Thanks
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice additions to the Zeus article. Cheers! --maveric149
Tucci, you don't need to create new entries just to redirect them to some other page. A search will find the names in the original page. -- Zoe
- But this is useful for search engines and for future articles.
- BTW, great work Tucci, thank you :-) --Gianfranco
Hello again. Just a note: Although it is not as important for fictional subjects, we do prefer singular nouns around here (see Wikipedia:naming conventions). You seem to be very busy BTW -- nice work all 'round. :) --mav
Tucci, thanks very much for all the great material you've been adding on mythology. I've noticed, though, that when a story concerns multiple characters you've added verbatim copies to the pages on each one. I personally think this is a bad idea, both because it makes the text harder to maintain, and because it means a user flipping between pages (easy enough to do) has to sort through what is mainly duplicate info. Do you have any strong opinions to the contrary? --Josh G
The reason I've been doing this is because very often someone may find a reference to say, Medea (a common allusion) and want know about him. The reader can search for and read all about Medea because all the information is right there. The reader may think he knows the entire story of Medea but, without also clicking on Peleus, Jason, Aeetes and more, for example, he would be missing a major part of the story that would not be relevant in the Medea article itself. I consider it more important to have every article as complete as possible, instead of readers having to click on every available link to find out all the possible information. In addition, a god, for example, may play a relatively small role in several stories in their own article that would be totally missing if I didn't copy stories to every relevant character's article. You're right, it will be hard and perhaps impossible to totally maintain this but I think it is the ideal that should be strived for. I suppose what it boils down to is that most readers can't or don't want to flip between many pages or do a search for every article with the word Zeus in it, just to find out all the information available on Zeus.
To some extent that's true, and I suppose some duplication of material is a good thing, but it can be carried overboard. Let me use two examples from Zeus to show what I mean.
- Cronus sired several children by Rhea: Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, but swallowed them all as soon as they were born, since he had learned from Gaia and Uranus that he was destined to be overcome by his own son as he had overthrown his own father. But when Zeus was about to be born, Rhea sought Uranus and Earth to devise a plan to save him, so that Cronus would get his retribution for his acts against Uranus and his own children. Rhea gave birth to Zeus in Crete, handing Cronus a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes which he promptly swallowed.
This is a story that pertains directly to Zeus, and also to his father Cronus. It properly belongs in both articles.
- Zeus made the decision to marry Aphrodite off to Hephaestus in order to prevent violence over her between the many gods who lusted after the goddess of beauty.
This, on the other hand, is about Aphrodite and Hephaestus, and sheds little light on Zeus. He is in it, but then to the ancient Greek he was in everything. Every lightning bolt was a deed of Zeus, and poets would write him into councels pertaining to myths that he really had nothing to do with. You could have the Zeus article explain his seduction by Hera during the Trojan war, the Achilles article give a list of every man he slew, the Menelaus article say from where the pots in his royal chambers came, but such is not much help to a reader interested in who those were and what they did.
In fact, thinking about it more, I think that can be a serious hindrance, by diluting important information within the article. As the Zeus article now stands, for instance, one has to read through descriptions of all his countless affairs - some twice, thanks to alternate versions, with prominent and obscure lovers all mixed together - before one reaches the much more important facts about his oracle at Dodona. That really can't be right. I really think we need some alternate form of compromise. -- JG
I disagree with the Aphrodite/Hephaestus story being irrelevant to Zeus--he did it in order to prevent violence between the gods arguing over her. It certainly defines his character to a certain degree. The irrelevant information about Zeus is the multitude of affairs with mortal women with no particular story attached--hence the list at the very bottom.
I agree that perhaps the articles could be better organized. The information about Dodona perhaps should be nearer to the top of the Zeus article, however I think this is simply a problem of organization within the article. My point simply remains that if I were, say a high-school or college student doing a report on Zeus, I would rather have all the information on Zeus in one place (which is the point of an encyclopedia article) rather than having to wade through a dozen or two other articles to get all the information on Zeus. IMO, this would be more of a serious hindrance than someone looking for specific Zeus-info having to wade through unrelated information about the same person.
My current plan has been to add all the information I can to all the various articles and then organize the long ones, such as Zeus, Aphrodite, Dionysus, etc. How about I organize the Zeus article now (as a potential example) and see if I can't make it more readable? Tell me what you think of what I do.
OK, after having organized the Zeus article, I think it is much more readable and easier to find specific information. I'll admit I also summarized two stories (Capaneus and Admetus) to accentuate Zeus' involvement and why it was relevant. What do you think of it now?
I think it is a great improvement. We still may not be able to handle all hundred or so sons of Heracles, but the new format can hold a lot more without being overwhelming. Thanks!
Thanks for all your great work. However, we tend to bold the subjects of articles around here so if you would could you please do this. I also noticed that at least for Hera you de-bolded the subject. --mav
Yeah, sorry, mav--at the time I didn't realize what the three apostrophes meant. I'm trying to remember to do that nowadays.
I deleted the redirect page Dionysus for you so that you can now move the content of Bacchus there. Just look for a link on your side bar or at the bottom of your page that says "Move this page". --mav
There seems to be needless duplication between Roman and Greek gods. I have a couple of thoughts on this issue on my talk page. Feel free to jump in. --mav
hi , one of your images is Image:Caduceus.gif, but a copyright notice is lacking. Could you pls add the origin and copyright status of that image? TeunSpaans 14:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
