Talk:Hecatoncheires

Comments

I moved this text here: "The Hecatonchires were often considered sea deities, and may be derived from pentekonters, longboats with fifty oarsmen. " There is no connection. --Wetman 19:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

"... guarded by the dragon Campe..."

Campe wasn't a "dragon", was she? I thought she was a weird flying monster, with a woman's head and a scorpian tail.

Just throwing my two cents in.DrakeKobra 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the most complete description of Campe. --Wetman 19:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can this be made relevant?

"In White Wolf's paper-and-dice RPG Promethean, practitioners of the study and control of Flux are known by the epithet of Centimani." Can this be made relevant to thje subject of the article? --Wetman 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aigaion the Sea-Goat

I removed this notation from the article. Aigaion may be connected with Aigipan, and the story of the aigis of Zeus, but this is rather speculative. The more literal interpretation is that he is simply named for the pontos Aigaion, i.e. the Aegean Sea. In this vein, Hesiod makes him a son-in-law of Poseidon, and Homer has him fetched by Thetis from the sea. --Theranos 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted self-confidence. The former text, which closely paraphrased the Iliad, was apparently too subtle. I have reiterated the Briareos/Aigaion connection and directly quoted the Iliad, so that even the desultory skimmer cannot be confused. --Wetman 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What stupidity. Stick to the facts not faux etymologies. Gr. Aigaios, Aigaion = Aegean. There is nothing in Homer to suggest "sea-goat." --Theranos 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aigos is simply a goat. If this goat gives a name to a sea, then "sea-goat" is not much of an intellectual strain.--Wetman (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Political cartoon

The mis-labeled C19 cartoon describes the multiple threat of labour unrest to Capital. Without comprehending the significance, and not knowing where it was published or what was intended, the connection with the Hecatonchirtes seems slender. --Wetman (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio

hey i put an audio of the word's pronunciation. tell me if i broke any rules k? -CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC) -Well that's the Greek pronunciation, not the English language one, but its fine. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comment

1. The article says "In Virgil's Aeneid (10.566-67), in which Aeneas is likened to one of them, Briareus (known here as Aegaeon), they fought on the side of the Titans rather than the Olympians".

Who is "they"? The Hecatonchires? This sentence needs a revision.

2. "In some versions Uranus saw how ugly the Hekatonkheires were at their birth".

What is the source for this?

3. "(Theoi.com)" should not be part of the text and should be added to the references at the bottom.

ICE77 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

D&D

Should this be included under adaptations? In D&D 3.0 (Possibly earlier, I dont know.) Hecatoncheires (or however they spelled it; it was not with a "K" so im just guessing.) were featured in the Epic handbook, I think the strongest monster within. They wielded either clubs, swords, or giant boulders to throw. They also had 100 heads in addition to 100 hands. They were said to be something akin to weapons, who successfully destroyed any pantheon they were sent against. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the adaptations because there wasn't a single one worth mentioning on this article. This was reverted by someone who said D&D, etc. is notable. Yes, D&D *itself* is notable enough to have it's own article, of course, but the fact that D&D, which has adaptations of pretty much every myth and folklore creature, also has a monster for this is not notable enough to be listed in this article. Saying that these creatures are mentioned in other works is just trivia. It in no way adds to anyone's understanding of this topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a random assortment of facts. In order for any pop culture reference to be listed on the article for a topic, whether it be a mythological character or anything else, that reference must be significant and add to the overall history of the topic. Getting mentioned in an aside in a work that has nothing to do with the topic doesn't count. Being mentioned in some song lyrics doesn't count. So, for an example of what would be important enough to be listed here, if someone notable writes a novel that's *main focus* is this character (or there's a video game specifically about the creature and the creature only, a song or album title, etc,). None of those things exist for this topic. That's why there should not be a section on it. If some editor refuses to accept that information being deleted then we'll just have to split it off into an "in popular culture" article, as it does not in any way deserve any space on this page. DreamGuy (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort, I added a template:fictionrefs tag and, in fact, I removed the D&D thing. While some of the manga/anime/games may need to be trimmed, (thus the tag), no one apart from you is proposing an additional "Hekatonkheires in popular culture" article... Rather, you'll need to develop a consensus for your opinion that every last one of them is an insignificant aside, adding nothing to the overall "history" of the topic (hekatonkheires, presumably). BTW, you seem to be conflating this with the notability requirement: obviously the *main focus* of such works doesn't need to be hekatonkheires, (exclusively no less).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved the trivia off to Hekatonkheires in popular culture as a compromise, as typically done in these situations when someone refuses to allow nonnotable content to be removed completely. It has been *overwhelming* consensus on mythology articles that nonnotable details do not belong on the main article. None of the "Adaptation" section content even came close to being notable enough to be mentioned here. Mere mentions are not and never have been notable, otherwise the actual literature refs would be notable. The rest of it isn't even notable enough for mention anywhere, frankly. I've edited mythology articles here for years and years and years, this is well established. Now, if you could get consensus to overrule that standard practice, or if you have any sort of argument that would make these mentions be more than just pointless trivia (falling under WP:NOT policy), then you should feel free to give it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You can actually see WP:POPCULTURE for more details about the longstanding consensus built up over the years. Most notably:

Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.

[...]

However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources.

[...]

If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment.

