Hello, Markx121993! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Markx121993! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Larissa (mythology). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but appears that you moved text from Eurypylus into Eurypylus (of Cyrene). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see by your addition to Creusa (wife of Aeneas) you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still seeing the same problem, this time in the article Hydaspes (mythology), where you copied some material from Jhelum River without providing attribution in your edit summary. Please begin fulfilling this mandatory legal requirement, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mar 2019: Please leave an edit summary; it saves us time
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Other editors will appreciate a concise summary when evaluating your edits.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Triptolemus
You created a table of family for Triptolemus but you didn't include Demophon as a sibling. The Demophon article seems to list sources but I would have to guess which source abbreviations match between the two pages. Could you sort it out? Rmhermen (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August The Argonautic scholia mate was already there while the Scholia on Virgil's Aeneid was in Clytius' page that I copied. Thank you!
Have you read the scholia you cited? You shouldn't copy sources from one article to another without verifying that they support the cited assertion. Did do that? Paul August☎12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed two statements from the first entry of the article Calypso (Greek myth).
1. As I think we have discussed before Theoi.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as such, consequently, since I can find no reliable source for the following statement in the first entry, I've removed it:
She may have been the naiad of a covered or hidden spring or the Aura of invisible breezes.[1]
Please refrain from adding statements cited only to Theoi, thanks.
2. Since I don't see what this has to do with Calypso, the Oceanid, I've removed it:
Acaste only appeared in one myth, along with her sisters, she was one of the companions of Persephone when the maiden was abducted by Hades, the god of the Underworld.[2]
3. Also in this context all cites to Apollodorus (the author of the Bibliotheca) will, by definition, be cites to the Bibliotheca so there is no need to add Bibliotheca to the cite. And as for cites to the Epitone of the Bibliotheca, e.g. Epitome 1.9" these are commonly given in the form "E.1.9".
4. You added:
The ArgonautPhanus was also identified as the brother of Staphylus and son of Dionysus, which can be considered technically as the brother of Thoas.[1]
But I find no mention of that in Apollodorus, e.1.9
5. For some strange reason, you removed the links to Apollonius of Rhodes, and Argonautica in the cite:
Another source considered Thoas' brothers were Maron, Staphylos and Eunous.[2]
Where did you get this from?
Please respond to the above, so that I know you understand and agree, or if you don't agree please say why, so we can discuss these and come to some agreement. You often have failed to respond to message left here. Please see WP:COMMUNICATE: "Communication is required". Thanks Paul August☎17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also in this context all cites to Apollodorus (the author of the Bibliotheca) will, by definition, be cites to the Bibliotheca so there is no need to add Bibliotheca to the cite. And as for cites to the Epitone of the Bibliotheca, e.g. Epitome 1.9" these are commonly given in the form "E.1.9".
Response: I will adhere to your suggestion
4. You added:
The ArgonautPhanus was also identified as the brother of Staphylus and son of Dionysus, which can be considered technically as the brother of Thoas.[1]
But I find no mention of that in Apollodorus, e.1.9
Response: Just undo that part, I might removed it unintentionally.
6. You added:
Another source considered Thoas' brothers were Maron, Staphylos and Eunous.[2]
Where did you get this from?
