above table (places where we should be using circa, the "Date" column doesn't sort properly, inconsistent usage of work titles), but it might be a good starting point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I hadn't imagined including the specific work; as soon as I sorted by Primary source it looked good, but I wonder if it means taking on extra work and risks a more cluttered column. Does it matter, so long as we've got a citation too? Not sure. Yes, sortable dates are pretty much impossible (unless we switch to BP dating and that might, ah, not be readily accepted). Overall, I like this direction. But now I need to to respond at WP:AN#User:NebY (edit-war and vandalism). NebY (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. No hurry here, of course. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear - too hasty - I like the use of centuries; detailed dates wouldn't be helpful even if known. I'm delighted to see that merged/rowspanning cells are handled gracefully when sorting (eg Hera clearly shown for each of the four offspring) so thanks for teaching me that! NebY (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, of course, I very much stumbled upon the row-spanning sorting on accident (though I'm glad it works). With regards to work titles, I think there are some cases where the difference is significant (e.g. Theogony and Catalogue of Women, from different centuries), but for most authors there probably isn't any added value in having the work there. As for the "Date" column, it is now sortable, and, in addition, the blank cells now display below the rest (as even when the sourcing is all filled in, there will be several authors for which no dates exist). I've also removed sorting from the refs column, saving a little bit of space. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As for saving space, you might consider using abbreviations. For the Primary sources there are, of course, several standard ones. Paul August ☎ 11:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, I've tried out some above. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Any other suggestions are appreciated, of course. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviate "century"? Paul August ☎ 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking. "cent." maybe? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, abbreviated as such. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I feared abbreviated names would be too obscure but seeing the table, they strike a better balance. I do like your date-sorting scheme. I would have used 99 rather than 50 for blanks, which would allow for a modern-day Tzetzes - and maybe that's a very good reason to use 50 instead. NebY (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, 50 gets us to the 17th/18th centuries, and we hopefully won't need anything quite that late. I was also thinking we might use collapsible lists for figures such as the Muses, which are currently taking up a lot of space? – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Paul August ☎ 21:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Very good - we have plenty of similar opportunities in other articles. NebY (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do the two of you think the table is alright to be inserted in its current state? I could commit to trying to fill in the rest of the sourcing in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. It would still be a great improvement if you left the rest for some unknown other editor to fill in some day. NebY (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice, added. I've also put in a short sentence or two so that the reader understands what it is they're looking at. Once an "Offspring" section is written, we could move the table into its own subsection. I suppose the natural next question is: is this a change we would like to see elsewhere? – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think so; it would make matters much clearer for our readers. If you like, I could quickly skip through the Olympians joining split tables into one, moving the references into their own column, make the tables sortable and collapsed, and tentatively slide them into a similar position not already there. NebY (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Those changes would leave the way open for the tables to be sourced (I would be happy to try), and then, once we have sufficient sourcing to avoid overly large gaps, it would only be a matter of adding in the two columns. I suppose Poseidon is probably the priority after Zeus... – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Whichever you'd find most interesting! That might be one where there's a particularly wide range of sources or source dates, maybe. I'll keep an eye out for such as I do the easy bit, later today I hope. NebY (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've modified Ares, with some remaining uncertainties about which refs apply where. Can't do any more articles today, alas. NebY (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. Ares is a good place to start actually, the sourcing is quite a bit further along. I'll begin work on some added columns. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

References