Jump to content

Talk:Helios

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Questions and comments

[edit]

1. "Clymene, Phaethon's mother, laments that Helios has destroyed her child".

Why?

2. Phaethusa and Lampetia are either daughters of Clymene or Neaera so they should be listed under Clymene which appears before Neaera or should be listed under both Clymene and Neaera.

3. "According to Homer - late 8th/ early 7th century BC: Abraxas, *Therbeeo."

What is "*" exactly?

If the horses were four what are the names of the other two?

4. "According to Eumelus of Corinth - late 7th/ early 6th century BC: The male trace horses are Eous (by him the sky is turned) and Aethiops (as if faming, parches the grain) and the female yoke-bearers are Bronte ("Thunder") and Sterope ("Lightning")."

Bronte and Sterope sound very familiar with two other characters in Greek mythology. Is it purely a coincidence?

5. Aeetes is mentioned 3 times in the "Notes" section. I believe the spelling should be corrected to Aeëtes.

ICE77 (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Li.andy, ...

[edit]

Going based off the guidelines set by Wikipedia, your contribution to the article complies with their rules and restrictions: you included an unbiased relation of information, you provided sources and maintained a neutral I am not sure whether you chose to write about the Helios in the context that its written in this article. This article doesn't necessarily correlate with the branches of civic technology. I'm assuming that you meant to write about the Helios group that Barbara Simmons discussed in class. The Helios Group is more related to civic technology being that, as Barbara explained, was a hacking formula that could affect voting machines. However, if in fact you did decide to write pertaining to Helios, the Greek God then you achieved your goal.

BHernandez1723 (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helios as a modern subculture icon?

[edit]

In recent years, Helios (in particular, his busts) has become a popular symbol for the Vaporwave art/media subculture. Would that be worth mentioning somewhere here, perhaps in a "In popular media" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.203.125 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to implement. I am not sure specifically what you had meant in terms of "Vaporwave art/media" but I have added a Modern Reception section for this to reference more modern artforms. C0137H (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So after a bit of research I figured out what you meant, added to Modern Reception. C0137H (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language template

[edit]

@Avilich: Since I don't want to start an editing war in the article, is there a strong reason to oppose the inclusion of romanization and translation parts of the language template? Various other articles on non-English characters include this, and I see no reason to delete this info, especially since it's included in a footnote and not the summary itself. I see you have deleted it in several other Greek mythology articles, and I myself do not agree with the deletion of information that can be useful to certain people, especially those who cannot read non-Latin alphabets. Regards, Deiadameian (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deiadameian: Hi. Per MOS:PRON, a link to wiktionary seems enough most of the time. My primary concern here is that having lots of alternative renditions doesn't help the average reader understand the topic, even if you just end up dumping them into a footnote (which nobody is going to read anyway, if it's too big). The pronunciations are always exact copies of the "5th-century BC Attic" you'll find on wiktionary, and they are always unsourced anyway. Avilich (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: I understand, though wikipedia article and wiktionary article are two different things, and I don't think wikipedia should operate on the basis "check this other site", otherwise there wouldn't be a text in any article at all, just multiple links to the sources available. I do think that the translation at least should stay. Regards, Deiadameian (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich:I'm not sure I understand the issue here completely, but I do know that Wiktionary should not be used as a reliable source, nor as a substitute for any information deemed appropriate for the article itself. As for translations, they should, when appropriately sourced, definitely be given in the article. Paul August ☎ 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deiadameian: But I usually leave a link to wiktionary, so it's not a 'check the other site', it's literally just one click away. I suppose I have no problem with the translation staying, but it is kind of pointless to romanize "Helios" again after you already introduced the topic with that exact same spelling in bold. Avilich (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: The wiktionary links are for trivial romanizations and pronunciations only. With regards to translation, the only thing in dispute here is whether to include it in the lede. Avilich (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic information moved back into lead

[edit]

@Piccco: Is there a reason for moving all of that information out of the note? It makes the lead much less readable in my opinion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Aurel: It does not look too bad, I think. It is less than half a line long. Deiadameian (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deiadameian: My only issue is that we only say "is the god and personification of the Sun ..." after close to one and a half lines. This is the change I made originally, and I think it was a reasonably good solution, in that it brought that main phrase ("is the god and personification ...") to the front. I won't change it, though, if you're happy with it as it is currently. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel: I think both are good, just figure it out with @Piccco: if and when they respond. Deiadameian (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at a compromise version. I agree with Michael, the phase "is the god and personification ..." should come sooner. But I also think it is important to have each of the bolded terms in the lead, and not in a note. Paul August ☎ 03:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine by me. Deiadameian (talk) 8:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I think Paul's version works well. This way we have the most important information presented first, while keeping the pronunciation and Greek in the lead, rather than putting them in a note. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fact. 'Ηελιος is also referred in the Christian Bible as GOD.

