Talk:Zeus

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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 &#9742; 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)
 * I appreciate all the various issues you and 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.)
 * 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 &#9742; 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)
 * 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., 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)
 * '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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 19:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @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
 * {|class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

!Disguise !when desiring
 * +List of disguises used by Zeus
 * eagle or flame of fire
 * Aegina
 * }
 * or
 * {|class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
 * {|class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

!Disguise !when desiring
 * +List of disguises used by Zeus
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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?
 * {| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

! scope="col" style="width: 100pt;" | Offspring ! scope="col" style="width: 95pt;" | Mother ! scope="col" style="width: 55pt;" | Source ! scope="col" style="width: 70pt;" | Date ! class="unsortable" scope="col" style="width: 10pt;" |
 * Heracles
 * Alcmene
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Persephone
 * Demeter
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * rowspan=3 | Charites
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * rowspan=3 | Charites
 * rowspan=3 | Charites
 * rowspan=3 | Charites

Aglaea

Euphrosyne

Thalia
 * Eurynome
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Eunomia
 * Orphic Hymns
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Euanthe or Eurydome or Eurymedusa
 * Cornutus
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Ares, Eileithyia, Hebe
 * Hera
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Apollo, Artemis
 * Leto
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Hermes
 * Maia
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Athena
 * Metis
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Muses
 * Hermes
 * Maia
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Athena
 * Metis
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Muses
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Muses
 * Muses
 * Muses

Calliope

Clio

Euterpe

Erato

Melpomene

Polyhymnia

Terpsichore

Thalia

Urania
 * Mnemosyne
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Dionysus
 * Semele
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Horae
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Horae
 * Horae
 * Horae

Dike

Eirene

Eunomia
 * rowspan=2 | Themis
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Moirai
 * Moirai
 * Moirai