Please respond to the above, so that I know you understand and agree, or if you don't agree please say why, so we can discuss these and come to some agreement. You often have failed to respond to message left here. Please see WP:COMMUNICATE: "Communication is required". Thanks Paul August☎17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole text from Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 7 (Greek Christian epistles C2nd A.D.) :
"Satyros [ancient Greek historian], also giving a history of the Alexandrine families, beginning from Philopator, who was also named Ptolemy, gives out that Bakkhos [Dionysos] was his progenitor; wherefore also Ptolemy was the founder of this family. Satyros then speaks thus: That Deianeira was born of Bakkhos and Althaia, the daughter of Thestios; and from her and Herakles the son of Zeus there sprang, as I suppose, Hyllos; and from him Kleodemos, and from him Aristomakhos, and from him Temenos, and from him Keisos, and from him Maron, and from him Thestros, and from him Akous, and from him Aristomidas, and from him Karanos, and from him Koinos, and from him Tyrimmas, and from him Perdikkhas, and from him Philippos, and from him Aeropos, and from him Alketas, and from him Amyntas, and from him Bokros, and from him Meleagros, and from him Arsinoe, and from her and Lagos Ptolemy Soter, and from him and Arsinoe Ptolemy Euergetes, and from him and Berenike, daughter of Maga, king of Kyrene, Ptolemy Philopator. Thus, then, stands the relationship of the Alexandrine kings to Bakkhos. And therefore in the Dionysian tribe there are distinct families: the Althaian from Althaia, who was the wife of Dionysos and daughter of Thestios; the family of Deianeira also, from her who was the daughter of Dionysos and Althaia, and wife of Herakles;--whence, too, the families have their names: the family of Ariadne, from Ariadne, daughter of Minos and wife of Dionysos, a dutiful daughter, who had intercourse with Dionysos in another form; the Thestian, from Thestios, the father of Althaia; the Thoantian, from Thoas, son of Dionysos; the Staphylian, from Staphylos, son of Dionysos; the Euainian, from Eunous, son of Dionysos; the Maronian, from Maron, son of Ariadne and Dionysos;--for all these are sons of Dionysus."
Thanks very much for your responses to the above. Thanks also for the sources you provided in in response to items 4 and 6, I will look at these sources and add back some version of the text I removed, based upon my reading of those sources. Paul August☎20:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phanus as brother of Thoas
I've decided we should not mention Phanus as a brother of Thoas. Apollodorus, 1.9.1 says that the Argonauts Phanus and Staphylus were sons of Dionysus. And other sources (including Apollodorus himself) say that Thoas and Staphylus were the son of Dionysus. but we shouldn't conclude from these two facts that this means that Phanus and Thoas were ever considered to be brothers. No ancient source, or modern scholarly source, says that they were. Drawing our own conclusion that they were brothers would be a violation of Wikipedia policy see WP:SYNTH, which says:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here."
Moreover, many historical Greek families traced their descent to Dionysus, creating many various lines of descent, if taken all together this would create many many "brothers" of Thoas. Also the Argonauts (and so Phantus) were in the younger generation which came after Thoas, with Thoas' daughter Hypsipyle being Queen of Lemnos at the time of the Argonauts visit to Lemnos, so it is unlikely that a brother of Thoas would have been an Argonaut. And surely if one of the Agonauts was a brother of Thoas, then Hypsipyle would be his niece, and surely this would have figured in the story of the Argonauts visit, but of course it doesn't.
For similar reasons given above for Phanus, I don’t think we should mention Maron as a brother of Thoas. The text of Theophilus of Antioch, ‘’To Autolycus’’ 7, provided above, mentions several of the historical families which claimed descent from Bacchus / Dionysus, which I referred to above in connection with Phanus. As was the case there I don’t think we can conclude that all of these lineages were ever considered to be all one family. So I don’t think we should mention all these supposed sons of Dionysus as brothers of Thoas.
It is not always clear how to interpret ancient source (so called “primary sources” ) directly, so we need to be ‘’very careful’’ how we use them see, we should mostly rely on modern scholarly works (for a discussion of all this please read WP:PSTS) .
You seem to be particular interested in the genealogies associated with Greek mythology. In which case here is a book you should be using:
Parada, Carlos, Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology, Jonsered, Paul Åströms Förlag, 1993. ISBN978-91-7081-062-6.
In general, if a given relationship is not mentioned by Parada, then it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. So for example Parada in his entry for Maron the son of Evanthes (s.v. Marion 1, p. 112) he does not mention any brothers. Paul August☎12:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reference @Paul August. I'm really interested in the genealogies of the Greek characters. Trying to put them in a genealogical tree which is reasonable and nearly accurate. I'm trying to dissect the myth in a historical approach. Can you refer me some more references regarding the Greek myths, particularly the works of scholars' commentary on Greek texts. Markx121993 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grimal, Pierre, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. ISBN978-0-631-20102-1.
Hard, Robin, The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose's "Handbook of Greek Mythology", Psychology Press, 2004, ISBN9780415186360. Google Books.