[edit]

Read Greek new testament. Αποκάλυψη or the apocalypse of John. 75.73.228.105 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of change to the article are you proposing? Deiadameian (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

Which image should be in the lead?

LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think File:Ilion---metopa.jpg makes a better lead image. It shows Helios in his horse-driven chariot, perhaps his important iconography along with his sun glow. Plus its an actual Greek depiction. The other image is just a crop from a fresco centered on Dionysus, with Aphrodite in the background. Helios is just siting on a throne looking at Dionysus. Deiadameian, why is it better? LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LittleJerry, personally I thought it served better on account of it having colour, since most lead images are sculptures and thus grey or white. Also it already has replaced the Ilion metope in the past, so going back to the Ilion metope felt meaningless. Also, please, wait for a discussion to take place here before reverting edits. Not that I will start an edit war, but it is preferrable to reach an agreement first before taking actions. Deiadameian (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see Helios in the Pompeian fresco at all. At first glance I thought that must be Helios on the left sitting facing right, but I think that's surely Dionysus. Is that Helios' knee and foot at the far right? I like the metope, it shows Helios' characteristic sun-rays and four-horse chariot. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the 'alternative image' one. The current image's cropping is weird and from a quick glance, it's a bit difficult to tell which one in that image is Helios. Some1 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and replace that image, which at most shows his right leg! Paul August ☎ 15:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've taken a look at the other images for Helios I think that, actually this 5th-century calyx krater is even better:
File:Helius kalyx-krater puglia british museum.jpg
Helios rising in his chariot, red-figure calyx-krater, 430 BC (circa), British Museum.
Paul August ☎ 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan. Helios is too far off to the side. But we can add it to the gallery. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already on the page. But I agree with you: you can't really see Helios very well due to the shape of the krater, and if you could turn it for a better view, the horses wouldn't be very visible. It's a beautiful painting, but probably doesn't make a great lead image. P Aculeius (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image of the calyx-krater, which was for a while "image 3" above, has now been deleted due to apparent copyright infringement. Paul August ☎ 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of... it's licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which is not permitted at Commons. The -NC (non-commercial) component is the problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would also be Image 2. I've checked a few sources, and I can't find anything to suggest that Helios is in the wall painting at all; the five deities present seem to be Bacchus, Apollo, Diana, Venus, and Peitho. Unless a source can be found which states that Helios is present, it shouldn't be in the article. I'm inclined to agree with P Aculeius that the calyx-krater, though handsome, doesn't make quite as good a lead image as Image 2, due to the curvature of the object. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the third image, but I agree that the curvature makes it harder to see the image. Is there any possibility of using a 'flattened out' version of it? Otherwise I vote for 2.--Urszag (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a flattened image on the British Museum's website here (image 7), though it's also in black and white. The images here look as though they are somewhat flatter too. Somebody would need to upload such an image to Commons first, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way—while I could make an argument, namely that the krater is older, quite stunningly beautiful, and shows just as much of Helios as the relief since both show Helios's two characteristic elements his sun-rays and quadriga equally well —I'm perfectly happy with image 2 ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the image captions for clarity. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Image 2: Undisputed identification as Helios [1]; iconographical features like the solar crown, the horses visible; early image of 4th century BC where Helios worship was in vogue. Image 1 is distracting with the knee of Dionysos and the attendant of Helios, the horses are missing. I have nominated image 3 for speedy deletion.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as the wall painting doesn't seem to depict Helios, and the image of the calyx-krater has now been deleted, this discussion can probably be closed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions by new user

[edit]

Hi, I'd like to make the contributors of this article aware of the fact that a new user deleted 70 KB of contents from this article in one edit ([2]). The edits may be good or not, but it is obvious that a large amount of information was deleted without prior discussion or consensus. I don't have the time to go through the diffs for mass changes like this, and since the editor has reverted my reversion, I will leave it to the regulars of this article to check the changes and either accept them or reinvoke (portions of) the old contents at your discretion. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helios&oldid=1238976772"