Talk:Juno (mythology)

message: This page has had changes by vandals on 22 and 24 May which need to be reverted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.203.235.153 (talk • contribs) 03:18, May 25, 2007 (UTC)
*Done. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Rome banished its Kings and had little, if anything, called "Royal." What Royal Mint??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.158.94 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Mint?

message: The amorous activities of the festival Juno Fructifier were later taken over by the Catholic Church and changed into the chaste traditions of love letter writing.  An important reverberation of Juno in the practical world of today.  Ocdcntx (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find an ancient reference to this festival, then by all means, let's include it. I suspect you won't find an ancient reference, because I don't think this festival ever existed. Many (though not all) of the associations of Christian holidays with alledged ancient antecedants are merely legends born usually of Christian triumphalism and later augmented by a strange mix of Puritan fastidiousness and neo-classical romanticism. I think it is safe to look elsewhere for the origins of St Valentine's Day. Rwflammang (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 14 celebration of Juno Fructifier needs to be mentioned.   

message: Would it be appropriate to include mention of the Juno Lego figure being sent to Jupiter on the Juno spacecraft?  Ref: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/lego-minifigs-soon-headed-for-deep-space/
Kevink707 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is a wonderful example of the continuity of a popular mythological tradition. Others may find it trivial or frivolous, but it's being chosen deliberately as a representation of Earth culture. You might look for additional sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lego Mini-figure

message: Coul anyone tell what is the CIL in the 39 reference? Thank you--Dafne07 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CIL stands for Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, a quite thorough catalogue of Latin inscriptions:  we've an article (now also wiki-linked from current ref 39).  Haploidavey (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIL 

message: This section starts out by talking about the Greek Hera! We need some kind of consistency on this. Just talking about the Roman gods as if they were equivalent to the Greek isn't ideal. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roles and epithets 

message: This section seems entirely useless. Should it be removed? 209.249.49.190 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: 1. apport = import?
 