Tripp, Edward, Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology, Thomas Y. Crowell Co; First edition (June 1970). ISBN069022608X.
That is okay. I can see that based on the MoS it should be written as Cyzicus's for consistency purposes. But in proper English, we can write it as Cyzicus' because it has more than one syllable, Cy-zi-cus. We just adhere with the MoS. Cheers! Markx121993 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me if this response is to the last question I asked here? Sorry to be accusatory, but you didn't indent the comment I'm replying to, so I'm a bit confused.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for creating so many articles on Greek mythological figures, this is indeed an area where more attention is needed! However, it is evident you do not know Greek, so please, either find the names in a reliable source, or omit them entirely. Do not guess at them, because results like 'Διοχθονδασ' or 'Ανδρόθοε' are actually impossible in Greek. Also, English-speakers often forget that Greek has grammatical cases, which means that often the names you will find will be in genitive or other cases, rather than nominative. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources which include the Greek are: Grimal, and Parada (mentioned above), and Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (available online here). Paul August☎13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"References" vs "Further reading" sections
Splitting up a "References" section, into "References" and "Further reading" sections as you did here and here is wrong! The "References" sections is for all the works used and cited in writing the article. A "Further reading" section is for other works not used and cited in the article, which the reader might look for more information on the article's topic. So, since all the works all the works in those articles which you moved to the new "Further reading" section were used and cited they should remain in the "References" section. Please don't make changes unless you understand what you are doing! Paul August☎00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xantho, one of the 50 Nereids, sea-nymph daughters of the 'Old Man of the Sea'Nereus and the Oceanid Doris.[1] She may be the same as the above naiad whom Hyginus probably confused as one of the Nereids.[2]
^This was definitely a misinterpretation of Hyginus in Virgil'sGeorgics4.336 which suggests that Drymo, Xantho, Ligea and Phyllodoce were naiads, more likely Oceanides, rather than Nereides: ". . .Even from her chamber in the river-deeps, His mother heard: around her spun the nymphs, Milesian wool stained through with hyaline dye, Drymo, Xantho, Ligea, Phyllodoce, Their glossy locks o'er snowy shoulders shed, . . ."
Hello @Paul August! Sorry for that. I did have that idea because it was mentioned by one scholar (cannot remember) that the last part of Hyginus' list was taken from Virgil's Georgics where few names of the Nereids were mentioned in a sequence.
Thanks for this. The idea that Virgil misinterpreted Hyginus (which is what your the original note seemed to say) or that Hyginus, in his Fabulae took his list from the Georgics (which is what you seem to be saying just above) are contradictory. Either the Fabulae was written first and so possibly misinterpreted by Virgil in the Georgics -or- the Georgics was written first and so possibly part of the list in the Fabulae was taken from it. In any case however, without some scholarly source we can not say either of these things. So thanks for removing that unsourced idea. But if you do run across that source again I would be very interested in reading it. Thanks Paul August☎17:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Eurymachus into Eurymachus (Odyssey). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
July 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Evenor into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Yeeno (talk) 🍁18:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suitors of Penelope
I have redirected some of your recent page creations to Suitors of Penelope. If the only extant information is that their name was on a list, the title should be a redirect to that list and not a fill-in-the-blanks stub. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know your reasoning behind moving Oenone to the disambiguated version. It seems to me that the nymph would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since all of the topics in Oenone (disambiguation) are pretty much named after or inspired by the nymph. I would like to revert your change but I wanted to talk with you about it first. bibliomaniac1523:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might mistakenly put the wrong entry. Thank you for pointing it out mate. I will make an index page later for mythological characters named Oenone. Thank you! Markx121993 (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When the title of the work being cited is considered obvious there is no need to name it. For example: Pasusanias's Description of Greece, Apollodorus's, Bibliotheca, and Strabo's Geography. But in most cases, for example: Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautica or Nonnus's Dionysiaca the titles are needed, so please don't remove them. Paul August☎10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any list would be too long, and probably incomplete. A list of the most common ones where, in my opinion, no title is needed would be easier. In addition to the works listed above, I would add (off the top of my head) Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca historica, and Herodotus's Histories. For everything else, the safest thing is to always use the title of the work. Paul August☎14:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^Tzetzes, John (2019). Allegories of the Odyssey. Translated by Goldwyn, Adam J.; Kokkini, Dimitra. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. p. 147. ISBN978-0-674-23837-4.
