Talk:Odyssey

Archive

For previous discussion, please see the archive.

B.C. changed to B.C.E.

I changed circa ... BC to BCE "B.C.E./C.E. ... do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." Seems more fitting for an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aka khan (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia accepts both systems. WP:DATE is the applicable guideline. WP:DATE also tells us to stay with whatever system was used first, which in this article seems to be BC/AD. So let's stick with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't BCE be more appropriate, as the story deals with gods of a different faith? Bit like using AD/BC in an article on Hinduism or something. Just seems odd. 212.108.17.165 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's more of an academic standard of practice than an affirmation of faith. I personally use B.C.E. and C.E. in my writings, but please realize that the 'Christ' and 'Domini' of BC and AD are empty signifiers by now. CaveatLector^Talk 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Best to avoid any risk of running afowl of a religious group by using the secular equivelent though. Icarus'sNewBag (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the academic world is going to shun BC and AD, then in my opinion, we should come up with a new year system altogether. Especially since we have these stupid months named after Augustus and Julius Caesar. The whole system is crazy. We should have stuck with the Mayan calendar :-)

--Telemachusroxmysox Tu es nemo!

B.C.E./C.E. will be the standard for the future. It's really not appropriate in this article to use the Christian references.

Dick Scalper (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot outline

The book numbers should be discreetly restored. There is still no mention in the article of the famous episode called Nekyia that is book 11. --Wetman 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I put in cross-references between this article and Nekyia. Yes, what would be the "discreet" way to add the book numbers? Perhaps in bold (Book 2.) but without breaking up the text? The present outline is relatively short, so to divide it into 24 separately-headed sections would not be very "discreet". Andrew Dalby 12:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bard

i thought the old version explained how wandering bards would sing. this version just calls Homer by the two more precise terms. i would contest that bard, though introduced by the celtic tradition, is the generic term in English for any such singing wordsmith. The Jackal God 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that some people use the word in that way; the problem arose (in my mind) because, when you follow the link to bard, you find no support for that usage. It's about Celtic bards alone. If reverting, to be helpful to the user, I think you'd have to take out the link to bard or edit that article.

Some who write about Homer (including me) don't use the word "bard", or other culturally specific terms, because they carry baggage. Celtic bards (a) had a training that is described in detail in the sources, and (b) didn't mainly or normally compose epic poetry. They aren't wholly comparable either with epic singers in general, or with archaic Greek ones in particular. I (and some others) use the word "singer", and one could use it here -- I was trying to be more helpful, making a couple of links which would indicate what these singers may have been. Andrew Dalby 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a further problem, which was why I found myself rewriting some more words. The poem is far too long to have been originally composed at an oral performance. Andrew Dalby 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the word "bard", but I think it's more helpful to direct readers to aoidos. As Andrew points out, archaic Greek epic was (probably) composed in a different way than Irish/Celtic poetry, and the subject is complex enough that it should be covered at Homer or in a separate article (maybe aoidos), since it concerns not just the Odyssey but the Iliad, and is of some interest in relation to the Theogony and other archaic poetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe use the word bard but have it linked to the article on aoidos. use of the word bard does not imply any relation to celtic or irish poetry. the wiki entry on bard is marginal and lacking. as for the length of poem compromising a performance, that is non sequiter. bards didn't recite it all at one sitting, but over the course of several days. the earlier version alluded to that, at least in my mind, lol. The Jackal God 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only at a much later period that there is evidence for "recital over several days"; "recital" in itself implies that a fixed text already exists. As I see it, the sentence is talking about the origin of that text. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

then don't use the word "recital"? the version i learned is that there were a number of wandering bards (Homer was neither the first or sole one) telling these stories known from myths. Homer didn't invent the myths he sang about; rather, it was the way in which he recited them. so yes, there was a body of oral work before Homer, which he made use of and adapted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

That may well be true. But the article's about the Odyssey, a text we can read in writing, and the question that particular sentence has to deal with -- by all means have another stab at it -- is how the text was composed. Andrew Dalby 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it is relevant to the school of thought that determines authorship of a work according to the person who composed it, not the one who turned an oral work into a graphic work. the odyssey existed orally before it existed graphically. i noticed the sly little argument under aoidos that follows another route, perhaps mistakenly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs)

