Template talk:Infobox deity

Suggestion to remove repetitious "equivalent"

In the section in which equivalents are listed, would it be possible to set up the template so that the word "equivalent" appears only in the label and not in the list itself? Looking at Melqart, for example, the appearance of the list would be simplified to:

Greek Herakles

Roman Hercules

Repeating "equivalent" unnecessarily each time makes the box longer than it needs to be (a problem with infoboxes, which often intrude on the second section and displacing an image chose to illustrate that section) because every entry requires two lines rather than one, which also creates awkward blank space. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The repetition of "equivalent" is redundant, and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE itself states that infoboxes are more effective the less information they contain, as this allow[s] readers to identify key facts at a glance, and that we should exclude unnecessary content. I also think it might be worth noting the dicussion at Talk:Zeus#Deity equivalencies, where (at the end) the idea of removing the "Equivalents" section altogether was suggested. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Implemented the removal of the word "equivalent".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on removing "equivalents"?

What do others think of this comment, left at Talk:Zeus, and, more broadly, the suggestion of removing the "____ equivalent" fields from this template? – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly support this. Paul August ☎ 04:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've notified a handful of relevant projects. In particular, input from editors with expertise in non-classical mythology would be appreciated, as I can only really comment from the perspective of the Greek and Roman pantheons. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I see these equivalency parameters come up they seem to be causing trouble. I can see them being useful in some situations (the equivalency between major Roman and Greek deities, e.g. Jupiter/Zeus is probably significant enough to justify enshrining in an infobox) but generally these parameters seem to cause more trouble than they are worth and I would not be sad to see them go. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeating what I said elsewhere: either they should be removed, or alternatively it should at least be made sure only equivalencies actually based on primary sources are included in every article using the templates. People with very limited knowledge just try to stick whatever into these fields based on armchair comparative scholarship quite often, sometimes even deities from cultures which had no contact with an article's subject (someone persistently kept adding Dagda to the infobox in the Dagon article iirc, to use a recent example). It makes sense when ex. a Mesopotamian deity's article has their Hurrian counterpart listed because there are centuries worth of material, down to the use of Mesopotamian theonyms as logograms to represent Hurrian ones, but it makes little sense to ex. stick Greek equivalents into Mesopotamian infoboxes when there wasn't even much in the way of interpretatio to speak of (and I don't think "a single person from outside the field thought they're sorta similar" is sufficient evidence, which is ex. how Athena ended up in the infobox in the Inanna article). HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely a chronic problem for articles on deities in non-classical mythologies. A few months back, when someone tried to equate Ra with Sol (Roman mythology), I wrote this:

Per this discussion, articles should not call two deities "equivalent" unless ancient sources explicitly equate the two deities. Such equations were very dependent on the circumstances, so that, for example, in one context a Greek might equate Aphrodite with Hathor, but another Greek in different circumstances might equate Aphrodite with Isis. Because such equations were so fluid in the ancient world, cross-cultural equations of deities are not transitive. The Greeks and Romans fairly universally equated Aphrodite with Venus, but if one particular Greek equated Aphrodite with Hathor in one context, that did not guarantee that a particular Roman a few centuries later would equate Venus with Hathor.

By the same token, while Greek sources did sometimes equate Ra with Helios, that does not necessarily mean that a Roman would have equated Ra with Sol. The main obstacle here was probably that the active worship of Ra wasn't very visible in Egyptian religion by Roman times, and Romans generally had less direct contact with Egyptian religion than the Greeks did and were less likely to draw such equations. So it's possible that no Roman had occasion to equate Ra with Sol. If some Roman did do that, we would have to find a source that says so.

Another editor might be able to summarize those complexities in less than two paragraphs. But if an editor feels compelled to write that much to explain the proper use of an infobox parameter, it may be a sign that the issue is better dealt with in body text than an infobox. I don't feel strongly about the parameter, but I wouldn't complain if it were removed. A. Parrot (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think the parameter is useful when two or more religious traditions are directly intertwined and the identification of the deities with one another is clearly stated in really reliable sources—not pop culture guides to religion, but scholarly ones, or preferably (and in addition to, when possible) primary sources that aren't themselves suspect for one reason or another. I think this parameter could use some clear guidance, perhaps in the template documentation. For instance, even though the Greeks or Romans might have equated the Hebrew god with Zeus or Poseidon, that would only have been mentioned from time to time; there was no reciprocal worship or agreement of this by most Jews, making the identification unlike that of Zeus and Jupiter with one another.

Stretching further afield is simply beyond the scope of an infobox; Tyr may once have been worshipped as the same god as Zeus and Jupiter (at least, their names all come from the same root), but that would be confusing to readers, since Odin is king of the gods in Norse mythology, and Thor the god of thunder. So I would limit the parameter to very clear and documented identifications; theorized ones or simply similarities in character or worship are better treated in the body of an article—which should mention any identifications in the infobox anyway. P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

While I do think we would be better off removing these fields altogether, I also wouldn't have an issue with creating some sort of clear guide to their use, along the lines of P Aculeius's suggestion above, as this would at least represent an improvement over the current state of affairs. Judging from the above, there seems to be fairly broad support for equivalencies only being included in infoboxes when they have a basis in primary sources, which such a guideline could require; I think such a guide also ought to state that equivalencies should be included in infoboxes only when conveyed in modern, highly reliable scholarship. As long as such a guideline could be pointed to in disputes, and carried some actual weight, it would probably help prevent a number of the headaches which these parameters currently cause. There are further issues such a guide could potentially cover (any of those brought up above, or in the WT:CGR thread from around a year ago; one example would be the intransitivity of these equations), but even just a few sentences which outlined some clear minimum requirements with respect to sourcing, and permitted (or recommended) the removal of equivalencies which don't meet these requirements from infoboxes, would probably be highly useful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Having seen how easily these parametres can be misused or abused and having read relevant discussions in talkpages as well as the comments above, I also believe that these parametres end up being more trouble than actual help. I was surprised to see that more editors, especially those who are experienced in the mythology area, are of the same opinion. As it has been pointed out several times so far, this parametre is quite often misued by providing either unsourced, oversimplified, or ahistorical (not supported by primary sources) equivalencies. Very often, even if an equivalent appears supported by a secondary RS, infobox inclusion can still be undue, clumsy, not infobox material, and even if a connection is referenced in primary sources, infobox inclusion might still be unnecessary (off the top of my head, the Jupiter equivalents section, for example, used to be a mess) That is because, unlike some cases where the syncretization of two pantheons was widely accepted by their worshipers (like the Greco-Roman), obscure references to alleged equivalents might not necessarily reflect widely accepted beliefs, but subjective interpretations of some ancient authors. We know, for example, how ancient Greek (and Roman) authors tended to seek for equivalents everywhere, in order to better explain and understand foreign religious systems. That also doesn't immediately make these equivalencies accurate or key facts about the respective deities. Piccco (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)