However I can find no, mention of Aeolus, or these offspring, on page 147 of the book you cited, nor is Aeolus listed in the book's index. Did you consult this book when you added this? Or where did you get this from? I've removed this content from the Aeolus (son of Hippotes) (untill such time as we can find a source for this). But you also seem to have added this info to Periphas (and presumably other articles on these supposed offspring. Unless you can supply a source, you need to delete all these entries as soon as possible. Paul August☎14:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul! I proofread the account about this additional context. I literally bought this book and cited it as my source for the context. It’s 2019 edition of the book which is a recent one. If you want, I can upload a photo so that my claim substantiates with the current account context. Cheers! Markx121993 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul! Just try searching this photo, Tzetzes,_Allegories_of_the_Odyssey,_page_146-147.jpg, in Wikimedia commons. I just uploaded the page where the context was taken as source. Cheers! Markx121993 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have a comparative table immediate family and genealogical chart, I don't think we need all the family info in an info box. Also if the a ref name has no spaces in it, for example <ref name=Clement.4.47.P/>, then quotes aren't needed, so there is no reason to add them as you did here. Paul August☎03:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template:infobox deity should only be used for gods and goddesses, not for mythological characters such as Hellen, who are not gods. Also not every article is improved by adding an infobox. This applies in particular to most articles on mythological subjects. Paul August☎12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites "Dräger (2007)" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•303:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Markx121993,
I'm confused about the existence of both Alcathous of Elis and Alcathous of Megara with copies of the same text. From the page history, it looks like that page was originally titled Alcathous, son of Pelops; in 2018 you moved it to Alcathous of Elis; then in 2021 you moved it to Alcathous of Megara; then (immediately thereafter in 2021) you replaced the redirect with a copy of the same text again. So now there are two identical pages with the same text.
I think what should happen now is that Alcathous of Elis should be completely replaced with #REDIRECT [[Alcathous of Megara]]. I think it would probably even make sense to move Alcathous of Megara all the way back to Alcathous, son of Pelops, since that seems to this naïve reader like the most absolutely unambiguous identifier. But since you were the original page-mover, I figured I should ask you first. Thoughts? If you want me to just go ahead and do the redirect and/or the move back to Alcathous, son of Pelops myself, just let me know! --Quuxplusone (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Quuxplusone: I think you're fine turning Alcathous of Elis into a redirect. The pages seem almost identical, and are clearly the same figure. Then I would move the page to "Alcathous (son of Pelops)" (or something similar), unless we have a source which calls him "Alcathous of Megara". – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Quuxplusone: As you aren't likely to get a response from Markx121993 any time soon, I think you should go ahead with your plan of making Alcathous of Elis a redirect. But this Alcathous' name (like all the others of this name, see: Alcathous) is (I'm certain) simply "Alcathous", not "Alcathous of Megara", so, I agree with Michael Aurel, Alcathous of Megara should be moved to "Alcathous (son of Pelops)". This is how Gantz, Early Greek Myth disambiguates him in it's index, and Hard, The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose's "Handbook of Greek Mythology, lists this Alcathous in its index as "Alkathoos, son of Pelops, king of Megara", so "Alcathous (king of Megara)" would also work but I think "Alcathous (son of Pelops)" is better.
