Talk:Selene

message: ...well I wouldn't exactly call it an "affair." ...more of a fling, I mean they were dating for a while but Pan was never serious, I mean not like serious. For him it was more of an affairette... This is not mythological thinking, is it? --Wetman 10:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She also had an affair with Pan..." 

message: Could someone who knows the pronunciation of Selene include the phonetics? I don't know how it's pronounced and that's why I came to this article in the first place. (And I also don't know enough Greek to infer it from the Greek transcription.) --Thibgc 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That pronunciation (essentially, seh LEE nee) is probably the most accurate, although SEL uh nee is also widely used.  And then there are the pop culture mispronunciations, such as in the Underworld films, in which they pronounce it Celine Dion, with the "Dion" silent (oh, if only she were...). Canonblack 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: We have the revision entered 13:46, 15 March 2006 by User: 81.151.251.167 to thank for this furtive vandalism. No one noticed it until today. We need to wartch this article for closely. --Wetman 06:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endymion as a male prostitute

message: Why Luna is redirected here ? She is clearly a different goddess and she deserve her own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.173.243 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Luna

message: Selene is not equal to Luna.  Selene is a Titan (2nd generation), Luna is not a Titan at all.  76.22.30.181 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "equal." Do you mean they're not the same goddess? If so, that's why we have Luna (goddess). If you mean "equivalent," however, then the Romans and the Greeks of the Roman era did regard them as equivalent and perhaps even interchangeable; see interpretatio graeca. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selene is not equal to Luna.  Selene is a Titan (2nd generation), Luna is not a Titan at all.  

message: I stumbled upon this yesterday while working on something else. Pindar fr. 104 Snell–Maehler = Schol. Theoc. 2.10b says that, as lovers, men pray to Helios and women to Selene. Trying to track this quote down again this morning I found this in Faraone. I'm plopping this here in case it can help add some flesh to the account of Selene's cult.  davidiad { t } 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidbit 

message: There is a "Moon" as part of the Pantheon in the Wonder Woman comics now being written by Brian Azzarello for DC comics. 
Should some words be drawn up on this here, or in the Artemis article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Man Moon (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Moon" or "Artemis" in DC Comics 'Nu52' 

message: I'd say it's about time this issue got threshed out in the proper location; that is, the talk page for this article.  An edit war has been going on between those who prefer each of the two images on the left.  I'm going to try and list the image changes, omitting instances of vandalism:
24 June 2005: image of Luna Statue added by ChrisO.
21 Mar. 2007: altar piece added by 84.57.252.199
21 Mar. 2007: altar piece placed on the left margin opposite the statue by Irish Pearl
19 May 2007: statue picture moved to Luna section by RandomCritic
26 May 2008: altar piece switched with statue at head of article by Phalanxpursos
31 May 2009: statue placed in infobox on right by 24.61.111.105.
6 June 2009: infobox deleted by Mayormaynot, but statue image remains.
29 Mar. 2010: new infobox added above statue image by 82.110.91.242.
26 July 2010: statue picture added to infobox by 67.171.4.153.
17 May 2013: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August with edit summary, "better image here I think"
21 Oct. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by Daylight15, no edit summary.
27 Oct. 2013: Daylight15's edit reverted by Paul August with edit summary, "I think this is a better image"
2 Nov. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by 94.43.191.88, no edit summary.
30 Mar. 2013: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August, "better image I think"
19 Apr. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by 94.43.191.88, no edit summary.
19 Apr. 2014: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August, "Better image, shows three typical attributes: crescent moon/horns, raised cloak, and torch, Selene versus Luna. Please discuss on talk page"
24 Apr. 2014: Paul August's edit reverted by Ghast21, no edit summary (back to statue)
25 Apr. 2014: Ghast21's edit reverted by 2.89.204.20, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014: 2.89.204.20's edit reverted by Ghast 21, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Ghast21's edit reverted by 2.89.204.20, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014: 2.89.204.20's edit reverted by Constancia23, "this one looked better" (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by 2.89.204.20, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014: 2.89.204.20's edit reverted by Constancia23, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by 2.89.204.20, "repair vandalism" (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014: 2.89.204.20's edit reverted by Constancia23, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by 2.89.204.20, "better" (back to sarcophagus detail)
17 May 2014: 2.89.204.20's edit reverted by Mianne23, no edit summary (back to statue)
17 May 2014: Miane23's edit reverted by Favonian, "Agree with Paul August: this image is no improvement" (back to sarcophagus detail)
31 May 2014: Favonian's edit reverted by H0elix120, no edit summary (back to statue)
31 May 2014: H0elix120's edit reverted by Favonian, "P/SPA-jumping edit warrior" (back to sarcophagus detail)
7 June 2014: Favonian's edit reverted by Mianne23, no edit summary (back to statue)
By my count, since May 17, 2013, when the statue was replaced by the sarcophagus detail, the images have been swapped back and forth 21 times.  Obviously the parties both feel passionate about these images.  Personally I think that the sarcophagus detail is more attractive, and that it fits well in the infobox because it's square.  But the statue doesn't look bad either, and it's been with the article since 2005.  If I may suggest a compromise: use the sarcophagus detail in the infobox, and then place the statue under "depictions" (moving the other sarcophagus detail to another section).  At least that way both of these dearly-loved images would remain in the article, and help to illustrate it.  What does everybody else think?  P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposal as well – and concur with the assessment of the putative socks. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit surprised nobody took care of this after this discussion.  I've gone ahead and implemented what we talked about last year, and moved a couple of the other images around slightly to provide visual balance.  I also put in the old altar piece that used to head the article, down at the bottom under cults.  And since a couple of the images were really shown at too small a size, I fixed that too.  At least, I hope you'll consider it fixed!  Now, let's see if this arrangement satisfies everyone...  P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me. Paul August ☎ 22:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving a dispute: image for Infobox 

