This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page moved by 23 December 2005 by Silence ( talk) : Archived by Moonraker12 ( talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Since this is the only Wikipedia article on the Greek and Roman wind gods that is at all substantial (though it's still not much longer than a stub), I figured I'd ask here: what do you all think about the possibility of merging all the wind god articles into a single article on the lot of them, with individual sections on the different wind directions and their Greek and Roman embodiments and such. I believe this would be more efficient and would provide all the same information in a more compact and readily-accessible form, avoiding redundancies (i.e. all the current wind-god articles repeat the same list of all the other wind-god articles, often filling the bulk of the article's information with repetition) and encouraging expansion of all the different wind-gods by making their articles more immediately accessible to people interested in any of them. Currently, the state of the winds on Wikipedia is:
We could also mention other Greek and Roman wind gods in the article who may merit their own article a bit more, like Typhon and Aeolus.
I don't care much where the merged article is; probably the best name would be Anemoi (the Roman equivalent, Venti, is arguably not as common and in any case more likely to be confused with other things; it's currently an article on a network storage system), just because it's more compact, stable, and historically-based than an interprative name like "Greco-Roman wind deities". But anyway, I'd love to hear feedback on this. - Silence 15:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knowledge Cleric.-- Previous undated comment added 19.50, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly: Great work Silence! Secondly, I'd like to consider the somewhat daunting task of applying one consistent approach to Romanisation of Greek names. I'm not expert but there appears to be two basic systems in use; one that I guess transliterates the Greek letters (eg. "Karpos") and one that is more of a transcription into Latin (eg. "Carpus"); the latter tends to be more common, especially in older texts. I suggest that for characters central to the article, both (or all) spellings are shown in the first instance (eg "Karpos/Carpus") and thereafter only one is used. Silence seems to have already taken this approach in introducing the Anemoi, preferring the -os to the more common "-us" endings. I also prefer the "-os" spellings, but many of the other names on this page are in the "-us" form, and it seems cumbersome to include two possible spellings for every character named in passing, eg "With Chloris/Khloris, he fathered Ampyx/Ampycus/Ampykos, Mopsus/Mopsos and Carpus/Karpos." Adding to the difficulty, the page names themselves are inconsistently romanised (eg. Chloris but Karpos - the more 'Greek' spelling was chosen to avoid conflict with the article on carpus bones).
So i'm sorry to present a tricky problem and not offer a great solution! It just sticks out to me when (for example) the caption on the image reads "Zephyros and Hyacinth", using a different spelling system for each name. Obviously this is a broader issue than just this page. See for instance Similarities between Roman, Greek, and Etruscan mythologies, which contains a list of wikipedia articles on Greek mythological figures. Unforunately, if we had to pick only one spelling, I'm afraid it would have to be the "-us" system as it's just more common. ntennis 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
All good now! As an odd aside, the sentence I took from the article to illustrate naming problems had been bugging me; I think the addition of Mopsus and Ampycus is a mistake. Now removed. ntennis 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
How best to handle the numerous links to foreign Wikipedia pages on the specific wind-gods? The majority of non-English Wikipedias don't have a centralized "wind gods" or "Anemoi" or whatnot page, and all of them have pages on the individual wind deities, so I don't know how best to link to all those pages. Up until now I'm simply listed every page for the individual wind-gods on the main page along with the few general ones that exist (Česky, Español, and Latina), but that's led to a massive number of links. I don't want to simply not link to them from anywhere, because there are lots of good pages for the topic, but I also don't want the interwiki section of the page to be bogged-down and cluttered with countless repetitive and disorganized-seeming links. So, for now I'm moving these Interwiki links to the Talk page until we can work out how to deal with them: - Silence 22:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
How about a single line at the end of each section? eg, Eurus:
Interwiki: de, es, fr, he, hu, it, nl, pl, sv, tr
ntennis 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The guideline is at Wikipedia:Interlanguage links#Inline interlanguage links, and there has been some discussion of similar issues on the talk page (with not very useful outcomes, sorry). I've added a note there, but I suggest we put the interlanguage links into the article "inline" (as above) for now, where any possible objectors are more likely to see it. It can always be taken out again if there's strong opposition! I've left a note on the Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links page. ntennis 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thracian Boreas is in Aratus Solis Phaenomena associated with Andromeda, in lines 239-240 possibly with Aries and Pisces, and in 352-358 for secure with Aries, Pisces, Cetus and Andromeda. This should mean that the Thracian Boreas was a certain wind at a certain time of the year, where the said constellations were in a certain position... That Thrace simply was the home of Boreas seems like too simple for me, there must have been a certain seasonal wind causing this belief. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This article says "Eurus, the east wind, was not associated with any of the three Greek seasons," which is a direct state meant that there are three greek seasons, but the article on greek seasons says that there are four (or arguably 2). But not three. 76.126.215.43 ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote a rather large article on Classical compass winds, focusing primarily on its geographic construction and assignment by Greek and Roman writers. I skipped over the god stuff, leaving it to be discussed in this one. I don't know much about gods, but I know about winds.And there are a few statements in this article which might need a little revision.
