Talk:Roman mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Philosophy and religion.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rome (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mythology    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Mythology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unsorted text[edit]

To edit the "Topics in Roman Mythology" table, see Template:Roman myth. That table can also be added to related pages if you want by inserting {{Roman myth}} Bacchiad 22:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

, partially directed on town's personality.

No one said gods can't also be allegories. Besides, Augustus was a full-out god after his death, not just a sort of demi-god. Bacchiad 07:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Africus for COTW[edit]

I've nominated Africus for COTW. I did this because I felt that the Roman god who is directly responsible for the name of one of our present-time continents deserves more than two lines for his article. If you would like to support, please go to its COTW page and write your name down on the support list. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Major Gods[edit]

I changed the listof major gods. It is now a gallery, the reason for this is that in my opinion it is better with pictures. However, I am short of some pictures. The previous list looked like this:

God/Goddess God/Goddess of
Apollo God of the sun, dancing, festivities, archery and music
Bacchus God of wine
Ceres Goddess of the earth
Cupid God of love
Diana Goddess of the moon and hunting
Fortuna Goddess of luck
Janus God of doors
Juno Queen of the gods
Jupiter King of the gods
Maia Goddess of growth
Mars God of war (originally agriculture)
Mercury Messenger of the gods
Minerva Goddess of wisdom
Neptune God of the sea
Pluto King of the underworld
Proserpine Queen of the underworld
Quirinus God of defense & the state
Saturn God of agriculture
Uranus God of the heavens
Venus Goddess of love
Vesta Goddess of hearth
Vulcan God of smithing

If you prefer the old one, above, to thge current please tell me and I'd be happy to change it back. Sotakeit 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually much prefer the list above without the pictures. Here is why I feel quite strongly about it: it seems to me that we are confusing the concept of "Roman god" with its depictions in art. A Roman god, whatever it is (or not), is different from the art used to represent it. Moreover, it seems particularly little enlightening (we see basically a bunch of statues...). 12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) ugihkj

Parenthetical Problems[edit]

Why do two of the Roman deity use "(god)" or "(goddess)" randomly, while most of them, and all the Greek deity articles, use "(mythology)"? The latter seems preferable, since it avoids needless specificity in disambiguation and can apply accurately to a wider number of articles without possible accusations of POV for stating whether or not a specific being qualifies as a "god". What's up with this:

I'd fix them myself, but unlike most of the deity pages where a move from (god)/(goddess) to (mythology) was implemented, for some bizarre reason this one already has "Jupiter (mythology)" and "Pluto (mythology)" as redirects to those two pages. Ick. -Silence 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are they not tagged "_(religion)"? It is only from an "outside" POV that they are myths. It is certainly not true that Papa Roman sat his kids down and said "It is time you learned our mythology, those things we believe in order to understand our world". I could also support using no tags at all, (as in the case, for example, of Amaterasu), and glossing the untagged entry on disambiguation pages, as, for example, is the practice here with Jesus. In short, adding (mythology) to Jupiter et al. but not to Jesus or Amaterasu seems rather POV to me. Whogue 07:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Mythology is not meant as a POV slight. Remember that mythology does not necessarily mean that something is considered false, but it is not exactly the same as religion, either. In short, mythology is more about the stories while religion is about beliefs and rituals. Check the pages on wikipedia pages mythology and religion for more info. AliaGemma 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone changed the page to "write some damn mythology". I changed it back to the previous version.

You don't need to make a comment about it ;) ---As said on this site, <i>The wii version will Have wii compatibility</i> (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mythology and Religion[edit]

It seems to me that a good deal of this article ("Native Roman and Italic gods", "Foreign gods", "Major Roman deities") properly belongs in Religion in ancient Rome. Whogue 08:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia!!

that's all I ask, it makes people not trust this website [it is very trustworthy!!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

when it died[edit]

I really wanted to know when the religion completely died out because there must have been some small out of the way places that kept their beliefs.


The beginning of this article sounds sort of like the content on this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, but it's probably copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around (the end of the text says: References: Wikipedia). Pax:Vobiscum 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Early mythology about Roman history[edit]

The last two paragraphs of the "Early mythology about Roman history" section contain numerous spelling errors (such as "Odisius", "whorlpool", etc.), some wording that needs to be rearranged for clarity, as well as the abbreviation "w/" instead of "with" several times. I tried to correct them and to clean it up some, but cannot find how to edit that section anywhere on the page, either by editing the entire page or by editing that section. (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


The last two paragraphs should not be in the article. They are obvious vandalism. I haven't quite figured out the ropes around here, can I just remove the offensive passages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterCalamy (talkcontribs) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) u r gay now sut up and dei —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

13 year old kids... I'm 13, you don't have to act immature. homophobe. Take out the last two.

Article needs dedicated editing[edit]

It lacks citation and modern references, so I'll tag accordingly. Style and content are reminiscent of a public lecture by some charming, scholarly old buffer with elbow-patches who means to talk about mythology but loses his way. Really needs some work, and Beard, North and Price's "Religions of Rome" (1998) Cambridge, might be a start. Yes, "Religions", because the authors elucidate the issues this article attempts to resolve. Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also to your point, some of the language sounds rather stodgy. For example, the first sentence under "Early Roman Mythology" uses the words "dearth" and "panoply", neither of which are widely understood (other than by context) outside upper-level academic circles. GalacticCowboy (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)hjgjhgjhgj

Upper-level? You mean you can't expect the average college senior to know them? Wow, if that's true, how sad. (The trouble with 'panoply' here is that it doesn't mean what the user seems to have intended.) To Haploidavey's point, "The Romans had no sequential narratives about their gods comparable to the Titanomachy or the seduction of Zeus by Hera until their poets began to adopt Greek models in the later part of the Roman Republic" … hard to say where to begin to rewrite that into something meaningful. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a splendid beginning. Let's just link to Greek mythology and be done. Or better, let's rewrite from scratch. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Temporary measures[edit]

I was at the library the other day, had T.P. Wiseman's The Myths of Rome in my hand, thought, eh, I won't be looking at Roman mythology anytime soon, put it back, and somehow ended up here today. Anyway, I had made some notes from Bremmer and Horsfall's rather idiosyncratic book, which taken alone seem so disproportionate (no Horatius at the bridge!) that I threw in some other Greatest Hits. I figure if a student ends up here (and they appear to frequently, judging from the juvenile vandalism the article gets), something is better than nothing for now. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Structure at last, (and "convoluted revisionist genealogy" bodes very well for the future. Lovely phrase). Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Romance mythology[edit]

That Slavs - a language group - a group of languages. Romance languages ​​- a group of languages. Is there a "Romance mythology"?