Talk:Actaeon

Comments

Alternatively, Actaeon boasted that he was a better hunter than she and Artemis turned him into a stag and he was eaten by his hounds. Is this really an alternative version, told by a classical author? I moved it here while we find a source. I'm dubious. Wetman 11:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is! I have put it back (slightly reworded) along with the reference and a couple of other versions. Thruston 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Diana or Artemis

We are talking about Greek mythology. Is there any reason why the article uses the Roman name of the goddess then?

we might point out the equivalence Thruston 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the story is told by Ovid, and he is Roman.In Apollodorus' account ,who was Greek, it is Artemis who does it. 31.56.171.236 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm confused about this too. I am writing an essay about this, and it is unclear if Diana or Arthemis converted him into a hart. On Dianas Article page it mentions that she converted him....but this is rather confusing. (Me-pawel 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Tragic?

Would this be considered a tragic myth? Most versions of the story seem to make one feel sorry for Actaeon and his hounds, especially Ovid's tale.

Obvioulsy, hence it was used by tragic poets. What's your point? Fastifex 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated Burkert's quote embodying pathos in this context. --Wetman 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with Aristaeus?

"His statue was often set up on rocks and mountains as a protection against excessive heat." Often? Did Pausanias see one? Where does this come from?--Wetman 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of Dogs - Disambiguation Links

I recently removed the excess red links in the Names of Dogs and added links in line with the others already listed. An automated response let me know about WP:INTDABLINK. My understanding of the style guide makes me think that all the links should just be removed, but many of the dogs share names with or are named after various other Greek myth characters. I don't know if this would be a valid exception. Some of the links are true disambiguation pages (ex. Asbolus (disambiguation)), some are shared pages that are function like a disambiguation page (ex. Acamas), and some are pages for another character where the dog may (ex. Aello) or may not even be mentioned (ex. Canace). If I could get some clarification on the issue, I would be more than happy to make the edits myself. RaidRexx (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi RaidRexx. In cases where the article does not mention the dog in question, I would remove the link. My impression is that disambiguation links are generally inappropriate in an article's body, and the guidance at WP:DAB#When to link to a disambiguation page would seem to accord with this. The disambiguation pages also don't contain anything not already implied by this article (they all say something like "x is one of Actaeon's dogs"). Links to set index articles are fairly common, so I think those are alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Would it be most appropriate to add a 'Namesake' section in the articles that share a name but don't mention the dog as in the Aello page? I've personally tried to be sure all the disambiguation pages reference back to the Actaeon page, but am more nervous about editing anything that would require citations as I'm not especially experienced with either editing or the source materials. RaidRexx (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

In cases where a separate mythological figure is covered by a regular article (that is, one which isn't a DAB page or a SIA), it's probably preferable to avoid mentioning other figures with the same name solely because of that shared name. (WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we generally don't mention other, unrelated uses of a word in an article.) If you're interested in this topic, a good line of attack might be to address the table's structure, formatting, and sourcing. For example, Hyginus's first list seems to be almost the same as Ovid's, so it probably doesn't need to be in a separate column. Some of the labelling is also a bit strange; the male dogs, for example, seem to be in a column titled "Dogs", and the female dogs in a column titled "Consorts". (More broadly, I'm not sold that these long tables are WP:DUE, but I guess they aren't hurting anyone, and improvements are always welcome.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, is that what "consorts" means - I couldn't work it out. We know the proper term for that. I hope we all realize that compared to this stuff the names of Santa's reindeers are very solid and encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been digging though the edit history of the page. Previously this section was just a paragraph list. It looks like the table was added by Markx121993 on 26 November 2018. They are very active in editing Mythology related pages and feel like they might have valuable insight/input on the situation. The links were not part of the original table, but it does look like they added some in later edits.

The change from "Bitches" to "Consorts" was relatively recent (2023), and has no summary/note with it. Although jarring, "Bitches" is more correct and inline with how the article had been for years. The only other option would be simply labeling it 'Males' and 'Females', which should be contextually clear since the table is already in "Names of Dogs". RaidRexx (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That's good to know. Looking at sources, I'm struggling to see an argument that this table is WP:DUE: some mention that catalogues were given by several ancient authors, but even the extremely comprehensive RE doesn't bother to list their names. Markx121993 was an incredibly prolific editor across Greek mythology articles, but his edits weren't always entirely impeccable in the sourcing department. You can wait for a response if you like, but he last edited in October of 2025, so it's possible you'll be waiting a while. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I plan on removing this table. Markx121993 has, by the way, been active on Wikipedia since this discussion, so has presumably seen what we've said. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've done this. Happy to discuss if someone disagrees. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A few days ago, I came to this page, expressly for this information (the list of dogs), as I remembered it having been on this page; and I was surprised to discover that it had been removed (just a few days before!) Now, I could easily pull Ovid down from the bookshelf and look it up--Apollodorus, and especially Hyginus, less so. Is this information superfluous? Perhaps--but, on one paw, it illustrates how the Ancient mythographers viewed their subject; and, on another paw--it's fun! WAFaze (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The central contention was that the table isn't WP:DUE; Wikipedia should give prominence to information roughly in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources, and I was unable to find any secondary sources which listed the dogs' names. Do you know of any? I'm surprised anyone comes here to look for this list, but I don't feel strongly about its exclusion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose to move a sentence (with hyperlinks and footnotes) from under "Story," to the head of "Names of Dogs," which will better explain why that section is there in the first place. Also, I don't understand why the table is divided into "boy-dogs" and "girl-dogs," no matter how you term it--there are family relationships--mother-children, brother-sister--described in Ovid, and obviously grammatical gender, but not couplings the way this list suggests it. But this kind of editing is beyond me, at least for now. WAFaze (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I added that sentence when I removed the table, as it was sourceable to modern scholarship and still allowed someone to find the ancient catalogues if they so desired. I don't have an issue with your relocation of it (though it perhaps feels a tad redundant there). My guess is that separate columns were used because Hyginus lists the male and female dogs separately. I'm happy to alter the table, if there's something you're not sure how to format correctly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)