Yes, perhaps mistakenly. I wish we knew! But why do you say sly? Andrew Dalby 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it attempts to redefine the parameters of the debate. frankly it smells like desperate skepticism, or skepticism, part II, but i do appreciate the craftiness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

Jackal, could you please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ That will automatically convert to a signature with a timestamp. Signing your posts makes discussions much easier to follow. I love cody with all of my heart and he is the one for me no matter what anyone thinks. together forever will the two of us be you have to understand i have never felt this way befor and he just makes everything ok. its a brilliant feeling really to have someone to hold and be there for and cherish. he makes my heart feel warm and its beautiful it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.0.218 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I don't really understand what you're saying: are you accusing Andrew of writing the article in an underhanded manner? Are there important sources you feel are being left out? I don't really get the drift of your remarks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

no i'm not accusing andrew of any indecency, and sorry about the tildes, working on that. i just stated a preference for the word "bard" and dismissed the reasons for not using it. as for the "sly argument" that is in reference to another talk page referenced here, which end which a conjectural conclusion that it states is undisputedly true. The Jackal God 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think that very little in archaic Greek literary history is undisputedly true. I try not to be sly or crafty, but of course I have opinions, like others, and they may emerge in what I write. Luckily Wikipedia allows others to correct them! I have suggested, over at Talk:Aoidos, some changes to subheading or text or references that might resolve this particular problem. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) again, i didn't in any way mean to insult you, i was referring to the structure of the argument, that is all. i respect your contributions and opinions. The Jackal God 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional derivative works

• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes discusses self-awareness in the Odyssey that is absent in the Iliad.

• Homer's Daughter by Robert Graves retells the Odyssey from the perspective of Nausicaa, a suggestion of Samuel Butler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.149.162 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Jaynes' book is not really a derivative work. It's a secondary source, whereas things like Homer's Daughter are works of art that are inspired by the Odyssey. In my opinion, the Jaynes book is not worth including in the article. While it garnered a bit of publicity when it came out, it hasn't been very influential on subsequent Homeric scholarship--for instance, it is not cited in Morris & Powell's New Companion to Homer. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I feel the television series and books 'Odysseus: The Greatest Hero Of Them All' deserves a mention. This was a spin-off of thildren's programme Jackanory in which Tony Robinson tells a version of Odysseus' adventures re-written by himself and Richard Curtis for children. The narration and chgaracters were all preformed by Robinson in real locations. Their version of the story was also released as an audio book and published as 2 print books:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.50.125 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The television & movie versions will stop people from ever reading The Odyssey.

Dick Scalper (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

A 2000 year old classic epic poem should not have a spoiler warning. No other encyclopedia has spoiler warnings on the Odyssey. Besides one can reasonably assume a section titled "synopsis" will give details of the story. A spoiler warning for works like these make Wikipedia articles seem silly

This has been discussed several times, both on this talk page and at Talk:Spoiler warning or someplace like that, and consensus is that classical works of literature (by which I mean ancient Greek and Roman literature) don't need spoiler warnings. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoil? the Odyssey? I don't see how you could even do that. Everyone who is anyone knows how it ends. I read it for sixth grade advanced english for goodness sake. **Telemacusroxmysox

