Talk:Zeus

Fixing Roles and Epithets

In my opinion (which is just that), the lettered headings for Zeus' "roles and epithets" looks visually horrible in the table of contents. Is there a way we can collapse or condense this in the TOC without collapsing the other (valuable) subheadings? Or better yet, does anyone have ideas on how to update the formatting in this section so it is less... bulky? TNstingray (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. An editor solved this some time ago by adding anchors and a small horizontal TOC above the list of epithets (which I thought worked well), but this was later undone for being an apparent MOS violation. I'd recommend simply splitting the list of epithets out into its own list article – there are over 1000 known epithets of Zeus, so any relatively complete list would be many times the length of the current list, and would be, I think, too long to reasonably keep as part of this article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this would be a good option. TNstingray (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have boldy performed this action, see Epithets of Zeus for text removed from this article. TNstingray (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough – moved to List of epithets of Zeus, as I think, at least in its current form, that's a more accurate description of its contents. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"ZeuS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ZeuS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 9 § ZeuS until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Modern depictions

I know adding an "In popular culture" section ends up becoming trivial and unencyclopedic. However, many other mythological figures have such a section, or a dedicated article to such a point. Does Zeus need one too? TNstingray (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Such a section would need to adhere to both MOS:POPCULT and WP:PROPORTION. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Seven wives

Hello,

I don't think that section about 'seven wives' should refer to them as such. I went to source quoted in text by Gantz, and it's true that he refers seven goddesses named by Hesiod in Theogony as 'wives'. However, I found contradiction in other source. Classicist Zygmunt Kubiak writes:

"From the phrases found in the Theogony it is quite clear that the officially wedded - and therefore lawful - consorts of Zeus were, of those mentioned here [in catalogue], Metis and Themis (...). As the last one, according to Hesiod, wedded wife, the catalogue lists Hera." [Z wyrażeń padających w Teogonii dosyć jasno wynika, że uroczyście poślubionymi - a więc pełnoprawnymi - małżonkami Zeusa były, spośród tu wyżej wspomnianych, Metyda i Temida (...). Jako ostatnią zaś, według Hezjoda, poślubioną żonę katalog wymienia Herę.]

Source: Kubiak, Zygmunt, Mitologia Greków i Rzymian [Mythology of the Greeks and the Romans], 2005, Świat Książki, p. 172, ISBN 83-247-0125-7.

I know that is not English source, so not quite ideal one to English wikipedia, however it's still written by someone with expertise.

I don't know Greek language, so I don't know what are the phrases Kubiak means, however I want to point that translation on theoi.com [1] also refers to "wives" or "Zeus married" only in context of Metis, Themis and Hera; all others partners are described simply as being "joined in love" with Zeus which is not the same as marriage.

Anyway, I propose to change section seven wives into seven consorts (or: Catalogue of seven consorts, as Zeus had much more partners than 7, and it should be explained those seven are special because of being mentioned in Hesiod's catalogue). Metis, Themis and Hera should still be referred in this section as wives, as none is questioning it, while others should be labelled as "partners" or "consorts" with note linked to that word that would explain there is contradiction within cited studies about their marital status.

[Alternatively, we can recognize that Gantz was mistaken, get rid of his source and quote source that names only three of them; however I don't have currently access to many English books on mythology, so someone would have to this for me, hence I would preffer option number one.] Sobek2000 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Seven consorts" might work, though I'm not sure that "consort" is really any different from "wife" in this context. I'd suggest renaming the section to "Partners before Hera", which lets the reader know why the section is placed where it is, and avoids labelling all seven as "wives" (it also prevents the semi-interested reader, who looks only at the section titles, from thinking that Zeus had seven wives at the same time). As to the content of the section itself, I think just a bit of rewording for the figures after Metis and Themis would hopefully resolve the issue there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented these changes as per my comment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, cool! Sorry, that I wasn't responding - I was gonna follow your advice, but I had some things that needed to be done. But nice to see you managed it. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)