Talk:Cerberus

Removing fiction cruft

Encyclopedia articles should only cover notable aspects of the topic. The fact that some videogame made a rather uninteresting reference to a character out of mythology is so incredibly nonnotable that it's painful. I know some people like to go around adding every single last trivial detail that they know of that mentions a certain topic, but doing that inevitably leads to a long, long list of pointless pseudofacts that do not in any way advance the knowledge of people looking for real information on the topic in question. Cleaning out the pointless stuff is now standard practice on articles like this. There is absolutely no reason for someone to revert the changes except for the fact that they are upset (once again, it happened on the Cat article) that something they added isn;t important enough to stay here. DreamGuy 16:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Give me a link where it says that stuff like this should be removed, that it is a "pointless pseudofact," and "nonnotable". YOU consider it pointless. It's not. If you want Wikipedia to be a superior encyclopedia, with rich content in every article, you should add stuff into the articles, not remove stuff from them. Oh and by the way, you're always talking about consensus and stuff, well guess what? You're the minority here, because other people have added these stuff, and you're the only one removing them. So until you find a majority about this part, or a Wikipedia rule that says it should be removed: don't touch it. Clearly, this time, a consensus has been reached against you. If you don't want this article to have a little bit of information about the video game characters etc, then I suggest you create these articles Cerberus and Cerberus so that they can have their own articles. If you ask me, that's a pointless thing to do, because they would be redundant articles, since they can be mentioned here instead of wasting space storage for an entire article just to mention that this character is part of the games... but then again, pointless is your excluding of the content.

EliasAlucard|Talk 20:28, 7 May, 2005 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is plagued by nonsensical subtrivia. If we were to make articles about these videogame characters they'd get deleted as nonnotable, so why on earth should they be in the main article either? It's completely pointless. If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously it cannot be held hostage by every person who wants to add some nonsensical pointless detail to every article that exists. The only compromise you'll get out of me on this (because you are so overwhlemingly wrong on this point) is the moving of the trivial characters to a Cerberus (disambiguation) article, much like has been done with many other articles here. The fact that you went running to get this locked solely on the opinion of such fictioncruft as this is rather disturbing, and once again I am shocked that admins put up with this kind of crap here. DreamGuy 21:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Considering your disdain of how it works here, why don't you stop editing here on Wikipedia? I wanted it locked because I knew that even if we continued this on the talk page, you wouldn't stop reverting. And no, they wouldn't get deleted as "nonnotable." There are lots of articles about video game characters. Have you actually played the games? If you haven't, I don't think you even have the right to remove the information about those games. Seriously, what gives you the right to remove content in the article if you don't know anything about that certain content? You're of the opinion that it's nonnotable, pointless, etc. I'm not. You can't have it strictly your way because you disagree. Until I see rules here on Wikipedia that are directly opposed of having "subtrivia" or whatever you want to call it, I don't want that removed. And I'm sure a lot of fans etc of the video games don't either. I find it very interesting to know if Cerberus, Heracles etc have made their way into video games. Why? Because that gives me a hint to actually experience them in a video game. By the way, what's wrong with trivia? I find that very interesting. Oh and until next time, stop blaming me for the Cat article being protected. It wasn't my fault, and you know it. I did not add that smiling cat picture. In fact, I was actually in agreement with you about that one.

EliasAlucard|Talk 00:42, 8 May, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have disdain for how it works here, I have disdain for editors who make no useful contributions and turn simple removal of their poor additions into a huge drama fest. You are clearly in denial here. I've been cleaning up other mythology articles moving off the fictioncruft either to disambig pages or deleting it completely and you are the first person to freak out to the level that you have. You did the same thing on Cat when your horrible, horrible grainy, poorly lit, cats looking somewhere else, etc. manx photos were removed (I'm not talking about the smiling cat, I'm talking about 'your horrible photos). OF COURSE Cerberus (and every other freaking mythology character out there) has been adapted for videogames. They do that. So do short stories, novels, TV shows, comic books, board games, movies, and so forth. We simply cannot list every singlle last reference, we can only list the ones that are significant in some way to the overall history of the topic being discussed. 100 years from now people will still be talking about the original myths, Dante's Inferno, and so forth, but your little subtrivial videogames are absolutely nothing. But, again, you should see how other pages handle this... trivial references are removed completely, important ones stay. Disambig pages are also used. But your insistence on putting these things that only you and other videogamers care about into the article for the mythological character is completely nonsensical. You need to get a grip and deal with the fact that just because you put something in it doesn't mean it has to stay. DreamGuy 00:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy first of all simply from reading this talk page I was generally in agreement with what you where saying (although maybe not quite so extreme), however when I know go and look at the history I say that the current page is not as you would be wanting (which is more like what I would have expected) but rather it is what the "other side" is trying to have as this page. So my view is that if this page really is "plagued" as you say the entire encylopedia is then I would be mainly in agreement with you. However as it is now it is so very little that is there (about videogames references etc...) and doesn't interupt with the general flow of the article that I think it ought to stay (even I who have never ever played any of those videogames mentioned still found it of some interest what was mentioned, and certainly not something which is so bad it should be removed). There would need to be a LOT more of this kind of stuff before I would want it to be split off, and even then it would only be a split off to the degree that it would then be reduced down to a bit more that what is here now (and with links of to the rest and/or for more details). Mathmo