2. aporia = contradiction? 
3. ‘Moreover, Aditi is just one of the heirs ……’ From here to the end of the paragraph, I find incomprehensible. 
Can anyone clarify? 	Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries – Associations with other deities – Juno and Jupiter 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS
This is a difficult move discussion to close.  The primary argument for the move is that Juno (mythology) is the primary topic based on historical significance.  The primary argument against the move is that Juno (mythology) is not the primary topic (and that there is no primary topic) based on usage and more specifically page view data, as other pages (specifically including Juno (film) and Juno (spacecraft), which are not partial-title matches) get as many or more views.  There is no real disagreement on either point and both points are based in policy, the disagreement is on which point should take precedence.
A second argument provided for the move is that the various other entries are named after Juno (mythology).  I see consensus against making a move on those grounds.  Policy at Wikipedia:Disambiguation specifically states that , and the links are weak.  Juno (film) is about a person named Juno, not the Roman goddess.
There are some arguments regarding whether it is better to have an article as the primary title in a marginal situation, or if it is better to have a disambiguation page at the primary title.  I see no policy guidance here, and no arguments made along these lines in the discussion appear compelling or to have wide support.
This leaves nothing to consider other than the votes here and the article history.  I tally 13 supports and 10 opposes.  56% support is a majority, though less than would generally be expected for consensus.  Regarding the article history, Juno has been a disambiguation page since 2003; an article on Juno (mythology) was created separately from that on Hera in 2004.  There was one discussion in 2008 about a possible move, but no previous formal move discussions.
It is possible that further discussion could find a consensus (and I will not object if multiple uninvolved editors feel a re-list is more appropriate), but as there has been no participation for a week, I decline to relist.  In the end, I see no consensus to move.  User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find on Iuno. I've redirected it to the mythology article, as single-topic DAB pages are not helpful. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *Raw view numbers alone are not very good to establish a primary topic, and "long-term significance is a factor" per WP:DPT. Avilich (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look a few lines up from DPT you'll see that the two primary factors are usage and long-term significance. What I'm asking is why this is a special case where one of those should be thrown out. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only article with more views than this one is the film's. The popularity of a film is more susceptible to trends than a topic with long-term significance. Avilich (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all understand why long-term significance is one of the two top criteria. The fact that the film either meets or nearly meets (depending on how you want to count things) the usage criteria of having as much traffic as all others combined is a major blow to the primacy of the goddess and should definitely not be dismissed.  could you please explain why you wrote "one cannot say that there is no primary due to pageviews"? I feel like you had a specific reason, but it's unclear what the reason is. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said already, a film's popularity is fleeting, whereas long-term significance isn't. Pop culture trends come and go, they cannot overcome the topic with clearly superior historical and cultural significance. Avilich (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you have said already, and you're not getting any more convincing with repetition. Could you please let the person that I pinged respond now? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded with the same frequency as you threw up the question without demonstrating comprehension of my repeated answer. If what I said doesn't convince you, then nothing will, and you're just wasting your time here. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *From your own guidelines, "article traffic statistics ... are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons", and "long-term significance is a factor". It does admittedly go on to say that "being the original source of the name is also not determinative", but the example given (Boston) is the non-original name being a primary topic, which nobody here is suggesting. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that second sentence in any way in favor of the nomination? It doesn't seem like anybody thought a non-original name was being proposed as primary. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I get your meaning. You must mean the last sentence rather than the second, and I'm precisely arguing against it being used here. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither long-term significance nor page view stats are solely responsible for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's a bit more nuanced than that. There's no exact science to this. If it's a bit unclear, I'd rather DABs be at base name. If there's an absolute PRIMARYTOPIC, then I would have that page at the base name, which I don't think is the case here.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The fleeting popularity of a single film should surely take a backseat to the topic which has by far the highest historical and cultural significance. Avilich (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the film, it's everything else plus the film.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is the only one with higher views, and that alone is what makes the view argument even relevant. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The films view counts is only one part of the argument, the view counts of the other entries combined is also relevant. A primarytopic has to be much more likely to be searched than the other combined entries, not just the one with most page views. And likewise would have to be more more important than the other entries combined, which isn't the case here. So there's no primary topic.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *For the record, I am not at all opposed to JUNO being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the observatory and not the goddess, since it's an acronym. The film, while perhaps not named directly for the goddess, is named based on a person name which itself is based on the goddess. As the namesake, it has longterm significance that overshadows pageviews.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *The film is derived from the name of its main character, which in itself is derived from the goddess, with 2 degrees of separation. It's hard to imagine almost anything called "Juno" that was not originally derived from the goddess in some way.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: ** I disagree. The name, "Juno", is a straightforward pairing of two-letter vowel-ending syllables, a common format for names. In other words, it is entirely possible for people to be named "Juno" independently of any connection with the mythological figure. Even the month, June, according to our own article on the subject, could be "from the Latin word iuniores, meaning 'younger ones'". BD2412 T 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: ***  Juno is also the goddess of childbirth, an obvious and unmistakeable parallel to the main character's pregnancy that suggests with a 99.999% degree of accuracy that the movie very clearly and deliberately went with the name to relate to the goddess. The chance of it being a coincidence is... infinitesimal, to say the least.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: **** Do you have a source for this proposition? (Bearing in mind that this is an idle curiosity; I don't think an oblique source would change my view). BD2412 T 16:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in our article about the film or its screenwriter indicates the source of the name.  It's plausible that the name was chosen because of the theme of childbirth, but the hypothesis that it was a random choice of syllables seems implausible: the screenwriter is well-enough educated that she would certainly have known about the goddess, even if she did not intentionally choose the name to suit the theme of her screenplay.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: But page views are not synonymous with "usage".  Are most readers who search for the film unaware of the goddess?  Would they be suprised to arrive at the article about the goddess?  That seems improbable, particularly given Wikipedia's familiar use of "(film)" as a disambiguator in article titles.  I think that many more readers would be astonished to find the film primary for the undisambiguated title.  Let's assume that there's no clear primary topic based on current usage.  However, the goddess would clearly be primary based on long-term significance.  Nowhere does the guideline say that topics must be primary for both usage and long-term significance.  If each of these criteria produced different results, i.e. one clearly the winner for usage, and the other for long-term significance, then this would be a more difficult question.  But if there is no clear winner for usage, and there is for long-term significance, then it seems reasonable to base the decision on long-term significance.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the available usage data, if either (or both) of the film and the goddess were taken out of the equation, then there would  still be no primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the case, if we're looking at the pageview analysis listed above.  Either the film or the goddess would account for as many page views as all three of the other topics combined, but two of them (the beach and the award) shouldn't even be under consideration, since their titles already include natural disambiguation, and frankly it's not reasonable to suppose that people will confuse them with Juno.  Confusing Juno Beach or the Juno Awards with Juno is very much like the example provided in the guideline: page views for New York don't preclude York from being primary.  So this is really only a discussion between the film and the goddess: it's pretty clear that either one of them could be primary, and the only question is which, or whether it's impossible to choose between them.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pageviews do not indicate usage. In my first comment above I cited the clickstream data, which shows directly what readers are looking for when they land on the dab page: the split is roughly 1/3 each for the film, the goddess, and the remainder of the topics combined. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very helpful to cite to data that's opaque and inaccessible to most users—downloading and digging through 6 GB of random data from millions of articles for which the link provided provides no helpful guidance—but it's irrelevant anyway, since page views tell us just as much.  Including the fact that the film's page views doubled last year, coinciding with the release of Season 2 of The Umbrella Academy on Netflix.  Presumably that bump in activity is temporary.  The disambiguation page has more than fifty linked entries, and a dozen others that lead to other articles.  If all of them combined make up only a third of the traffic, then none of them has a case for being primary, and several of the higher-traffic entries should be excluded from consideration as incomplete title matches anyway.  There are only two articles under consideration here; all of the others are irrelevant.  As for the argument that "recentism" isn't involved, a 14-year-old film whose star is still in the public spotlight is still pretty recent.  But compare that with a slightly older film of the same general magnitude: Juno the film has more than twice as many page views as The English Patient, which is about ten years older.  In another ten or twenty years it will have faded considerably from public consciousness—film buffs may still remember it, but there'll be a lot less attention paid to it, as there is for most movies that age.  And that's why "recentism" is a perfectly valid concern. P Aculeius (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't completely disagree with you about the recentism bit, but I would just like to clarify the point about the pageviews. They only show how popular each article is with readers, and that could be used as an indirect and vague indicator of both usage and significance. But this does not tell us much directly about either. The vast majority of article traffic comes from wikilinks, with a significant chunk also arriving from outside Wikipedia. Only a small fraction – typically much less than 10% – originates from readers who type the search phrase (which is what is referred to as "usage" in primary topic discussions). The distribution of these 10% (or less) can't be inferred from the distribution of the total traffic figures, because the ratio isn't a  fixed number (for some articles a greater proportion of traffic comes from links than for others, and this varies widely). There are often big discrepancies between actual usage (as directly shown by the clickstream) and the picture you would be tempted to infer from the pageviews. True, the clickstream data isn't as easily accessible, but it's not that difficult to view either: all you need is 1.5GB of free space and a spreadsheet editor. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the accessibility isn't much of a factor since you've already very helpfully done the analysis and provided the results. Thank you for doing that work and providing the most relevant data points in this discussion, considering the main value in this proposed move would be to save some users a click through the disambiguation page and this tells us pretty accurately how many users that would be. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Accessibility is an issue when editors can't easily review how the analysis was done or what was included; I'm only inferring from the comments made that "Juno Beach" and the "Juno Awards" were part of that process.  Page views may not be perfect, but they seem to track somewhat in proportion with Uanfala's clickstream argument.  We simply disagree on what the takeaway is.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 June 2021 

