Talk:Hecatoncheires

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

"... 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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]