message: The past image of Selene was perfect, why change it with the less interesting one? and chariot was her symbol aswell.
Spontanovich2222 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand you here. The old image was the one from a sarcophagus; you replaced it with the current image (a freestanding statue). That's OK, but we don't need two of the same image (which is why I reverted your edit) and the sarcophagus image could have been relegated to the article body, rather than deleted. In other words, a straight swap. Haploidavey (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I personally prefer the previous image (sarcophagus). Also please note the lengthy conversation above, seemingly on this very matter, or one very similar indeed. On the whole, I think it might be best if I revert all these recent changes, and take the article images back to an apparent consensus version (as above). Then we can discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the old image is way better, but it seems that it should be inserted the way the admin wants. Is it possible to put the weird-looking one below and the prettier one in the infobox? if so, why not do it? If you ask me, it should have never been changed. Please don't ignore my post.
Spontanovich2222 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we're on the same page. The "old image" -- the one you call the "weird-looking" image (Selene from a sarcophagus) had been the main image on this page for years, until you changed it. Anyway, it has now been restored and I much prefer it. Haploidavey (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: What don't you like about the sarcophagus detail? Why do you like the image of the statue better? Paul August ☎ 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, to me the head on photograph of the sarcophagus detail, looks better than the up view in the photograph of the statue, which distorts the statue. But perhaps other editors will agree with you, we'll see. Paul August ☎ 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I notice that the main objection against the Luna sculpture seems to be the fact that it is photographed from below, but I found this image (the one at right) on the commons; it is the exact same sculpture, but it is photographed head-on, rather than from below. I think we should use this image for the infobox, rather than the sarcophogus image, which is rather dull, in my view. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I still prefer the sarcophagus detail, since it brings together the symbols well, and fits the infobox nicely.  There's no reason why the other images can't go in the article, but I don't think they're as good for the lead.  And given the ridiculously long edit war over this very subject, my first reaction when the same matter gets dredged up again is one of dismay.  I hoped it had finally been resolved, and I see no reason to revisit this debate now.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the image of the statue; I think the statue is much finer work of art than the sarcophagus detail and it still has all the same symbols in it. Most of the other deity articles use statues and I think that the statue is, by far, the better choice. Do you have any objections against the statue itself for why you do not think it is suitable? Right now it sounds like the only reason why you dislike it is just because there was an argument over this issue three years ago and it was resolved by picking the sarcophagus image, but none of the editors involved in that argument were aware that this image existed at the time. (If I had not known that there was a head-on photograph of the statue available, I would have probably sided with the sarcophagus as well.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think every image needs to be the biggest, most detailed image possible.  The sarcophagus detail is attractive and fits well without shoving the information further down the page.  My reasons are perfectly valid, and the fact that people have warred back and forth on the image, statue vs. sarcophagus detail, only adds strength to the argument against changing back to a statue, even though it's a different view of the same statue.  Maybe it's a better image of the statue, but that's also a matter of perspective (literally, in this case).  I just don't think the statue is a better an image for the infobox, no matter how well or dramatically lit it is.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I like the new head-on view of the statue much better than the old one. I also agree that it is a "better" work of art. But it is even bigger than the old one and would leave quite a lot of additional white space in the lead (try it in preview mode and see what you think). And is that a torch in its right hand? It certainly not clear to me anyway. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried it out in preview mode and I do not think there is any problem. You all keep arguing that the statue would be unsuitable for the main image because it is too big, but I do not see any problem with the size; besides, almost all the other articles about Graeco-Roman deities use statues roughly the same size as this (some of them even bigger) for their main images. The object in her right hand is clearly a torch, or at least the way I see it, though I suppose I understand your confusion. The flaming part of the torch is broken off, but if you look closely you can see where it used to be attached. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree with Katolophyromai, same view here, bigger size is definitely not a problem, the Luna statue is way more attractive aesthetically, 
excellent quote: "besides, almost all the other articles about Graeco-Roman deities use statues roughly the same size as this..."
the image is very easy on the eyes and has a pleasant appearance from every angle, I see no flaws in it, already stated my view on sarcophagus and why I don't like it, let's wait if some more editors prefer the Luna statue version of the image, don't consider the consensus closed at all.
Spontanovich2222 (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Image and chariot as a symbol

