![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In his lifetime Cerberus was incapacitated four times. Not a very effective guard, if you ask me. Dean.l 21:46:43, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
600 years + and only 4 incapacitations is pretty impressive by most people's standards. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
On the picture, look at the face on the very right. He's the dorky one...the comedian of the group.
Do the individual heads of Cerberus have thier own names?
No, the Greeks never named the individual heads of multiheaded creatures. Also in some of the oldest versions of the Cerberus story he had as many as 50 or 100 heads, which would have made for a really, really long list!! Though some of the surplus ones might have been serpents.
Theranos
06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The Greeks have a penchant for serpent monsters. Cerberus, the Hydra, the dragon guarding the Golden Fleece, the Chimera...the list goes on and on.--Rob
Sorry, was an accident. The check box and submit were too close together.... Wasn't intentional. Mathmo Talk 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the rest of "Classical mythologers speculated [1]"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Why/how is this in the front page's "Wikipedia's newest articles" section? -- Rajah ( talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles should only cover notable aspects of the topic. The fact that some videogame made a rather uninteresting reference to a character out of mythology is so incredibly nonnotable that it's painful. I know some people like to go around adding every single last trivial detail that they know of that mentions a certain topic, but doing that inevitably leads to a long, long list of pointless pseudofacts that do not in any way advance the knowledge of people looking for real information on the topic in question. Cleaning out the pointless stuff is now standard practice on articles like this. There is absolutely no reason for someone to revert the changes except for the fact that they are upset (once again, it happened on the Cat article) that something they added isn;t important enough to stay here. DreamGuy 16:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
So, EliasAlucard, if we follow what you say, the article should really look something like this:
And if I tried I could go on and on and on and on. Only NOTABLE references should get mentioned. The kinds of things you adeded back are so incredibly nonnotable it's painful. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This guy is right. If we note all these references to Cerberus, this wiki will just get disorganized. Could we put these in their own articles (Kingdom Hearts, Ghostbusters, DMC)? Some people accused me of vandalism when I made this suggestion.
This squabble is ridiculous! Look at the proportion of the content devoted to historical information, against information about which games included the character. Just get rid of the rubbish, and spend your editing time finding useful information. It's a disgrace to greek mythology to put junk about bloody computer games.
This is a point less disscussion, why don't you just say the cerberus appears in some games and movies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.62.154 ( talk) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Werewolf has only notable mentions in the main article and then splits novels and movies into separate articles. Videogames on get mentioned once, not as many times as Cerberus video games got mentioned here, and werewolves have been in many, many more videogames than Cerberus has. Leviathan has an article with notable ficiton references, with others being left on the disambig page. Lilith has the fiction moved to the disambig page. Banshee, Pazuzu, Rumplestilskin and many others have had the fictioncruft moved out. And, heck, pretty much any mythology article that has been cleaned up by myself or others (though there are plenty that haven't been cleaned up yet, and you can tell by reading them how jumbled up they are) does not allow trivial fiction references. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there's a place for a section on notable appearances of Cerberus in modern fiction - not just video games, but modern fiction in general - but that the context-free "Cerberus appears in video games A, B, and C" are less than useful. Unless Cerberus is a major character in the game or other work of fiction, it shouldn't be mentioned. - Sean Curtin 02:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree on this. Why you feel adding to 'See Also', 'God Of War: Little doggy things that can look like Cerberus sometimes' (OK, I'm paraphrasing) is useful to anyone, I don't know. Even if Cerberus was a boss character, I'd be unimpressed.
It should at least be shortened, "In episode 2.17 of the TV show Lost on ABC, a fluorescent map on a blast door makes mention of something on the island known by the name of Cerberus.
In Legends of the Ghost part III the main protagonist in the second scene has a dog which can occasionally powerup and turn into a Cerberus. In Metal Gear Solid Acid on the second level behind the barrel there is a crate with the word 'Cerberus' on it. " That is some of the most useless information I've ever read in my life!!
82.21.148.214
14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cmon people!!!!
The photo of the statue is messed up!!! Everyone knows that the dog head is in the middle, and the two wolf heads are on either side guarding the gates of Hell!@!!