Take a look at what you're suggesting

So, EliasAlucard, if we follow what you say, the article should really look something like this:

Cerberus apeared in the videogame God of War as blah blah blah. Cerberus appeared in the game Blood. Cerebus appeared in the game Quest for Glory IV where the heads had conversations with themselves. Cerberus appeared in the game Some D&D rip off #1-12. Cerberus is a monster in the game of Moria and Nethack. Cerberus appeared in the game (some game I can't remember the name of with live actors playing the Greek gods). Cerberus appears on the game Dungeons and Dragons, and also is the basis for other monsters like the Devil Dogs from the Fiend Folio. Cerberus appeared in the Champions RPG game scenario (whichever the one that was). Cerberus appeared in the movie Clash of the Titans. Cerberus appeared in the Disney movie Hercules. Cerberus appeared wearing a tutu in the comedy show Poochies. Cerberus appeared in an episde of the Star Trek comic book when James T. Kirk went to Dante's Inferno. There are some animals in Clive Barker's books and movies that look like Cerberus if you squint a little. Cerberus aappeared in an episode of Charmed. Cerberus was mentioned in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer novel. Cerberus appeared in an episode of The Real Ghostbuster cartoon. Cerberus appeared in Marvel comics and fought charcters like HErcules, Thor, Captain America and so forth. Cerberus appears in DC comics, especially in Wonder Woman series. Cerberus shows up in the board game Hero Quest. Cerberus appears in the horrible Star Trek novel where Deanna Troi meets a bunch of random mythological characters. Cerberus shows up in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon as a pizza bogarting fiend. Cerberus is pictured as a three headed poodle in a Far Side cartoon. Cerberus shows up as a monster in the game Kult. Cerberus has puppies in the Wizards and Warriors TV series. Cerberus is probably mentioned the Sandman comic books, and probably also in his novel American Gods, which I haven't finished. Someone wearing a CErberus suit shows up to hassle Scooby Doo and the gang in one of their animated movies and would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those darn kids. Cerberus is in half a bazillion anime. Hecate takes Cerebus out for walkies in some other novel I forget the name of. Cerberus makes an appearance in some Sinbad TV episode. Hercules the TV series featured Cerberus a couple of times. Cerberus is a monster in some Runescape module somewhere. Cerberus shows up in the RPG Rifts. Cerberus shows up in the World of Darkness games by White Wolf. Cerberus showed up in the Beetlejuice cartoon series. Cerberus appears in the movie Highway to Hell. Cerberus appears in the fairy tale of King Orfeo. Cerberus was mentioned in Bewitched, I Dream of Genie, and other sitcom TV shows. Cerberus was a float in the Longview, Texas High School homecoming parade in 1993 with their mascot, the Lobos (Wolf) having three heads. Cerberus has appeared painted onto some skateboard design somewhere. Cerberus appears in the Magic the Gathering. Cerberus appeared in one of the Beastmaster TV episodes. Cerberus endorses poochie pooper scoopers in a Bizarro cartoon.

And if I tried I could go on and on and on and on. Only NOTABLE references should get mentioned. The kinds of things you adeded back are so incredibly nonnotable it's painful. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

This guy is right. If we note all these references to Cerberus, this wiki will just get disorganized. Could we put these in their own articles (Kingdom Hearts, Ghostbusters, DMC)? Some people accused me of vandalism when I made this suggestion.

This squabble is ridiculous! Look at the proportion of the content devoted to historical information, against information about which games included the character. Just get rid of the rubbish, and spend your editing time finding useful information. It's a disgrace to greek mythology to put junk about bloody computer games.

This is a point less disscussion, why don't you just say the cerberus appears in some games and movies...