message: 1. "Zeus granted him [Endymion] the right to choose when he would die".
Why?
2. "Smyrnaeus describes them as the four handmaidens of Hera, but in most accounts their number is three, and their parents are Zeus and Themis".
Three seasons rather than four does not make much sense. What are the accounts in this case?
ICE77 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The source for this doesn't say why exactly, other than that he was "dear to the blessed gods". Paul August ☎ 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

text: 2. There is nothing canonical in nature about four seasons. In any case, as for the Horae, see our article. Paul August ☎ 12:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: ::The following was copied from User talk:Brookford.  Paul August ☎ 10:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Paul August, thanks for your message. I have added a few sources. --Brookford (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sources. I think they are more than sufficient for the identification in the of the two side figures on the altar piece as Phosphorus and Hesperus, although both the Louvre web cite, and Clarac mention alternatives: the Dioscuri (Louvre), and "les génies de cet astre" (Clarac, p. 341), so perhaps the identification in the caption needs to be qualified. Also, of course sources in english would be better, if possible. However, while I don't have ready access to Bouillon, I see nowhere in the other sources support for the assertion that Selene is "most often" accompanied by Phosphorus and Hesperus, is this what Bouillon says? Paul August ☎ 12:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Paul August, Unfortunately I don't have sources in English other than the British Museum one. You are right, that was poor phrasing on my part. What do you think of changing it to "often (or sometimes) interpreted as being..." --Brookford (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

text: "Selene is commonly depicted with a crescent moon, often accompanied by stars (most often two: Phosphorus, the morning star, and Hesperus, the evening star)".
Note also that in that sentence "stars" means literal star figures, not human figures as personified stars, as in the altar piece. Paul August☎ 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: above each of these human figures, you can see a star carved, indeed "literal star figures"--Bruxellensis (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Paul August, I have edited the page accordingly. I will try and find more sources to eventually put it back. --Brookford (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I look forward to more sources. Also do you have a copy of Bouillon, and can you tell me what he says? If he is just repeating that the two side figures in the altar piece are thought to be Phosphorus and Hesperus, I don't think we need him. The other three sources are plenty for that. Paul August ☎ 13:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I unfortunately do not. I copied the source from the Commons page for the image. --Brookford (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