I want to know where to buy a correct statue, not a messed up version.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.89 ( talk) 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well as both a simple man fascinated by greek in particular and mythology in general ,and also (unfortunately I guess) a prolific videogame player I find myself having to agree more with Dreamguy Yes,there are popular culture (I find myself at a loss for a more accurate expressions) references to this and other characters but then again I urge you to think about it,how many of this video game references are actually accurately based on the real mythological entity or even have anything to do with it? Anyone remembers the gorgons from DnD or the "Heroes of Might&Magic" series?What the hell did stone bulls really have anything to do with the medusa and his sisters (medusa by the way is a generic unit for said game saga) In the video game "Parasite eve" you fight a mutated three headed dog (not named like our hound) that is an obvious reference to Cerberus,but there is no reason that should figure on an article intended to inform it readers on the nature and evolution of the conception of a myth,idea,concept or person. A good idea if you find you cannot agree on citing simply that this or other mytholgical characters are very popular in the media culture you can always try what people did with the Necromancer article,you have the objective historic and/or anthropologic review (necromancy) and the more popular and not less interesting concepts of it (necromancers in popular culture). Otherwise the list ,as dreamGuy pointed out would go on and on and on simply creating more confusion for someone who wants to clear his ideas on the subject
Not intending to continue or spark more debate here,just trying to avoid further pointless discussion
201.235.217.76 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)El Gostro, 13 Oct 02:05 pm
This "in popular culture" crap should be entirely one-way.
The only exception I've seen that I like is the stuff in Norse myth articles about Wagner, and how he influences modern portrayals of Norse gods. If it's something that references the myth that itself colors modern portrayals of the myth in a way not adequately covered by the rest of the article, sure, go ahead...THAT is what a "popular culture" section should be. But it'll be decades, at least, before you know whether Harry Potter's portrayal becomes THE Cerberus archetype. Andy Christ ( talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Was reading through this page when I found blatant and multiple amounts of vandalism, like "mahhhh" and "AHHHHHH". Can someone please hunt down the perpetrator and restore the article? Feng277394 ( talk) 08:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The article currently mixes the spellings labor and labour. I looked back in the history and found a version from 2004 that did not appear to be a stub, and that used only labour. So on the face of it, per WP:RETAIN, I suppose the whole article should consistently use British spellings. Is there any opposition? -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
About this link in the article:
There is no paragraph named "Cerberus" in the article Greek mythology in popular culture. It might have been deleted. Galzigler ( talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't know if this has any place anywhere, but currently there is a Facebook meme going around which goes something like:
"Cerberus"...the name of the three-headed hellhound and guard dog of the underworld...comes from the Indo-European root ḱerberos, which evolved into the Greek word "kerberos", which got changed to "cerberus" when it went from Greek to Latin.
In Indo-European, "Ќerberos" means "spotted."
That's right. Hades...Lord of the Dead and of the Underworld...literally named his pet dog "Spot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.30.111 ( talk) 02:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been watching this page for some time with the intent of adding the sanskrit sarvara comparison for kerberos, and am happy to see someone beat me to it. The alternate "demon of the pit" "etymology" is no real etymology - it seems like an ad hoc definition. While the comparison of kerberos/sarvara is apparently regular (not sure about the b/v comparison) the "demon of the pit" gloss is neither attributed to anyone, nor derivied from any PIE root, nor suggested as a borrowing, nor compared to any other language. Nor is encyclopedia mythica a particularly notable nor authoritative source. i suggest either deleting the "demon of the pit" gloss entirely, or saying that while the online encyclopedia offers "demon of the pit" as an "etymology" it offers neither a source, nor a comparison nor a derivation from any know root. Kjaer ( talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the etymology of the term [my definitions added in brackets] from Pokorny at http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny&first=921
Number: 930 Root: k^erbero- und kerbero- English meaning: variegated German meaning: `scheckig' [piebald] General comments: (vgl. S. 573 k^er- neben ker-6 in Farbbezeichnungen) Material: Ai. śárvara- `bunt, scheckig', śárvarī f. `Tier der Maruts, Nacht' (v steht für b, vgl. Wackernagel Ai. Gr. I 184 und:) śabála-, śabára- (diss. Schwund des ersten r) `bunt, scheckig' (daneben karbará-, karvará-, kabara-, karbura-, karbu- ds.); gr. Κέρβερος ursprüngl. `der Scheckige'; vgl. die mythologische Wendung von ai. śarvarī; slav. sobolь `Zobel' [sable] scheint aus dem Arischen zu stammen. Die Wz. kerb- sucht Lidén Stud. 50 f. in air. corbaim `besudle, beflecke' [dirty, stained] und lit. kìrba (> lett. ḱirba) `Sumpf, [swamp] Morast' und betrachtet *kerb- als Erweiterung der Farbwz. ker- (s. S. 583 kers-); Mühlenbach-Endzelin II 383. References: WP. I 425, Schulze Kl. Schr. 125, Specht Idg. Dekl. 119, 262.