Other articles for you to look at

Werewolf has only notable mentions in the main article and then splits novels and movies into separate articles. Videogames on get mentioned once, not as many times as Cerberus video games got mentioned here, and werewolves have been in many, many more videogames than Cerberus has. Leviathan has an article with notable ficiton references, with others being left on the disambig page. Lilith has the fiction moved to the disambig page. Banshee, Pazuzu, Rumplestilskin and many others have had the fictioncruft moved out. And, heck, pretty much any mythology article that has been cleaned up by myself or others (though there are plenty that haven't been cleaned up yet, and you can tell by reading them how jumbled up they are) does not allow trivial fiction references. DreamGuy 01:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Those were excellent examples (irony). I mean, you were responsible for removing everything fictional in them. I'm not even going to consider them as a standard of how a mythology character article should be shaped like. Try again, and this time, without your biased involvement. "and many others have had the fictioncruft moved out." <--- Don't forget to write by DreamGuy. And please, don't even try to predict the future. You cannot do that. Like I've said before, give me a Wikipedia rule, that says "fictioncruft," "trivia" (or whatever you want to call it) isn't allowed in articles. Not your renditions of the articles. Until then, all you're saying is your opinion. And so far, you seem to be unable to give me a Wikipedia rule that is against this. Why is that? Could it be because there is none? And about your penchant for high quality photos. Have you checked a real encyclopedia? No encyclopedia ever has pictures with resolutions of 10000x10000 etc. You should give it a rest. And I wasn't suggesting what you wrote. What you wrote is a serious and ridiculous exaggeration.

EliasAlucard|Talk 10:07, 8 May, 2005 (UTC)

And basically it all comes down to whether people with nothing to contribute except "hey, I think I saw something sort of like this on a TV show I saw once because I don't actually read anything" should be able to strew their pointless nonsense throughout the encyclopedia or whether pointless subtrivia should get pared back. Your entire attitude toward this encyclopedia is that 12 year olds with nothing to say should be able to overrule people who know what they are talking about. Quality control makes a huge difference, but you'd rather have utter crap as long as you can keep your contributions in instead of something real people can use as a legitimate reference. In short, your attitude makes a mockery of this project. Give up your egotistical attachment to pointless fictioncruft and let knowledgable people do what needs to be done. DreamGuy 20:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

So where's the real argument? I don't care about your self-proclaimed omniscience, your self-flattery of your allegedly immense knowledge, and most of all your stupid examples of this and that to back up your point of view. Like I've said so many times now: give me official Wikipedia rules (not ones that you've concocted yourself) that strictly forbids "fiction cruft" (what does that mean anyway? There's no such word), or just shut up with your power trip. Here's a good example for you to look at: Dracula and Dracula (Castlevania). As you can see, the Castlevania character has its own article. Now, you have two choices here: A) either create Cerberus (Devil May Cry) as well as Cerberus (Castlevania), and link to them from the see also section of this article, or B) just leave the "fiction cruft" there. Being as how incredibly redundant it would be to pick the first choice, the latter would be the recommended choice, since we don't want redundant articles with barely any information in them. Got it? By the way, it's not being held hostage, it's protected from people like you who cannot tolerate any other opinions except your own. Also, it's funny how you mention people as if it were plural, since it seems that you alone is backing up this opinion of "fiction cruft" being removed. Considering that I'm not the only one who has added "fiction cruft" in the articles (even the other ones beside this one), you're pretty much alone of "knowing what you're talking about". I like having the "fiction cruft" there since I find it interesting, and I'm not the only one since other people have added them too. EliasAlucard|Talk 01:21, 25 May, 2005 (UTC)

Note in your example of Dracula, the mention of the game appearance is located at the very end of the article, not in the opening paragraphs, and is but a single line. Further, Dracula is the main villian in a 20-year-old, 23-installment game series, not a minor character, so these cases you present are not equivalent. Your "option A)" is the best of your poor, False dilemma solutions, yet you present it in such an inflammatory and disingenuous manner that it appears to this outside party that you are more interested in wasting time than contributing usefully to Wikipedia, as you have not bothered to create such articles. Thirdly, you continually ask for a policy page, which indicates that you seem to be more concerned with rules-lawyering than coming to a concensus. Very well, look at Stay on Topic. This topic is about Cerberus, a Greek legend. Not a video game characters that were inspired by such a legend. While you may "...find [the fiction cruft] interesting...", it is not topical to the main article text, and thus should not be present there. In does not need to be deleted, but this article is an inappropriate place to put it. A better place would be in the Devil May Cry article itself. Liam Bryan 19:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I think that there's a place for a section on notable appearances of Cerberus in modern fiction - not just video games, but modern fiction in general - but that the context-free "Cerberus appears in video games A, B, and C" are less than useful. Unless Cerberus is a major character in the game or other work of fiction, it shouldn't be mentioned. -Sean Curtin 02:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Why you feel adding to 'See Also', 'God Of War: Little doggy things that can look like Cerberus sometimes' (OK, I'm paraphrasing) is useful to anyone, I don't know. Even if Cerberus was a boss character, I'd be unimpressed.