GA failure

This page has been failed for GA for a complete lack of references. There are reams of scholarship on the Odyssey. Where is it? Why doesn't the page rely on it to structure its descriptions of the Odyssey's themes, etc.? The editors of this page need to spend a lot of time in the library reading about the Odyssey; then they can begin writing this page. Awadewit ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi everyone, I have been trying to add my website to the external links page, because it offers a free E-book full text translation of the Odyssey, yet every time it has been taken down and reguarded as spam. Seeing as how this link is fully relevent to the article, and a great study guide for students, does anyone have any information for me on how i could keep this link up? The link I have been using is: http://www.richerresourcespublications.com/E-Books/Odyssey/Odyssey_e-book_link.htm and the full text is accessed by clicking on the book cover. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.176.122 (talk) 19:19:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This link is spam--the site is selling e-books (for $24.95!), and shouldn't be added. There are plenty of free translations available on the web, and we should only link to those that are non-commercial. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I will take down the shopping cart on that page, but the link IS to a free online e-book. Nothing must be payed in order to access it, there are no prerequisites to reading it, just click on the cover and use it. It is a very good translation, done by Ian Johnston, and I think it should be available to all. WNPR did a segment on it, and their classics critic loved it. It is a disservice to remove this from the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.176.122 (talk) 19:44:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who's been reverting what I deemed linkspam (both here and at Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Iliad). See User talk:Crowe537 for my original spam warning (which I had to repeat at multiple anonymous IP pages). I'll repeat here what I told this editor on my talk page: "I believe the spam warnings I posted raise some important points you're not addressing. First, any Wikipedia account (or anonymous IP) being used solely to promote the offerings (free or not) of a single website is strongly suspect. More importantly, Ian Johnston makes all his works available on his own website. If any of his work is notable enough to be linked from an encyclopedia article (which might be doubted, given that it's all basically self-published material put on the internet as resources for courses), then the authoritative source (the author's web page) only should be linked, and there is still no reason whatsoever to link to richerresourcespublications.com. This is not an idiosyncratic quest on my part, and in the past I've seen users completely blocked for doing exactly what you're doing. Please stop promoting the richerresourcepublications.com website." To me, the promotional agenda is clear from the fact that the edits always tout the website as a whole, which, as Akhilleus says above, is in the business of making money (quite possibly by selling the creative work of the editor who is adding these links!). Wareh 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed the editor says above "my website." External links to a website with which the editor is affiliated are always a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wareh 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Johnston's site is just fine; there's no need to link to any mirrors. Additionally, as Wareh pointed out, your website is selling Johnston's work in e-book format, and unless Johnston has given you permission, you are violating his copyright. We're not going to assist you in ripping him off. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal co-linking possible? (copied from here)

Hi everyone. Just made a small addition to the "Structure" sub-heading 0f the Odyssey article. I mentioned the fact that the in media res style was later also used by Alexander Pope and, on searching, noticed that, whilst there was an article on his mock-heroic style, there were no references to the equally-common synonynmous label of "mock-epic". Do you consider this important and, if so, is it possible to link the two terms to 'point' to the explicating artucle on mock-heroic? Tamsyn 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be in medias res. I think you want to make a link like this: mock-epic. If you click on "mock-epic" there, it will take you to mock-heroic. If you edit this page you'll see the code that makes this work. If that isn't what you meant, please clarify. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Telemachus' Age

Hello everyone. There may be something I'm missing here, but common logic would dictate that if Odysseus left home when Telemachus was one year old, spent 10 years in war and 7 on the island of Calypso, then Telemachus would be 18 years old at the point where the story begins, not 11. 128.32.78.175 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Kate

No he'd be 20 - Odysseus also spent one year on Circe's island and various months here and there waiting for a favourable wind. In total he was away twenty years. Timrollpickering 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we factor in non-Homeric tradition Telemachus was born before Odysseus left for the Trojan War, so it's possible he's even older than 20. But I don't really think the epics worry about people's ages--I mean, how old do you think Odysseus and Penelope are? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that Telemachus hasn't been born very long when Odysseus left - certainly it's a key part of the narrative that he has no memory of his father. But other than Telemachus being old enough to both fight and not know Odysseus there's no need for clarity and consistency, which Greek myth is not always known for. Timrollpickering 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article changes

It looks like the second paragraph of this article has been tampered with. I've never edited Wiki before, so I don't know how to fix it. Plus, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to do so.