As for "demon of the pit" this is everywhere repeated on the internet but nowhere with any explanation or reference. kerberos is also compared to the color root *ker- and may be related to the Latin carbo-
Is "spotted" a joke, or did Hades really name his dog spot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.167.138 ( talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bruce Lincoln etymology relating Cerberus to Garmr through a notional Indo-European *ger- is totally unbelievable: an Indo-European word beginning with *g would produce initial k in Norse and g in Greek, not k in Greek and g in Norse as Cerberus and Garmr have. There's no word-initial sound capable of producing Greek k and Norse g; without a much more complicated explanation than is put forward, these words can't possibly be cognates. AJD ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ovid refers to Cerberus as the son of Medusa in his recounting of the myth of Orpheus. 206.87.104.216 ( talk) 22:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"... to prevent the dead from escaping and the living from entering." Really? The role of Cerberus dog was to serve a "one-way" guard: to let everyone in and prevent anyone from getting out. Cerberus actually welcomes everyone who goes in by happily wagging its tail. The trivialized idea of "Cerberus" as an ordinary guard was created no earlier than in the mid-XX century. 173.11.122.193 ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cerberus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"Heracles' final labour was to capture Cerberus, which he did by treating it with the first kindness it had ever received."
This should be corrected or clarified. IANAM (I am not a mythologist) -- Ardipithecus Maximus 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
After a reversion, I'd like to let people know that I had to remove the part of Theseus and Pirithous' mentioning in this article as they had nothing to do with Hercules' labour to obtain Cerberus. It can be mentioned as a side-mission during the labours on the page that details each of the Labours of Hercules. Any objections or agreements? -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 15:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In his lifetime Cerberus was incapacitated four times. Not a very effective guard, if you ask me. Dean.l 21:46:43, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
600 years + and only 4 incapacitations is pretty impressive by most people's standards. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
On the picture, look at the face on the very right. He's the dorky one...the comedian of the group.
Do the individual heads of Cerberus have thier own names?
No, the Greeks never named the individual heads of multiheaded creatures. Also in some of the oldest versions of the Cerberus story he had as many as 50 or 100 heads, which would have made for a really, really long list!! Though some of the surplus ones might have been serpents.
Theranos
06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The Greeks have a penchant for serpent monsters. Cerberus, the Hydra, the dragon guarding the Golden Fleece, the Chimera...the list goes on and on.--Rob
Sorry, was an accident. The check box and submit were too close together.... Wasn't intentional. Mathmo Talk 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the rest of "Classical mythologers speculated [1]"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Why/how is this in the front page's "Wikipedia's newest articles" section? -- Rajah ( talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles should only cover notable aspects of the topic. The fact that some videogame made a rather uninteresting reference to a character out of mythology is so incredibly nonnotable that it's painful. I know some people like to go around adding every single last trivial detail that they know of that mentions a certain topic, but doing that inevitably leads to a long, long list of pointless pseudofacts that do not in any way advance the knowledge of people looking for real information on the topic in question. Cleaning out the pointless stuff is now standard practice on articles like this. There is absolutely no reason for someone to revert the changes except for the fact that they are upset (once again, it happened on the Cat article) that something they added isn;t important enough to stay here. DreamGuy 16:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
So, EliasAlucard, if we follow what you say, the article should really look something like this:
And if I tried I could go on and on and on and on. Only NOTABLE references should get mentioned. The kinds of things you adeded back are so incredibly nonnotable it's painful. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This guy is right. If we note all these references to Cerberus, this wiki will just get disorganized. Could we put these in their own articles (Kingdom Hearts, Ghostbusters, DMC)? Some people accused me of vandalism when I made this suggestion.
This squabble is ridiculous! Look at the proportion of the content devoted to historical information, against information about which games included the character. Just get rid of the rubbish, and spend your editing time finding useful information. It's a disgrace to greek mythology to put junk about bloody computer games.
