Jump to content

Template talk:Odyssey

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

As one of the oldest works of literature, adaptations are never going anywhere, but presenting these as directly material to the Odyssey dilutes the box's actual purpose: grouping encyclopaedic entries on the Homeric text. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a great film, but is it as related to Odyssey as English translations of Homer? I don't believe so. How important is Epic: The Musical to the Odyssey? In my view, not at all.

I believe the navbox should group together articles directly related to the Homeric poem and not include adaptations. Adaptations can be tracked via the dedicated categories:

Other targets for removal include Wiktionary links (i.e., Homeric Laughter), "Phrases" (In medias res, Between Scylla and Charybdis) and the many, many paintings. These should be incorporated into the article and linked in that style.

What are people's thoughts on this? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generally think that big navboxes like this are counterproductive – how many people actually look through the several hundred links included in a navbox this size? O Brother, Where Art Thou is at least described by our article as "loosely based on" the Odyssey – our article on the film Cold Mountain (film) doesn't even mention the Odyssey once, and the best the novel gets is "shares several similarities with Homer's Odyssey". I've put a slightly trimmed version in my sandbox here, which cuts out the most obviously tenuously connected stuff (modern media described as "sharing similarities" with the Odyssey; stuff which is really about the Iliad) but really I would be happy to trim it much more radically than that. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most of these, especially things like the paintings, Epic, and O Brother, Where Art Thou (i.e. O Brother seems a definite Keep for this navbox, both a homage and a step-by-step chronicle reflecting the Odyssey). Cold Mountain, not so much, and I don't think the Odyssey is even mentioned on the page (and the navbox is not used on it), so that one at least should be removed. Navboxes feature paintings of the subject, nothing unusual, or broken, in their being linked. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this stuff is only tangentially relate to the Odyssey. The poem is significant to them but they are not significant to the poem. The approach of separation, as in Dracula and Count Dracula in popular culture, is right approach IMO. My proposal is here: Link to proposal The Odyssey is an ancient epic poem and shouldn't be treated like a franchise. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are directly related, not tangential (unless you count everything besides the original manuscript as tangential). Films (but ditch Cold Mountain), paintings, plays, etc., reflect and culturally enhance and bring-forward the original. Navboxes are a map to Wikipedia's collection on the subject, and this one has both stood the test of time and usefulness. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I said on my talk page, I'd support removing all (or at least most) of the cultural references here. WP:NAVBOX encourages keeping these kinds of templates from including too many links, and recommends sticking to a taut, well-defined list of articles. At a minimum, I think that if a reference isn't mentioned at Odyssey#Legacy, it shouldn't be mentioned here. Something around the size of ImaginesTigers' proposed version seems much better to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Aurel, your comment seems to argue against itself. The Legacy section you link to includes most of the entries in the navbox except the paintings (and since subjects of paintings are routinely and correctly added to the navbox maps they could, and should, be added to that legacy section as well). The concept of navboxes, one of the excellent features of original Wikipedia, allows for the full topic map. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the section in question – if I were to try to FAC, I was going to prose-ify it, move it to Odyssey in popular culture and produce a high-level history of adaptation and influence (as on Dracula). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing it, please consider adding the paintings. It fits the page well. As for the navbox discussion, please take a look at hundreds of other navboxes, the use of popular culture links within them is as old as the concept of navboxes themselves. There is nothing broken here, although your work to focus is appreciated. You mention the Dracula navbox, that one is well-stocked with popular culture (as it should be). Popular culture is just about the only way people remember the primary topics, Dracula would not be Dracula without the films, and the same concept exists for older works such as the Odyssey. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "at a minimum". I'm counting a bit under 60 works which are mentioned here, and around 20 which are mentioned at Odyssey#Legacy; including fewer than around 20 works here would be a significant reduction. I think it would be best to include far fewer works than this (either none or a careful selection), this is the just the upper bound I'm suggesting. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do support removing any subject from the template that presents no content related to seminal work. If the page does not mention and link to Odyssey it does not belong on this template, because the point is to link it to subjects that have related content. Whether a subject is listed at Odyssey#Legacy, is a bit arbitrary. The point is to determine where there is confirmed/verifyable content related to this subject. I believe that all works "adapted from" should remain in the template. Due to the template's size, some consideration should be made regarding "inspired by", "loosely based on" works should be examined on a case-by-case basis. It would be ridiculous to point to a loosely based upon work as a reason why an adapted from work should not belong. A belief that O Brother, Where Art Thou is not directly relevant is not grounds for removal of The Odyssey (1997 miniseries). Prosifying the whole template because of a FAC nomination is not very logical to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion for change is not related to FAC; that isn't on the cards right now. I was saying it is arbitrary to use the adaptation section as a guide because it would completely change if I did FAC, not that a navbox was going to be proseified. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "Whether a subject is listed at Odyssey#Legacy", what I mean is: could the cultural reference, in the relevant article, be sourced in a MOS:POPCULT-compliant manner (as it should only be mentioned in that section if it is)? The idea is also not necessarily to replicate that list here, but rather to make sure any reference which wouldn't make it over that bar isn't included (I think it would be preferable to have a much more restrictive list than that here). – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of templates should not be based on any article-space bar related to a distinct list article. Contents of templates should be based on whether the template is connecting to content that is relevant to the reader, regardless of article space rules. It should not be up to the template editor to assess references in dozens of articles. They should assume the content in articles is valid and assess whether that content is something that should be connected via navigation to the seminal subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm not suggesting we use this as the criterion for inclusion. As I've made clear above, I think we should include no (or very few) cultural references here (and by "very few", if this helps to clarify, I mean under five, probably). All I've said is that, at a minimum, if a cultural reference isn't significant enough to discuss at Odyssey#Legacy (and that section should only contain references which are of significance to the work itself; if it doesn't, that should be rectified), then it isn't significant enough to mention here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just a way of referring to cultural reflections of the original work. These entries have been used on navboxes since time immemorial, such as navboxes about individual books ({{One Thousand and One Nights}} etc. etc. etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then saying chop some because there are a lot is not very logical. For some multimedia franchises/seminal cultural works there will be dozens (maybe 100+) related subjects that include content related to the franchise and some will only have the bare minimum (3ish) related subjects. Inclusion is based on whether the navigation leads to instructive encyclopedic content, not whether you are able to count the number of links with all your fingers and toes. Beyond that some templates get split because of transclustion technology limits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox merge seems appropriate

[edit]

Merging {{Places visited by Odysseus in the Odyssey}} into this navbox would both centralize the information and bring this navbox to the attention of more readers on pages such as Siren (mythology). Seems noncontroversial but, Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a merge. That template is so small, there is no point in having the contents split up. It was previously proposed at that temp's talk years ago, but nothing came of it then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only merge in topics that mention Odyssey in the article. This isn't just a list for fun to mention related things. This is a navbox to link to related content. If the element of this navbox does not mention Odyssey don't add it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Some of those links are either already included here or not directly pertaining to the Odyssey itself. Regardless, it serves no need to exist separately. I can make the merge but will wait for others to respond. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. It certainly doesn't make too much sense to have a separate template solely for that purpose, especially since almost half of the links there aren't actually to locations. Perhaps not every link needs to be transferred (and some are already here), but at least the locations which are known primarily from the Odyssey should be moved here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Odyssey&oldid=1276488215"