Atropos

Clotho

Lachesis
 * Hes. Theog.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Aegipan
 * Aega, Aix or Boetis
 * Hyg. Fab.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Tyche
 * Aphrodite
 * Pindar
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Hecate
 * rowspan=2 | Asteria
 * Musaeus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Heracles
 * Athenaeus
 * data-sort-value=21 | 3rd cent. AD
 * Acragas
 * Asterope
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Corybantes
 * Calliope
 * Strabo
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Coria (Athene)
 * Coryphe
 * Cicero, DND
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Dionysus
 * Demeter
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Aphrodite
 * Dione
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Asopus
 * Eurynome
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Dodon
 * Europa
 * Acestodorus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Agdistis
 * rowspan=3 | Gaia
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Manes
 * Dion. Hal.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Cyprian Centaurs
 * Nonnus
 * data-sort-value=25 | 5th cent. AD
 * Angelos
 * rowspan=4 | Hera
 * Sophron
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Eleutheria
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Eris
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Hephaestus
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Pan
 * Hybris
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Helen of Troy
 * Nemesis
 * Cypria
 * data-sort-value=3 | 7th cent. BC
 * Melinoë
 * rowspan=4 | Persephone
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Rhea
 * Athenag.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Zagreus
 * Nonnus
 * data-sort-value=25 | 5th cent. AD
 * Dionysus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Dionysus
 * rowspan=4 | Selene
 * Cicero, DND
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Ersa
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Nemea
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Pandia
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Persephone
 * Styx
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Palici
 * Thalia
 * Servius
 * data-sort-value=24 | 4th/5th cent. AD
 * Aeacus
 * rowspan=2 | Aegina
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Damocrateia
 * Pythaenetus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Amphion, Zethus
 * Antiope
 * Hom. Od.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Targitaos
 * Borysthenis
 * Hdt.
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Arcas
 * Callisto
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Britomartis
 * Carme
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Dardanus
 * rowspan=4 | Electra
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Emathion
 * Nonnus
 * data-sort-value=21 | 5th cent. AD
 * Iasion or Eetion
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Harmonia
 * D.S.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Myrmidon
 * Eurymedousa
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Cronius, Spartaios, Cytus
 * Himalia
 * D.S.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Colaxes
 * Hora
 * Valer. Flacc.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Cres
 * Idaea
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Epaphus
 * rowspan=2 | Io
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Keroessa
 * Nonnus
 * data-sort-value=25 | 5th cent. AD
 * Saon
 * Nymphe
 * Dion. Hal.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Meliteus
 * Othreis
 * Ant. Lib.
 * data-sort-value=20 | 2nd/3rd cent. AD
 * Tantalus
 * Plouto
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Lacedaemon
 * Taygete
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Archas
 * Themisto
 * Istros
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Carius
 * Torrhebia
 * Hellanicus
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Megarus
 * Nymph Sithnid
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Olenus
 * Anaxithea
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Aethlius or Endymion
 * Calyce
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Milye, Solymus
 * Chaldene
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Perseus
 * Danaë
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Pirithous
 * Dia
 * Hyg. Fab.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Tityos
 * Elara
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Minos
 * rowspan=3 | Europa
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Rhadamanthus
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Sarpedon
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Arcesius
 * Euryodeia
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Orchomenus
 * Hermippe
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Agamedes
 * Iocaste
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Thebe,
 * rowspan=2 | Iodame
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Deucalion
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Acheilus
 * Lamia
 * Ptol. Heph.
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Libyan Sibyl (Herophile)
 * Lamia
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Sarpedon
 * Laodamia
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Helen of Troy, Pollux
 * Leda
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Heracles
 * Lysithoe
 * Cicero, DND
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Locrus
 * Maera
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Argus, Pelasgus
 * Niobe
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Graecus, Latinus
 * Pandora
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Achaeus
 * Phthia
 * Servius
 * data-sort-value=24 | 4th/5th cent. AD
 * Aethlius
 * rowspan=3 | Protogeneia
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Aetolus
 * Hyg. Fab.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Opus
 * Pindar
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Hellen
 * Pyrrha
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Aegyptus
 * rowspan=2 | Thebe
 * Tzetzes
 * data-sort-value=39 | 12th cent. AD
 * Heracles
 * John Lydus
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Magnes, Makednos
 * Thyia
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Aletheia
 * rowspan=11 | No mother mentioned
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Ate
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Nysean
 * Ap. Rhod.
 * data-sort-value=11 | 3rd cent. BC
 * Eubuleus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Litae
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Phasis
 * Valer. Flacc.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Calabrus, Geraestus, Taenarus
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Corinthus
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Crinacus
 * D.S.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 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. 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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)
 * rowspan=3 | Europa
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Rhadamanthus
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Sarpedon
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Arcesius
 * Euryodeia
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Orchomenus
 * Hermippe
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Agamedes
 * Iocaste
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Thebe,
 * rowspan=2 | Iodame
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Deucalion
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Acheilus
 * Lamia
 * Ptol. Heph.
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Libyan Sibyl (Herophile)
 * Lamia
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Sarpedon
 * Laodamia
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Helen of Troy, Pollux
 * Leda
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Heracles
 * Lysithoe
 * Cicero, DND
 * data-sort-value=15 | 1st cent. BC
 * Locrus
 * Maera
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Argus, Pelasgus
 * Niobe
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Graecus, Latinus
 * Pandora
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Achaeus
 * Phthia
 * Servius
 * data-sort-value=24 | 4th/5th cent. AD
 * Aethlius
 * rowspan=3 | Protogeneia
 * Apollod.
 * data-sort-value=18 | 1st/2nd cent. AD
 * Aetolus
 * Hyg. Fab.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Opus
 * Pindar
 * data-sort-value=7 | 5th cent. BC
 * Hellen
 * Pyrrha
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Aegyptus
 * rowspan=2 | Thebe
 * Tzetzes
 * data-sort-value=39 | 12th cent. AD
 * Heracles
 * John Lydus
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Magnes, Makednos
 * Thyia
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Aletheia
 * rowspan=11 | No mother mentioned
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Ate
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Nysean
 * Ap. Rhod.
 * data-sort-value=11 | 3rd cent. BC
 * Eubuleus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Litae
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Phasis
 * Valer. Flacc.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Calabrus, Geraestus, Taenarus
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Corinthus
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Crinacus
 * D.S.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 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. 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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)
 * Thyia
 * Hes. Cat.
 * data-sort-value=5 | 6th cent. BC
 * Aletheia
 * rowspan=11 | No mother mentioned
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Ate
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Nysean
 * Ap. Rhod.
 * data-sort-value=11 | 3rd cent. BC
 * Eubuleus
 * data-sort-value=50 |
 * Litae
 * Hom. Il.
 * data-sort-value=1 | 8th cent. BC
 * Phasis
 * Valer. Flacc.
 * data-sort-value=17 | 1st cent. AD
 * Calabrus, Geraestus, Taenarus
 * Steph. Byz.
 * data-sort-value=27 | 6th cent. AD
 * Corinthus
 * Paus.
 * data-sort-value=19 | 2nd cent. AD
 * Crinacus
 * D.S.
 * data-sort-value=15 | 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. 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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)
 * 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023
The link attached to "various others" in the list of Zeus's children leads to a nonexistent section of the article. It does not. It should unhighlighted, the link should be changed, or it should be removed and the list made exhaustive. AcousticAngel (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

 * See the note attached to her name there, and the body of the article (specifically the first paragraph of the "Seven wives" section). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe mom
Is an idiot 140.190.24.158 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)