This is a point less disscussion, why don't you just say the cerberus appears in some games and movies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.62.154 ( talk) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Werewolf has only notable mentions in the main article and then splits novels and movies into separate articles. Videogames on get mentioned once, not as many times as Cerberus video games got mentioned here, and werewolves have been in many, many more videogames than Cerberus has. Leviathan has an article with notable ficiton references, with others being left on the disambig page. Lilith has the fiction moved to the disambig page. Banshee, Pazuzu, Rumplestilskin and many others have had the fictioncruft moved out. And, heck, pretty much any mythology article that has been cleaned up by myself or others (though there are plenty that haven't been cleaned up yet, and you can tell by reading them how jumbled up they are) does not allow trivial fiction references. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there's a place for a section on notable appearances of Cerberus in modern fiction - not just video games, but modern fiction in general - but that the context-free "Cerberus appears in video games A, B, and C" are less than useful. Unless Cerberus is a major character in the game or other work of fiction, it shouldn't be mentioned. - Sean Curtin 02:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree on this. Why you feel adding to 'See Also', 'God Of War: Little doggy things that can look like Cerberus sometimes' (OK, I'm paraphrasing) is useful to anyone, I don't know. Even if Cerberus was a boss character, I'd be unimpressed.
It should at least be shortened, "In episode 2.17 of the TV show Lost on ABC, a fluorescent map on a blast door makes mention of something on the island known by the name of Cerberus.
In Legends of the Ghost part III the main protagonist in the second scene has a dog which can occasionally powerup and turn into a Cerberus. In Metal Gear Solid Acid on the second level behind the barrel there is a crate with the word 'Cerberus' on it. " That is some of the most useless information I've ever read in my life!!
82.21.148.214
14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cmon people!!!!
The photo of the statue is messed up!!! Everyone knows that the dog head is in the middle, and the two wolf heads are on either side guarding the gates of Hell!@!!
I want to know where to buy a correct statue, not a messed up version.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.89 ( talk) 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well as both a simple man fascinated by greek in particular and mythology in general ,and also (unfortunately I guess) a prolific videogame player I find myself having to agree more with Dreamguy Yes,there are popular culture (I find myself at a loss for a more accurate expressions) references to this and other characters but then again I urge you to think about it,how many of this video game references are actually accurately based on the real mythological entity or even have anything to do with it? Anyone remembers the gorgons from DnD or the "Heroes of Might&Magic" series?What the hell did stone bulls really have anything to do with the medusa and his sisters (medusa by the way is a generic unit for said game saga) In the video game "Parasite eve" you fight a mutated three headed dog (not named like our hound) that is an obvious reference to Cerberus,but there is no reason that should figure on an article intended to inform it readers on the nature and evolution of the conception of a myth,idea,concept or person. A good idea if you find you cannot agree on citing simply that this or other mytholgical characters are very popular in the media culture you can always try what people did with the Necromancer article,you have the objective historic and/or anthropologic review (necromancy) and the more popular and not less interesting concepts of it (necromancers in popular culture). Otherwise the list ,as dreamGuy pointed out would go on and on and on simply creating more confusion for someone who wants to clear his ideas on the subject
Not intending to continue or spark more debate here,just trying to avoid further pointless discussion
201.235.217.76 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)El Gostro, 13 Oct 02:05 pm
This "in popular culture" crap should be entirely one-way.
The only exception I've seen that I like is the stuff in Norse myth articles about Wagner, and how he influences modern portrayals of Norse gods. If it's something that references the myth that itself colors modern portrayals of the myth in a way not adequately covered by the rest of the article, sure, go ahead...THAT is what a "popular culture" section should be. But it'll be decades, at least, before you know whether Harry Potter's portrayal becomes THE Cerberus archetype. Andy Christ ( talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Was reading through this page when I found blatant and multiple amounts of vandalism, like "mahhhh" and "AHHHHHH". Can someone please hunt down the perpetrator and restore the article? Feng277394 ( talk) 08:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The article currently mixes the spellings labor and labour. I looked back in the history and found a version from 2004 that did not appear to be a stub, and that used only labour. So on the face of it, per WP:RETAIN, I suppose the whole article should consistently use British spellings. Is there any opposition? -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
About this link in the article:
There is no paragraph named "Cerberus" in the article Greek mythology in popular culture. It might have been deleted. Galzigler ( talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't know if this has any place anywhere, but currently there is a Facebook meme going around which goes something like:
"Cerberus"...the name of the three-headed hellhound and guard dog of the underworld...comes from the Indo-European root ḱerberos, which evolved into the Greek word "kerberos", which got changed to "cerberus" when it went from Greek to Latin.