With one or two exceptions, the names of the wind gods given by Hesiod are not used in the same places by later Greek meteorologists/geographers. Boreas was shunted to the NE, Eurus to the SE, with the North wind thereafter named "Aparctius" and the East wind "Apeliotes". Notos & Zephyrus remained in place throughout though. These two shifts cause great difficulties in trying to reconcile Greek & Roman winds. The Romans have equivalent names to the Greek winds (from a geographical-meteorological perspective), but their position is not in the same place given in Hesiod, and that has led to some mistatements in this article:
Anyway, sorry for rambling. The only point I want to make is that there is some serious complications about wind gods because Greek geographers shunted Boreas & Eurus out of the positions they had in Hesiod's theogony, and so end up in places where the equivalent Roman winds don't have the same meaning. So you can't rely on a table of compass wind equivalences to deduce god equivalences. You need to check Roman theologies to make sure these wind gods are what the article says they are. I'd make the corrections myself, but I know nothing about gods and wouldn't know where to look to make sure. But I am pretty sure I got the meteorology-geography part correct in the Classical compass winds, which has plenty of direct references to the sources in original Greek & Latin. But those sources, alas, doesn't discuss divinities. Walrasiad ( talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that not all the other sensible adjustments have been made, but a minor one seems simple for somebody to do--not me, because I don't have the skill and/or power.
It makes no sense for Zephyrus and Eurus in the first section to link down to their sections of the same article while Boreas and Notus do not.
Please, can this strange imbalance be corrected? GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Link: facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.345556012124536.96274.341958475817623&type=3 190.140.192.16 ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
and facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.369381016408702.101212.341958475817623&type=3 - 190.140.192.16 ( talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Just added a "Popular culture" section to the article, containing mostly info about the works of Rick Riordan that deal with the Anemoi. If anyone knows of other works with important references to these gods, I'd appreciate an expansion of the section. Thanks, and happy editing! - 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary to have 'Aquilon redirects here', since 'Aquilon' (which formerly appeared in the article) is an error, now removed. Kanjuzi ( talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC) I tried to remove the redirect, but failed. A qualified editor should delete the page 'Aquilon', since it prevents readers from looking up other articles which genuinely have Aquilon. Kanjuzi ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I've included a cultural reference to the lesser Anemoi as featured in The Venture Bros. My inclusion of this information had been removed by user Nikkimaria on the grounds of "rm non-RS" (non-reliable source). Now, although this information is difficult to cite outside of any "fan site" (such is the case with many forms of entertainment), my description contained nothing speculative, opinionated, nor editorialized, and had been detailed in an accurate way.
If this reference can't be included, I'd like to dispute, since there exists no concrete description of these characters in the depth of information as provided within my cite link.
As such, I thought it'd be more appropriate to include a "Citation needed" tag instead of removing the entirety of the info. If this is deemed to still be lacking, I'll understand, but I'd greatly appreciate it if this info would be included. -- Rhombuth ( talk) 02:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Look at Turkic Bora/Boran < Mongolian Borugan The similarity is startling. There is a Persian word bārān باران and again a similar word to Turkish and Greek ones. Turkic bor/boz a kind of gray. UzunbacakAdem ( talk) 10:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC). Uzunbacak Adem
anemoi 2600:1700:A9B0:ECB0:D401:5556:3BB4:B12B ( talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The headings here have gone through various arrangements over time: in 2016 each Greek name had a section and a Roman subsection; by 2017 the Roman subsection headings had gone, with no mention of the Roman names; in 2019 Boreas had a subsection but none of the others did, and by 2021 Notus (alone) had a Roman name in parenthesis. In seems sensible to have the Roman name in the heading, so I have added it to the others for completeness. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 ( talk) 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose that the section about Boreas be split into a separate page called Boreas. I believe the content of the section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. There are characters in Greek mythology with much less information than Boreas who have their own article. The section about his Roman equivalent would also be moved to that article. @ Sapiente and Michael Aurel: Deiadameian ( talk) 10:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page moved by 23 December 2005 by Silence ( talk) : Archived by Moonraker12 ( talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Since this is the only Wikipedia article on the Greek and Roman wind gods that is at all substantial (though it's still not much longer than a stub), I figured I'd ask here: what do you all think about the possibility of merging all the wind god articles into a single article on the lot of them, with individual sections on the different wind directions and their Greek and Roman embodiments and such. I believe this would be more efficient and would provide all the same information in a more compact and readily-accessible form, avoiding redundancies (i.e. all the current wind-god articles repeat the same list of all the other wind-god articles, often filling the bulk of the article's information with repetition) and encouraging expansion of all the different wind-gods by making their articles more immediately accessible to people interested in any of them. Currently, the state of the winds on Wikipedia is:
We could also mention other Greek and Roman wind gods in the article who may merit their own article a bit more, like Typhon and Aeolus.