Since all the literature refs were mere passing references ("mentioned in") and none have any secondary references showing significance, they all needed to be removed. Since you disagreed with total removal, we do have the option to split off into a separate article. Of course that article may eventually be deleted if the content is found to be non notable, but then that would just prove what I was saying all along. The nice point there is it goes through an AFD discussion so multiple people weigh in. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As you know, you don't have consensus for your section blanking, and I've reverted you again for the reasons given. Stop edit warring. Your claims of *overwhelming* consensus are hysterical, especially the part about me having to "get consensus to overrule that standard practice" of relegating Inferno (Dante), Don Quixote, Paradise Lost, Tom Jones and Don Juan (Byron) to a separate "popular culture" article... ridiculous.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

The "In Popular Culture" section is now longer than the actual article. Can this be split into its own page? Or can some of these trivial and uncited references be removed? Seems to have turned into a list of every video game and comic book that anyone can think of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry chianski (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Whilst it's probably not the best idea to include everything, would it at least be worth including the two different appearances in works by Masamune Shirow (who does have something of a penchant for using sort-of-relevant names from ancient Greek legend in his graphic novels and movies), namely Briareos in Appleseed (as a quite heavily built cyborg, in a piece with a lot of mythological influence) and the Hecatonchires in Ghost In The Shell (a class of quadripedal AI-controlled miniature tanks with a pop-out gun turret - not quite "100 hands" unless you have a 20-strong detachment, but still many more hands than you'd expect a tank to have, especially as the "legs" are prehensile enough, and equipped with gripping devices, to allow both climbing across sufficiently strong walls and ceilings, and manipulation of larger objects such as building debris or wrecked vehicles - quite curiously out of place in a story that contrasts with Appleseed by having very few if any direct allusions, though there may still be some subtexts)?

I'm not particularly aware of any other comics or games that heavily feature these characters or references (though I'm sure they exist), but they're decidedly central in those two, which are fairly well known and iconic entries in the manga/anime pantheon with a number of spinoffs and sub-works, influence on other major pieces (including the Matrix series that folds in a few different mythological references of its own), and, of course, an actual hollywood film now... and indeed a handful of videogames here and there. I think the properties/franchises they represent easily satisfy most requirements for "notability". 209.93.141.17 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Hecatoncheires, for the reasons detailed below. (non-admin closure) Bradv 01:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Hekatonkheires → Hekatoncheires – Per every applicable system of romanisation in "Romanization of Greek", chi is always transliterated as ch not kh. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support "Hekatoncheires' (over "Hekatonkheires"), though I think "Hecatoncheires" is even more common, but I'd prefer a move to the common english translation of the name of "Hundred-handers". Doing Google Books searches give the following:

• Hekatonkheires: 417 results
• Hekatoncheires: 1040 results
• Hecatoncheires 2,000 results
• Hundred-handers 5,100 results

Paul August ☎ 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Tentatively support. I'm not sure if I'm more used to Hekatoncheires or Hecatoncheires, but in either case it'd be -cheires. With the number of variations in orthography, it might be worth simplifying the lead sentence and footnoting the variations or else making a separate sections. However, I suggest Hundred-Handed Giants as a translation in place of Hundred-Handers. Ngrams suggest that the phrase "hundred-handers" only received a smidgen of use from about 1909 to 1932, and almost nothing else until 1980. Nearly all of the use in literature is for "Hundred-Handed Giants" (singular or plural); even in 2000, the singular and plural combined was more than twice as common as "Hundred-Handers" (for which there were no singular hits at any time). P Aculeius (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well here are two more Google Books search results:

"Hundred-Handed Giants": 1,530

"Hundred-Handed Ones": 701

So based on the above—as well as browsing through the works listed, which include many noted modern scholars—II'll stick with "Hundred-Handers" Paul August ☎ 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Hecatoncheires: Although I personally prefer transliterations like "Hekatonkheires", usual practice on wiki for the names of Greek mythical figures seems to be to use the Latinised transliteration - see, e.g. the pages in Category:Characters in the Odyssey. Furius (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Hecatoncheires: If one were to search Hekatoncheires they could find Hecatoncheires anyway, but due to the popularity of "Hundred-Handers", we should at least create a redirect of "Hundred-Handers" if not move the page there instead. Although "Hundred-Handed Giants" shows results, the term Giants is still only a descriptor of their height (but maybe I'm just being technical). Psychotic Spartan 123 20:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting there be no redirects from alternative names, as far as I can tell. However, you won't find "Hundred-Handers" in the older literature, since the idea of "-hander" meaning "someone with X number of hands" is rather counter-intuitive and clearly an informal usage in English. The most important measure of the usage of terms in publications over time is with Ngrams, which examines publications sorted by date, ending with the year 2000. This filters out the vast number of duplicates, Wikipedia clones, blogs and websites, etc. that skew results in favour of very recent constructions. For example, a word or spelling that first appears in a popular treatise in 1980 may have many more hits than an older word or spelling that's still generally preferred in scholarly literature, just because of the circulation of recent works. There's a vast amount of scholarship on classical Mythology prior to 1980, but almost no use of "Hundred-Handers" in published works prior to that. The fact that there's no use whatever of the singular "Hundred-Hander" suggests that the term may appear only once or twice in works that use it; i.e. in passing mentions that don't go into any detail. Here's a chart showing the entire searchable corpus in English from 1800 to 2000. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It does seem like the most common name is the Latinised form of Hecatoncheires. It gets more results on Google, Google Books (1,980) and Google Scholar. The other forms in order of most to least results on Google Books: hecatonchires (1,500), hekatoncheires (1,040), hekatonkheires (397), hekatonchires (72), hekatonkhires (2) and hecatonkheires (1, foreign language). No results for hecatonkhires McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.