text: They are not the Dioscuri, because the character on the left is awake and with open eyes, the character on the right sleeps and has his eyes closed, symbolizing the day and the night (morning star and night star). In addition, below the figure on the left is a torch with the flame at the top (day) and under the figure on the right is an overturned torch, the flame down (night). It is therefore unlikely that they are the Dioscuri, gods of the daytime sky.--Bruxellensis (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you say seems reasonable to me, but are there any sources we can cite which say any of this? Paul August ☎ 10:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , da mihi, quaeso, mi optime Paule Auguste, paululum temporis ut possim de hoc altari in Museo Luparae Parisiorum feliciter servato, magis magisque varios fontes bibliographicos detegere e quibus haurire possim omniaquaeque quibus solidius argumentum tibi propositum fulcire queam. Maximè gaudeo de tuo studio exanclato ad nostram cyclopaediam Vicipaedianam meliorandam augendam roborandamque validis probationibus.  Vale semper perquam optime. Tuus --Bruxellensis (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is already a bibliographic source : Selene mit Hesperos und Phosphoros. (Altar im Louvre zu Paris) : Konversations-Lexikon, 1885, 4th ed., vol. 14, p. 847.
--Bruxellensis (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphorus and Hesperus?

message: "From Artemis she is also called Cynthia" and as example Ovid's "Heroides" is given. And the English text in perseus does use "Cynthia" but in the original Latin uses "Phoebe" if I am not mistaken (which also comes from Artemis/Diana). So shouldn't it be moved? As an example for Phoebe at least? Deiadameian (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing "Cynthia" at Metamorphoses, xiv. 537, and more probable examples here.  So we may just have the wrong citation.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation? 

message: [The following was copied from User talk:Paul August#Pagination at Selene]
Hello. I noticed you edited one of my more recent edits at Selene, specifically the page number in Keightley from 62 to 56. As I have been informed by Haploidavey, there are several edition of his work; the page I linked (62) is the correct page in Thomas Keightley, Second edition, 1838, though elsewhere in the article the expanded version (paper?), 1877, with Leonhard Schmitz is used (which I did not notice when I first added the link to the other edition), where the correct page is presumably 56 (as this particular edition is not searchable on Google books, so I cannot verify myself). When you edited the article, you changed the page number from 62 to 56, but not the link itself (to the edition where p. 56 is the correct one that is), so it led to a page with irrelevant information for Selene. So that's why I edited it back. Best regards, Deiadameian (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and thanks for your note. When I changed your page numbers I didn't notice that they were referring (and linking) to a different edition than the one used elsewhere in the article (I should have checked but didn't ;-) As you note, the edition used elsewhere is the fourth edition 1877, edited by Leonhard Schmitz and published by G. Bell and Sons, 1877, and that's the edition listed in the "References" section of the article. I think we should, of course, cite (and link to) the same edition throughout which I think should be the more recent fourth edition. Google Books has versions of the 1877 printing, as well as a 1902 reprinting of the fourth edition); are you able to see the relevant pages using the Google links given above? Very best regards, Paul August ☎ 13:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I don't have any preference to editions, I just pointed out that the other one is not available (at least for me) on Google books and thus other users might not be able to see it either. Deiadameian (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, I will leave things as they are. Paul August ☎ 15:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Keightley

message: A note in the article reads "Athanassakis and Wolkow speculate that Selene's name 'might have developed as a euphemism for the moon proper (Greek "mēnē")'." I think this is notable enough to be included in the "Names" section proper, and should be transferred there instead of being in a footnote (that few people read). Deiadameian (talk) 14:43, 28 Feburary 2022 (UTC)
: Sorry I haven't replied sooner, but I've been away for awhile. I put this in a footnote, because, while certainly interesting, I know of no other source which shares this view, and a lone speculation by Athanassakis and Wolkow does not seem notable enough to me, to include in the text proper. Paul August ☎ 12:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright then. Deiadameian (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athanassakis-Wolkow theory 

message: I think the "Moon chariot" section should be moved as a sub-section of the 'Mythology' one. First, the moon chariot and her role as a moon goddess is part of Selene's mythology, as much as her lovers and interactions are. Second, this is the same principle in the Eos and Helios articles, as their roles as dawn and sun are part of their mythology and godhood. The image should be perhaps moved to left, so it and the Endymion images won't clot the page (like this). Should it be done like this? ? Deiadameian (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems OK to me. Paul August ☎ 10:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Deiadameian (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout change suggestion 

message: See Talk:Endymion (mythology). P Aculeius (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of "rape" theory