I don't care much where the merged article is; probably the best name would be Anemoi (the Roman equivalent, Venti, is arguably not as common and in any case more likely to be confused with other things; it's currently an article on a network storage system), just because it's more compact, stable, and historically-based than an interprative name like "Greco-Roman wind deities". But anyway, I'd love to hear feedback on this. - Silence 15:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knowledge Cleric.-- Previous undated comment added 19.50, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly: Great work Silence! Secondly, I'd like to consider the somewhat daunting task of applying one consistent approach to Romanisation of Greek names. I'm not expert but there appears to be two basic systems in use; one that I guess transliterates the Greek letters (eg. "Karpos") and one that is more of a transcription into Latin (eg. "Carpus"); the latter tends to be more common, especially in older texts. I suggest that for characters central to the article, both (or all) spellings are shown in the first instance (eg "Karpos/Carpus") and thereafter only one is used. Silence seems to have already taken this approach in introducing the Anemoi, preferring the -os to the more common "-us" endings. I also prefer the "-os" spellings, but many of the other names on this page are in the "-us" form, and it seems cumbersome to include two possible spellings for every character named in passing, eg "With Chloris/Khloris, he fathered Ampyx/Ampycus/Ampykos, Mopsus/Mopsos and Carpus/Karpos." Adding to the difficulty, the page names themselves are inconsistently romanised (eg. Chloris but Karpos - the more 'Greek' spelling was chosen to avoid conflict with the article on carpus bones).
So i'm sorry to present a tricky problem and not offer a great solution! It just sticks out to me when (for example) the caption on the image reads "Zephyros and Hyacinth", using a different spelling system for each name. Obviously this is a broader issue than just this page. See for instance Similarities between Roman, Greek, and Etruscan mythologies, which contains a list of wikipedia articles on Greek mythological figures. Unforunately, if we had to pick only one spelling, I'm afraid it would have to be the "-us" system as it's just more common. ntennis 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
All good now! As an odd aside, the sentence I took from the article to illustrate naming problems had been bugging me; I think the addition of Mopsus and Ampycus is a mistake. Now removed. ntennis 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
How best to handle the numerous links to foreign Wikipedia pages on the specific wind-gods? The majority of non-English Wikipedias don't have a centralized "wind gods" or "Anemoi" or whatnot page, and all of them have pages on the individual wind deities, so I don't know how best to link to all those pages. Up until now I'm simply listed every page for the individual wind-gods on the main page along with the few general ones that exist (Česky, Español, and Latina), but that's led to a massive number of links. I don't want to simply not link to them from anywhere, because there are lots of good pages for the topic, but I also don't want the interwiki section of the page to be bogged-down and cluttered with countless repetitive and disorganized-seeming links. So, for now I'm moving these Interwiki links to the Talk page until we can work out how to deal with them: - Silence 22:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
How about a single line at the end of each section? eg, Eurus:
Interwiki: de, es, fr, he, hu, it, nl, pl, sv, tr
ntennis 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The guideline is at Wikipedia:Interlanguage links#Inline interlanguage links, and there has been some discussion of similar issues on the talk page (with not very useful outcomes, sorry). I've added a note there, but I suggest we put the interlanguage links into the article "inline" (as above) for now, where any possible objectors are more likely to see it. It can always be taken out again if there's strong opposition! I've left a note on the Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links page. ntennis 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thracian Boreas is in Aratus Solis Phaenomena associated with Andromeda, in lines 239-240 possibly with Aries and Pisces, and in 352-358 for secure with Aries, Pisces, Cetus and Andromeda. This should mean that the Thracian Boreas was a certain wind at a certain time of the year, where the said constellations were in a certain position... That Thrace simply was the home of Boreas seems like too simple for me, there must have been a certain seasonal wind causing this belief. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This article says "Eurus, the east wind, was not associated with any of the three Greek seasons," which is a direct state meant that there are three greek seasons, but the article on greek seasons says that there are four (or arguably 2). But not three. 76.126.215.43 ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote a rather large article on Classical compass winds, focusing primarily on its geographic construction and assignment by Greek and Roman writers. I skipped over the god stuff, leaving it to be discussed in this one. I don't know much about gods, but I know about winds.And there are a few statements in this article which might need a little revision.