Really Good article

This is a great article about a great book - bravo - Now I will try to sign this post because I don't know how yet. 134.241.194.66 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)SqMarlboro

I have news for you - (rhetorical you meaning anybody) typing four tides really works! In case you didn't know?? 134.241.194.66 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Odyssey-fitz.jpg

Image:Odyssey-fitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the cyclops is a member of the giants with one eye in the middle of there head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.126.26 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Textual history

I think the article should discuss the textual history – how has the text come down to us, etc. Bossk-Office (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

dating odysseus' return

Isn't the same as dating the poem. At any rate, there's a huge literature on dating the poem; there's no reason to create a section based on the work of two scientists who have no expertise in ancient Greek poetry, and who themselves say that classical scholars are unlikely to accept the theory: "They concede that scholars of Homer are still not likely to give much credence to the idea." Since this is a marginal view in discussions about the poem's date, I would like to take this section out. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The connection between the eclipse of 1178BCE and the Odyssey is nothing new. In Fred Espenak's eclipse webpage at NASA

( http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html ) one may find a link to a figure depicting the path of totality: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEplot/SE-1177Apr16T.gif In this calculation, the path is far from Ithaka. Therefore, the eclipse is thought to occur at the beginning of the voyage, when the ships are in North Africa. These two authors have made the calculations with the programme "Starry Night Pro", which applies different values for Delta T describing the slowing down of Earth's rotation. So not only "scholars of Homer" are quite uncomfortable with the conclusions. Siffler (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"The original poem was composed in an oral tradition by an aoidos, perhaps a rhapsode, and was intended more to be sung than read." This does tend to contravene the useful principle in encyclopedia-writing that one ought to describe things using less obscure words than the one you are trying to describe. In general, the intro suffers from being written by people who know a lot about the Odyssey but not much about encyclopedias. Unless anyone strongly objects, I will have a go at redrafting it. Lexo (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fagles-odyssey.jpg

The image Image:Fagles-odyssey.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary cutoff

That's what I get for assuming that Twinkle will handle an overlong edit summary. The summary should note that this is a consensus built within Classics articles across WP. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I never understand why people working on a small number of articles can declare that they have a consensus to violate major Wikipedia policies. It doesn't work that way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not make sense unless we have (what I assume to be the) full edit summary:

Providing external links to listed translations does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is a consensus built within Classics articles across WP.

It is unclear to me what part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being violated by the links to well established etext sites for the subject work. Please let me know what I am missing. To me, its very like linking to a company's main site from the company's article. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The links that DreamGuy removed and CaveatLector restored were to Project Gutenberg and bartleby.com. (See this diff.) I can understand removing bartleby.com, which is ad-supported, but I don't see the rationale for removing Project Gutenberg. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EL templates?

Can someone tell why this article shows up in Category:External link templates? I can't see it, can it be hidden in some way, or spillage from another included template? MURGH ^disc. 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be more likely to get an answer at the WP:HELPDESK, so I'll transfer it there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wandering Trojan

Might seen quibbly but I think it's important.

When you write "it is the second—the Iliad being the first—extant work of Western literature." I presume you mean classical literature. If so, where, then, would you place Vergil's "Aeneid"? Tamrhind (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Much later - perhaps not even third. Tedickey (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"extant" means "surviving". So Vergil is about the 1500th or so--he was in the 1st century BC, and there were perhaps 6 centuries of written Greek literature before then, and several centuries of Latin. A lot is missing, but there's still plenty left! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm - I knew "extant", but was thinking of works dealing with the Trojan Wars, and didn't respond to the question directly Tedickey (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyrant/Dictator

I changed 'dictator' to 'tyrant' as a description of Peisistratos. While the terms are more or less interchangeable in Modern English, for the Ancient Greeks tyrant meant something specific, and different from dictator. - JPL 209.252.104.131 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of nemesis

The analogy is strained in more than one respect, since Odysseus' nemesis was Poseidon, not the Cyclops Tedickey (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's backwards here.

Why does the Odysseus article treat the Odyssey more fully than this article? Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Odysseus is far, far too detailed, in my opinion. It isn't supposed to be Coles Notes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenia?

The "Xenia" section is both structurally and substantively sketchy. It doesn't seem to deserve it's own section, nor is it clear why its content ought be included at all in the article. Scholars have derived thousands of ideas and terms from The Odyssey. Why is this the only one that gets this attention? Furste (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the section here. It seems very random, and might profitably stay on the talk page until we can better contextualise it.