Well I'll be damned. To be honest here, I haven't even added back all this, and other users, registered and anonymous, have added back all the stuff DreamGuy removed. I'm not even going to bother to argue with DreamGuy about this anymore. Considering that he has a penchant for removing stuff like this (which he calls "fiction cruft") I know he's going to remove all of it again. Well, other users are still going to add it all back though. So enjoy wasting your time with removing stuff that'll be re-added.

EliasAlucard|Talk 01:48, 20 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

It should at least be shortened, "In episode 2.17 of the TV show Lost on ABC, a fluorescent map on a blast door makes mention of something on the island known by the name of Cerberus. In Legends of the Ghost part III the main protagonist in the second scene has a dog which can occasionally powerup and turn into a Cerberus. In Metal Gear Solid Acid on the second level behind the barrel there is a crate with the word 'Cerberus' on it. " That is some of the most useless information I've ever read in my life!! 82.21.148.214 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Constellation theory of origin

The origin section is extremely bizarre, in that it only mentions (and devotes a lot of space to) the theory that Cerberus derived from some story written around extremely ambiguous star patterns in a constellation. Do we have a source for this, as it's certainly not common knowledge. Without a reference it comes off as sounding like strange personal research. With or without a source, it's not really something that should be listed as the sole or default explanation. Constellation theories are not highly regarded in the field of mythology or classical studies. DreamGuy 16:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Relief of Cerberus on Portico of Friedrichsfelde Castle in zoo Tierpark Friedrichsfelde, Berlin, Germany.

Make a New Section

Why don't we make a new section about Cerberus' appearances in other works? That way we could move a few of the mentions there, without making it a "See Also". Still, I vote the God of War mention be removed. There are how many appearances of Cerberus-like things in this world??? Heck, even the dog Fluffy from Harry Potter is more noticeable, and I don't see anyone rushing to put it up.

Effectiveness

In his lifetime Cerberus was incapacitated four times. Not a very effective guard, if you ask me. Dean.l 21:46:43, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

600 years + and only 4 incapacitations is pretty impressive by most people's standards. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts character?

This wiki is based on the one from Greek Mythology. Why not start a new wiki for the Disney's Hercules version, and categorize that one instead? Not only would that organize everything (and seem less misleading), but everyone will benefit from it.

Comedy Relief

On the picture, look at the face on the very right. He's the dorky one...the comedian of the group.

• OK... I giggled. Krein 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Names of the Hound

Do the individual heads of Cerberus have thier own names?

No, the Greeks never named the individual heads of multiheaded creatures. Also in some of the oldest versions of the Cerberus story he had as many as 50 or 100 heads, which would have made for a really, really long list!! Though some of the surplus ones might have been serpents. Theranos 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Greeks have a penchant for serpent monsters. Cerberus, the Hydra, the dragon guarding the Golden Fleece, the Chimera...the list goes on and on.--Rob

shoulden't the pronounciation(SP?) of the word cerberus be added?

• i really can't tell how it is spelled~ moe 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

pantheon.org says "sur'-bur-uhs". Whether that adheres to any sort of official pronunciation guide or is considered noteworthy enough to include, I don't know. Nesoo (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate

Well as both a simple man fascinated by greek in particular and mythology in general ,and also (unfortunately I guess) a prolific videogame player I find myself having to agree more with Dreamguy Yes,there are popular culture (I find myself at a loss for a more accurate expressions) references to this and other characters but then again I urge you to think about it,how many of this video game references are actually accurately based on the real mythological entity or even have anything to do with it? Anyone remembers the gorgons from DnD or the "Heroes of Might&Magic" series?What the hell did stone bulls really have anything to do with the medusa and his sisters (medusa by the way is a generic unit for said game saga) In the video game "Parasite eve" you fight a mutated three headed dog (not named like our hound) that is an obvious reference to Cerberus,but there is no reason that should figure on an article intended to inform it readers on the nature and evolution of the conception of a myth,idea,concept or person. A good idea if you find you cannot agree on citing simply that this or other mytholgical characters are very popular in the media culture you can always try what people did with the Necromancer article,you have the objective historic and/or anthropologic review (necromancy) and the more popular and not less interesting concepts of it (necromancers in popular culture). Otherwise the list ,as dreamGuy pointed out would go on and on and on simply creating more confusion for someone who wants to clear his ideas on the subject