Markx121993 has been a prolific editor with regard to the creation and the moving of many articles on minor figures in Greek mythology. However he has done this with an imperfect understanding of, for example, how disambiguation should be done, so there are, unfortunately, many of these misnamed articles. Paul August☎13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you have time, can you merge Epeigeus and Epigeus and create a redirect to the other? I would, but I'm pretty busy right now, and you likely have much more expertise in this kind of technical (and mythology) stuff than me. Of course, no obligations. Thanks. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Bergion a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dercynus. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --YodinT11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks for all your work on these articles! Also wondering whether Dercynus is the more commonly used name for this figure, instead of Bergion? --YodinT11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It seems Dercynus is more appropriate as the main page because it is more commonly used name for the said character. Three sources (Apollodorus, Tzetzes on Chilliades and Tzetzes on Lycophron) mentioned Dercynus as opposed to Bergion which is only one (Pompos Mela). Do you think that is reasonable? Thank you! Markx121993 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that makes sense; I think Bergion might have been used more in British tradition (e.g. Holinshead), but according to Ngram results it seems to have levelled out in the 20th century, with Dercynus becoming more widely used in the 21st century until 2011, when this article was created under the name Bergion. So as there's not much between them in WP:COMMONNAME, and since Dercynus is used by almost all original authors as you say, then I agree. --YodinT12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my mistake. I wasn’t able to see that option but will do what you suggested next time I will encounter the same situation. Thank you! Markx121993 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Megassares. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it needs more sources to establish notability and incomplete sentences.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hi Mark,
I just noticed that you're doing a lot of work in Greek mythology, and I want to thank you for it. Greek myth is a long-term guilty pleasure of mine, too, and I am currently involved in a project concerning a major encyclopedia for this topic, Roscher's Detailed Lexicon of Greek and Roman Mythology.
I have added a bit of information to d:Q128199520, the Wikidata item connected to your creation Aganippus. (BTW I changed the Greek there to the nominative -ος).
Maybe we'll have occasion to get into an exchange on mythology matters. Or maybe I'll start a WikiProject Greek Mythology and enlist your participation there :) In any case, glad you're aboard and doing work here.
Hello there, yes I’m glad to be in the project. It’s my hobby to learn and make articles relating to Greek mythology. Thank you! Looking forward to work with you in the future projects. Markx121993 (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Pylia (mythology). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello Markx121993, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Hoples, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoples.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cremastra}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello Markx121993, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Pylas, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pylas.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cremastra}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Aezeius, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fenharrow (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tzetzes translation from topostext.org
Hi Mark, I've noticed that in recent months you seem to have added many links to the translation of Tzetzes' commentary on Lycophron's Alexandra on topostext.org. [1] While quite a few of the translations on that website come from books by reputable scholars, in this instance the work was translated by ChatGPT, as stated at the head of the page. Please note that Wikipedia:Large language models#Sources with LLM-generated text says that:
LLM-created works are not Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources. Unless their outputs were published by reliable outlets with rigorous oversight and it can be verified that the content was evaluated for accuracy by the publisher, they should not be cited.
The translation is currently linked on close to 200 pages, [2] and on all the pages I've checked you were the one who added it. While I'm assuming good faith, that you either didn't realise the translation was produced by ChatGPT or didn't know that AI-generated content is not acceptable as a source, please don't link this translation anywhere else. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, the linked discussion resulted in the decision to add in-line tags which read "[AI-generated translation?]" to all instances of this translation. So, if you come across these links, it's probably best to replace the Topostext translation with a link to the Greek edition, and then remove the attached tag. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dating of the Argive Kings