Xenia

One of the major themes of the Odyssey, and a matter the book frequently refers to, is the Greek idea of xenia (hospitality). For example, in book nine, Odysseus says to Polyphemus the cyclops; "but we on the other hand come reaching to your knees in the hope that you will provide us with a gift of hospitality... as it is right of strangers to do. But, best of men, beware the gods; we come as suppliants to you, Zeus is the avenger of both suppliants and strangers, the god of guests, he who walks the same footsteps as venerable guest-friends."

--Quadalpha (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ionia

"in Ionia, the then Greek-controlled coastal region of what is now Turkey.[1]" I'm not an expert, but I thought that the Ionian sea is on the eastern side of Greece. It strikes me that either Ionia or Turkey could need checking.

The two are separate places and in Greek have slightly separate names (the distinction is clearer in Ancient Greek). The sea and islands are Ιόνια, the region is Ιωνία. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Homer's Odyssey"

The hatnote at the top of this page is not there arbitrarily. Homer's Odyssey, as you can see, is a redirect to this page, and is the direct title of this episode. Your claim that "no one will come here looking for a cartoon episode" is a bad assumption: I got here looking for the episode of The Simpsons, and previously there was no way to find it. I had to go to List of The Simpsons episodes and look up the episode manually. The fact that it is a cartoon makes no difference to whether or not the hatnote belongs; the title is a redirect, so unless Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) is moved to Homer's Odyssey, the hatnote needs to be there for those who came here looking for the episode. --✶♏✶ 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your intended use is not the usual sense, it should be added to the disambiguation page Tedickey (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which dab page? I have to agree with the OP on this one. The redirect leads here, so a hatnote is indicated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Clarityfiend. As far as I can tell, the consensus hatnotes is that if the exact name of Topic A is a redirect to Topic B, then the page on Topic B must have a hatnote to the page on Topic A, unless there are many things with the same exact name, in which case it goes on a dab page. In this case, the dab page is for things with the exact name Odyssey. Nothing has the exact name Homer's Odyssey except for the episode and this page, so no dab page should be used, and it should not be on the Odyssey dab page, which is counter-intuitive. --✶♏✶ 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on hatnote

I believe this page should have a hatnote leading to the article Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) because Homer's Odyssey, the exact title of the episode, is a redirect to this page. I further think the episode should not be on the disambiguation page because it is not, nor has it ever been, referred to as "Odyssey", "the Odyssey", or "an Odyssey": it's called "Homer's Odyssey", which redirects to here.

Tedickey disagrees, on the grounds that (in his own words):

• "[N]o one would come to this topic looking for a cartoon episode" (from an edit summary reverting the addition of the hatnote)
• "Since your intended use is not the usual sense, it should be added to the disambiguation page"
• "Looks like you're arguing that simply because it's relatively non-notable, it (the cartoon) needs promotional edits to guide the viewer."

I would appreciate input on this matter. --✶♏✶ 05:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful way to proceed would be to eliminate the places that link to Homer's Odyssey which are unrelated to this topic. Then you'd only have the comment that a search result can be confusing. Tedickey (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I found (aside from talk-page links which we shouldn't bother with) 9 topics which were incorrect. I pointed those to the cartoon. Tedickey (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people will search for the episode, especially since a lot more people have seen the show than have read the Odyssey. Therefore, since the title redirects here, there should be a hatnote (sort of per WP:HAT#Two articles with similar titles). As the OP has pointed out, that is the de facto standard, used so often it has its own template. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think referring to the episode on the disambig page is sufficient (and indeed, is currently in place). It is perfectly reasonable to use the disambig page as disambiguation for both "The Odyssey" and "Homer's Odyssey" when one redirects to the other. gnfnrf (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed examples for disambiguation pages like that; they're not uncommon. Confusion with search results versus topic names is an ongoing issue that depends partly on the browser. I have to override the browser frequently, to force it to show search results rather than a topic name. Tedickey (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So currently, we've got two for and two against the hatnote. I'm not seeing much consensus either way. To be honest, I do think policy supports my opinion, and I haven't seen the people who don't want a hatnote give any policy references. If a greater consensus emerges that a hatnote should not be there, or if it can be demonstrated that WP policy supports the link being on the disambiguation page, I will gladly sit down and shut up, but right now it seems there is a deadlock and neither of those things have happened...