In Indo-European, "Ќerberos" means "spotted."
That's right. Hades...Lord of the Dead and of the Underworld...literally named his pet dog "Spot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.30.111 ( talk) 02:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been watching this page for some time with the intent of adding the sanskrit sarvara comparison for kerberos, and am happy to see someone beat me to it. The alternate "demon of the pit" "etymology" is no real etymology - it seems like an ad hoc definition. While the comparison of kerberos/sarvara is apparently regular (not sure about the b/v comparison) the "demon of the pit" gloss is neither attributed to anyone, nor derivied from any PIE root, nor suggested as a borrowing, nor compared to any other language. Nor is encyclopedia mythica a particularly notable nor authoritative source. i suggest either deleting the "demon of the pit" gloss entirely, or saying that while the online encyclopedia offers "demon of the pit" as an "etymology" it offers neither a source, nor a comparison nor a derivation from any know root. Kjaer ( talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the etymology of the term [my definitions added in brackets] from Pokorny at http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny&first=921
Number: 930 Root: k^erbero- und kerbero- English meaning: variegated German meaning: `scheckig' [piebald] General comments: (vgl. S. 573 k^er- neben ker-6 in Farbbezeichnungen) Material: Ai. śárvara- `bunt, scheckig', śárvarī f. `Tier der Maruts, Nacht' (v steht für b, vgl. Wackernagel Ai. Gr. I 184 und:) śabála-, śabára- (diss. Schwund des ersten r) `bunt, scheckig' (daneben karbará-, karvará-, kabara-, karbura-, karbu- ds.); gr. Κέρβερος ursprüngl. `der Scheckige'; vgl. die mythologische Wendung von ai. śarvarī; slav. sobolь `Zobel' [sable] scheint aus dem Arischen zu stammen. Die Wz. kerb- sucht Lidén Stud. 50 f. in air. corbaim `besudle, beflecke' [dirty, stained] und lit. kìrba (> lett. ḱirba) `Sumpf, [swamp] Morast' und betrachtet *kerb- als Erweiterung der Farbwz. ker- (s. S. 583 kers-); Mühlenbach-Endzelin II 383. References: WP. I 425, Schulze Kl. Schr. 125, Specht Idg. Dekl. 119, 262.
As for "demon of the pit" this is everywhere repeated on the internet but nowhere with any explanation or reference. kerberos is also compared to the color root *ker- and may be related to the Latin carbo-
Is "spotted" a joke, or did Hades really name his dog spot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.167.138 ( talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bruce Lincoln etymology relating Cerberus to Garmr through a notional Indo-European *ger- is totally unbelievable: an Indo-European word beginning with *g would produce initial k in Norse and g in Greek, not k in Greek and g in Norse as Cerberus and Garmr have. There's no word-initial sound capable of producing Greek k and Norse g; without a much more complicated explanation than is put forward, these words can't possibly be cognates. AJD ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ovid refers to Cerberus as the son of Medusa in his recounting of the myth of Orpheus. 206.87.104.216 ( talk) 22:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"... to prevent the dead from escaping and the living from entering." Really? The role of Cerberus dog was to serve a "one-way" guard: to let everyone in and prevent anyone from getting out. Cerberus actually welcomes everyone who goes in by happily wagging its tail. The trivialized idea of "Cerberus" as an ordinary guard was created no earlier than in the mid-XX century. 173.11.122.193 ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cerberus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"Heracles' final labour was to capture Cerberus, which he did by treating it with the first kindness it had ever received."
This should be corrected or clarified. IANAM (I am not a mythologist) -- Ardipithecus Maximus 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
After a reversion, I'd like to let people know that I had to remove the part of Theseus and Pirithous' mentioning in this article as they had nothing to do with Hercules' labour to obtain Cerberus. It can be mentioned as a side-mission during the labours on the page that details each of the Labours of Hercules. Any objections or agreements? -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 15:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)