With one or two exceptions, the names of the wind gods given by Hesiod are not used in the same places by later Greek meteorologists/geographers. Boreas was shunted to the NE, Eurus to the SE, with the North wind thereafter named "Aparctius" and the East wind "Apeliotes". Notos & Zephyrus remained in place throughout though. These two shifts cause great difficulties in trying to reconcile Greek & Roman winds. The Romans have equivalent names to the Greek winds (from a geographical-meteorological perspective), but their position is not in the same place given in Hesiod, and that has led to some mistatements in this article:
Anyway, sorry for rambling. The only point I want to make is that there is some serious complications about wind gods because Greek geographers shunted Boreas & Eurus out of the positions they had in Hesiod's theogony, and so end up in places where the equivalent Roman winds don't have the same meaning. So you can't rely on a table of compass wind equivalences to deduce god equivalences. You need to check Roman theologies to make sure these wind gods are what the article says they are. I'd make the corrections myself, but I know nothing about gods and wouldn't know where to look to make sure. But I am pretty sure I got the meteorology-geography part correct in the Classical compass winds, which has plenty of direct references to the sources in original Greek & Latin. But those sources, alas, doesn't discuss divinities. Walrasiad ( talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that not all the other sensible adjustments have been made, but a minor one seems simple for somebody to do--not me, because I don't have the skill and/or power.
It makes no sense for Zephyrus and Eurus in the first section to link down to their sections of the same article while Boreas and Notus do not.
Please, can this strange imbalance be corrected? GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Link: facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.345556012124536.96274.341958475817623&type=3 190.140.192.16 ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
and facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.369381016408702.101212.341958475817623&type=3 - 190.140.192.16 ( talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Just added a "Popular culture" section to the article, containing mostly info about the works of Rick Riordan that deal with the Anemoi. If anyone knows of other works with important references to these gods, I'd appreciate an expansion of the section. Thanks, and happy editing! - 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary to have 'Aquilon redirects here', since 'Aquilon' (which formerly appeared in the article) is an error, now removed. Kanjuzi ( talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC) I tried to remove the redirect, but failed. A qualified editor should delete the page 'Aquilon', since it prevents readers from looking up other articles which genuinely have Aquilon. Kanjuzi ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I've included a cultural reference to the lesser Anemoi as featured in The Venture Bros. My inclusion of this information had been removed by user Nikkimaria on the grounds of "rm non-RS" (non-reliable source). Now, although this information is difficult to cite outside of any "fan site" (such is the case with many forms of entertainment), my description contained nothing speculative, opinionated, nor editorialized, and had been detailed in an accurate way.
If this reference can't be included, I'd like to dispute, since there exists no concrete description of these characters in the depth of information as provided within my cite link.
As such, I thought it'd be more appropriate to include a "Citation needed" tag instead of removing the entirety of the info. If this is deemed to still be lacking, I'll understand, but I'd greatly appreciate it if this info would be included. -- Rhombuth ( talk) 02:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Look at Turkic Bora/Boran < Mongolian Borugan The similarity is startling. There is a Persian word bārān باران and again a similar word to Turkish and Greek ones. Turkic bor/boz a kind of gray. UzunbacakAdem ( talk) 10:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC). Uzunbacak Adem
anemoi 2600:1700:A9B0:ECB0:D401:5556:3BB4:B12B ( talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The headings here have gone through various arrangements over time: in 2016 each Greek name had a section and a Roman subsection; by 2017 the Roman subsection headings had gone, with no mention of the Roman names; in 2019 Boreas had a subsection but none of the others did, and by 2021 Notus (alone) had a Roman name in parenthesis. In seems sensible to have the Roman name in the heading, so I have added it to the others for completeness. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 ( talk) 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose that the section about Boreas be split into a separate page called Boreas. I believe the content of the section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. There are characters in Greek mythology with much less information than Boreas who have their own article. The section about his Roman equivalent would also be moved to that article. @ Sapiente and Michael Aurel: Deiadameian ( talk) 10:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)