The discussion doesn't seem to be attracting a lot of attention. Having already filed an RFC, is there any other way to get more eyes on this page so that a general consensus can be formed? I would like more opinions than just the split vote of four people, but I don't want to appear to be canvassing. --✶♏✶ 11:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? appears to apply to this case. Tedickey (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies here. No one is disputing that this article is the primary Homer's Odyssey. That's why the redirect comes here.

I want you to consider the Simpsons fan who, knowing the episode title, types it in and gets sent here. How will that fan know where to go? Eventually, he or she may figure out to go to The Simpsons and then to List of The Simpsons episodes, or try going to Odyssey (disambiguation), but why make things difficult? (I'm also a bit dubious about having the other article on the dab page, per WP:DAB#Partial title matches. The episode is not called "Odyssey".) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that since the exact title redirects here then it's only right that a hatnote pointing to the episode title is there for readers to follow. Disambiguating Odyssey is one thing, there are only two things referred to as Homer's Odyssey, one is given priority (fair enough) the other is on the arse-end of a dirty great list of things which aren't called Homer's Odyssey. It seems dismissive to take the redirect without even acknowledging what the other target could have been. Someoneanother 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of changing the hatnote, but I though Clarityfiend made a good point above: if I search for the Simpsons episode title, how do I get to the article I want? My solution: don't change the hatnote, change the disambiguation page, so that near the top it says "Homer's Odyssey may also refer to the Simpsons episode." I don't work with disambig pages so I don't know if this meets the style guidelines, but if it doesn't, the guidelines ought to be changed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This RfC seems to have gone stale but I also agree that a simple redirection hatnote to Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) would be the best option and makes the most logical sense. As I interpreted the above commentary, consensus would seem to support this result, so I've gone ahead and done this so that we can close this RfC and move on. -- œ^™ 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? I don't see any consensus at all in the above discussion. A few people expressed opinions, with rational supporting arguments, on each side. There was a little discussion, and then things died. I still think a link in the disambig page is the better way to do it. On the other hand, I don't think the hatnote is a serious problem or anything; I just don't think we should leave the discussion as if there was consensus for it when I don't think there was. gnfnrf (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Error with Synopsis

"Next Odysseus met the spirit of his own mother, who had died of grief during his long absence; from her, he learned for the first time news of his own household, threatened by the greed of the suitors."

Odysseus learned about the suitors from Tiresias, not his mother. His mother died before the suitors came.

Source: Odyssey Book XI lines 112-152 (Tiresias) and 185-227 (Antikleia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.179.205 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Odysseus's motivation

As noted in Odysseus#Before the Trojan War, Odysseus did not want to go to the war because he had been warned that he would be away for a long time. But there's no source up front for ten years. Injecting that (ignoring the defective grammar) into the synoposis makes the statement inaccurate. Tedickey (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

What does Odyssey mean in Greek? The article does not say. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've always assumed it was based on Odysseus' name, and was interpreted as (something like) the story of Odysseus. TEDickey (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely, but it would be nice to see the definitive meaning in the article. (I've posted a similar question about at Iliad, which I assumes means something like a "tale of Illium") --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Related, googling on the etymology found this tidbit, which hints "wrath" as part of the meaning of his name TEDickey (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

this relates to "scar" (an accident at his birth) TEDickey (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

and here is what appears to be some undergraduate's paper on the topic of his name TEDickey (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

however, it doesn't seem likely that you'll find a definitive answer TEDickey (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It hadn't occured to me that Odysseus itself had a meaning - although that, I can see from the links, is quite an intetesting subject - but rather just how Odyssey related to Odysseus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)