Hi Markx121993, thank you so much for the many contributions you’ve added on Wikipedia about Greek Mythology. I’ve noticed that you’ve contributed a great deal to the List of Argive kings, even offering an amazing table defining each king, their predecessors, and the length of their reign. However, its the date of the king’s reigns I’m having trouble finding sources for, especially Phoroneus with the date of 1652. Any chance you have a specific source, or a specific way you came to this conclusion? I also see the statement of “winters & summers” being used for the dating as well, is there any source where this is explained further? Most of the sources for the dating of this kings (Castor and Jerome) are wildly far back in history, and make little sense after the material cultures of Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Ages have been defined. Along with making sense within the Bronze Age Greek material cultures, the dates defined here in Wikipedia make sense with other physical historical markers. I’ve been working on a novel focused on the history within Greek Mythology for some time now, and I often find myself returning to Wikipedia for references, the ability to bounce from article to article, as well the vast cited sources, have helped considerably with this project, as well as to better understand the records of this amazing time in Greek history that the mythology portrays. It is finding the sources for these dates of the Argive kings that has alluded me, and any help for an individual who certainly understands this subject would be gratefully appreciated. JeffReaching (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeff, sorry for the lack of substantial information you got from the Wikipedia pages regarding Greek Mythology. I am really busy in the meantime reading and comprehending the historical basis of Greek mythology based on multiple sources (some unreliable and mistakenly passed from ancient scholars). Please see this link http://actv.ne.jp/~miyano/AncientGreece/AncientGreece.html as the author is really good in connecting and making a historical sense out of the complex and inconsistent information related to Greek mythology. I’m still on the process of digesting the information he got in the website and it makes sense really. Please do check as it may help with your project. Just let me know if I can help in any way I can. Thank you! Markx121993 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mark! You’ve blown my mind with the amount of information you’ve provided. Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you with a thank you earlier, my free time has been sucked up pouring over all that you’ve shared, and again, thank you. I feel I’m getting closer to what I’m looking for, certainly enough here to fill another chapter in what I’m writing, and certainly what you’ve sent me has gotten me closer to what I’m looking for. In the book I’m writing, I’m pin-pointing the massive, “world-ending” flood described as the Great Deluge. I begin the book with the myth of Deucalion and discuss the flood surrounding his myth. Using documented evidence, I theorize that the flood Deucalion is an event pulled from it context to match a documented flood event in Egypt, a kind of rewriting of Greek’s own history to fulfill the theological belief that the flood had been massive and global, or at least hitting both Greece and Egypt. I’m attempting to set this record straight by demonstrating that Deucalion’s geneology shows a greater number of generations between Deucalion and his “son” Amphictyon, which pulls the date of the flood back in history by roughly 100 years, bringing it in close alignment with the Bronze Age eruption of Thera. I then discuss other flood myths within Greek mythology, and make the evidential case that all of these flooding events occur at the same time, from the same catalyst of the Minoan eruption. I then conclude the book discussing how this culture, through the list of kings, had changed and developed by citing key aspects of the mythology. The book is largely written, I just need to adjust a few chapters as well as write my citations. This leads me to were I’ve hit a snag in my writing; the dates provided in the works of ancient scholars (Jerome and Eusibius) of the list of Bronze Age Greek kings isn’t matching what many of the new sources (wikipedia and the updated list of kings you’ve provided) are stating. At some recent point, the new sources began adjusting the list of kings recorded length of their reign from years to that of a seasonal calendar, one of “Winters and Summers,” largely dividing these length of the king’s reigns in half. I feel this “correction” might be closer to the truth, largely as it fits better with our understanding of the material cultures provided through archaeology. The winters and summers dating of these reigns also matches what I’ve been arguing in the book, certain kings who were affected by a massive flood (Inachus, Pheroneus, Ogyges, Dardanaus), when translated into winters and summers, seem to have their reigns overlapping the date of this event. I have found evidence that the concept of a yearly calendar didn’t occur until roughly 500 BC, about the time when the first scholars began committing the dates of the Bronze Age kings to writing. With this, I’m confident I can write the book discussing this fact and explaining how a shift to a yearly calendar would have caused confusion, however, I would feel more comfortable citing the individuals and demonstrating those findings. Although I’ve put a great deal of work into this book, I constantly feel I’m “standing on the shoulders of giants” while I’m working on it, and I want to credit all of those before me that have made access to this information possible. I again thank you for what you’ve shared, every new piece of information has helped me to better understand this history and strengthens this project I’ve been working on for many years. Ironically, the database file you’ve shared, Chronicon.xls, has the list provided by Jerome, with the list of kings written in years on one sheet, and the list of kings translated into winters and summers on the other. It is the who and what information was use to make that translation decision that just seems to allude me. JeffReaching (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @JeffReaching! It’s really good that the sources I’ve provided helped you with your book. I’m looking back on the chronicon list that I given and checked the website where I’ve taken the information. Based on it, it’s just an estimation but I didn’t have the chance to dig deep enough how the author manage to use the ancient sources (i.e. Eusebius, Jerome, Castor and Tatian) when coming up dates in the chronology provided. Please feel free to check the website and I did tried to check how to contact the author but to no avail. The link is Markx121993 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Markx121993. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Megassares, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