Not intending to continue or spark more debate here,just trying to avoid further pointless discussion

201.235.217.76 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)El Gostro, 13 Oct 02:05 pm

IMO, if you have an article about a myth (or any subject), the things that should be in the article are things that are contained in that myth. If a myth is contained within some video game or TV show or whatever, mention the myth there, if you wish. (Granted, in some, for example Shin Megami Tensei, there are so many it becomes pointless to mention each individual one) But while Cerberus may have something to do with Harry Potter, Harry Potter has nothing to do with Cerberus.

This "in popular culture" crap should be entirely one-way.

The only exception I've seen that I like is the stuff in Norse myth articles about Wagner, and how he influences modern portrayals of Norse gods. If it's something that references the myth that itself colors modern portrayals of the myth in a way not adequately covered by the rest of the article, sure, go ahead...THAT is what a "popular culture" section should be. But it'll be decades, at least, before you know whether Harry Potter's portrayal becomes THE Cerberus archetype. Andy Christ (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

Sorry, was an accident. The check box and submit were too close together.... Wasn't intentional. Mathmo ^Talk 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Fluffy from Harry Potter was inspired by the story of Orpheus and Cerberus, and I also noticed a Dungeons and Dragons reference in a prior discussion. I think this article could use a pop culture section. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you can link to here from there and leave Harry Potter out of this article. The Cerberus myth is contained in Harry Potter. Harry Potter is not contained in the Cerberus myth.Andy Christ (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrice bitten?

What happened to the rest of "Classical mythologers speculated "? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. It's because when I'm writing I tend to reword things a lot, so I copied and pasted that sentence and didn't end up using it but forgot to delete it. It was in reference to the sentence before it about his name being given to him in Trikarenos. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Newest articles?

Why/how is this in the front page's "Wikipedia's newest articles" section? --Rajah (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it is was expanded 5 times of what it used to be, which also qualifies. Read the rules at WP:DYK. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Ameliorate, per your edit summary, the above isn't called a complaint, it's a question. --Rajah (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The former text, referenced from classical sources, has been deleted and replaced by the current text.--Wetman (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I have been watching this page for some time with the intent of adding the sanskrit sarvara comparison for kerberos, and am happy to see someone beat me to it. The alternate "demon of the pit" "etymology" is no real etymology - it seems like an ad hoc definition. While the comparison of kerberos/sarvara is apparently regular (not sure about the b/v comparison) the "demon of the pit" gloss is neither attributed to anyone, nor derivied from any PIE root, nor suggested as a borrowing, nor compared to any other language. Nor is encyclopedia mythica a particularly notable nor authoritative source. i suggest either deleting the "demon of the pit" gloss entirely, or saying that while the online encyclopedia offers "demon of the pit" as an "etymology" it offers neither a source, nor a comparison nor a derivation from any know root. Kjaer (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the etymology of the term [my definitions added in brackets] from Pokorny at http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny&first=921

Number: 930 Root: k^erbero- und kerbero- English meaning: variegated German meaning: `scheckig' [piebald] General comments: (vgl. S. 573 k^er- neben ker-6 in Farbbezeichnungen) Material: Ai. śárvara- `bunt, scheckig', śárvarī f. `Tier der Maruts, Nacht' (v steht für b, vgl. Wackernagel Ai. Gr. I 184 und:) śabála-, śabára- (diss. Schwund des ersten r) `bunt, scheckig' (daneben karbará-, karvará-, kabara-, karbura-, karbu- ds.); gr. Κέρβερος ursprüngl. `der Scheckige'; vgl. die mythologische Wendung von ai. śarvarī; slav. sobolь `Zobel' [sable] scheint aus dem Arischen zu stammen. Die Wz. kerb- sucht Lidén Stud. 50 f. in air. corbaim `besudle, beflecke' [dirty, stained] und lit. kìrba (> lett. ḱirba) `Sumpf, [swamp] Morast' und betrachtet *kerb- als Erweiterung der Farbwz. ker- (s. S. 583 kers-); Mühlenbach-Endzelin II 383. References: WP. I 425, Schulze Kl. Schr. 125, Specht Idg. Dekl. 119, 262.

As for "demon of the pit" this is everywhere repeated on the internet but nowhere with any explanation or reference. kerberos is also compared to the color root *ker- and may be related to the Latin carbo-