message: :Part of the following sections is based on the article by Geneviève Dury Moyaers and Marcel Renard "Aperçu critique des travaux relatifs au culte de Junon" in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römische Welt 1981 p. 142-202.
This previously headed the section on Juno Sopsita. Aside from the poor formatting of the cite itself, this should just be added as a ref to the parts that actually are taken from this article. If that's truly impossible, it should be in the References section with discussion of which specific sections of the article derive from it. Since it's still within copyright, none of that applies to anything that's simply plagiarized from the article. It should be rephrased here or marked as quotations and cited. — LlywelynII 00:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle that this should be properly cited. I have no idea which parts of our article are derived from the Moyaers & Renard article: this dates from before I started to edit this article. So I think that unless/until someone is able to answer your query on this, the mention of Moyaers & Renard should be re-instated in our article, as an acknowledgement that this source has been used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it goes in the cites, as already discussed. Where it is, it's entirely useless and misformatted. — LlywelynII 23:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Obviously the "Random temple to Hera occasionally conflated with Juno" doesn't belong in this article at all (port to Hera), let alone an entire section. The "Juno and Random Friends" section should just be a tighter discussion of conflated deities. Hera, of course, might deserve her own section within it but Uni should probably precede her in a paragraph of her own. The provided Burn source could be used to help flesh out a "Temples" section for her major institutions in and around Rome.
In fact, it's bizarre that we know the Romans ported Juno's cults wholesale from the Etruscan cities but still have absolutely nothing about the most likely origin of her name, still repeating Ovid and 19th century scholarship that only treated it as a derivation within Latin or from Indo-European roots. It's extremely likely that it's just a Latinization of Uni, even if we quickly treat the other theories below it for historical reasons. — LlywelynII 02:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization and etymology