Talk:Cerberus#Massive insertion

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:Cerberus on castle friedrichsfelde berlin germany.jpg of Cerberus on Portico of Friedrichsfelde Castle in zoo Tierpark Friedrichsfelde, Berlin, Germany.]]

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.

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.

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)

:Also, the videogame Altered Beast had Cerberus as a recurring enemy, and it's a boss in the Devil May Cry 3 videogame as well, there are probably more references, I think a "popular culture" section could be of use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.94.98.250 (talk • contribs)

::Any pop culture items added would of course need to be sourced to establish their significance as discussed at WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

An IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cerberus&diff=prev&oldid=806178593 removed] from the article the mention in Iliad [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hom.+Il.+5.395 5.395–397] of Heracles shooting Hades with an arrow, saying in their edit summary that "The incident where Heracles shot Hades with an arrow had nothing to do with the incident with Cerberus. It was from when Heracles attacked Pylos and Hades came to the city's defense". The IP is probably referring to Apollodorus, [http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0548.tlg001.perseus-eng1:2.7.3 2.7.3], but Apollodorus' account may simply be a misinterpretation of Homer.

That this passage is (possibly at least) related to Cerberus' capture is covered (after a fashion) earlier in the article, in the section "Capture":

:In some early sources Cerberus' capture seems to involve Heracles fighting Hades. Homer (Iliad 5.395–397) has Hades injured by an arrow shot by Heracles.Homer, Iliad [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hom.+Il.+5.395 5.395–397]; Kirk, p. 102; Ogden 2013a, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA110 110]–[https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA111 111]. Panyassis [http://www.loebclassics.com/view/panyassis-heraclea/2003/pb_LCL497.213.xml F26 West (West, M. L., (pp. 212–213)] has "Elean Hades" being shot by Heracles. Compare with Seneca, Hercules Furens [http://www.loebclassics.com/view/seneca_younger-hercules/2002/pb_LCL062.53.xml 48–51 (pp. 52–53)], where Heracles brings back "spoils of triumph over that conquered king … subdued Dis". A scholium to the Iliad passage, explains that Hades had commanded that Heracles "master Cerberus without shield or Iron". Heracles did this, by (as in Apollodorus) using his lion-skin instead of his shield, and making stone points for his arrows, but when Hades still opposed him, Heracles shot Hades in anger.Schol. Homer Iliad 5.395–397 (Ogden 2013b, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Vv0Fxm6Amh4C&pg=PA66 p. 66]); Ogden 2013a, [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA112 p. 112]. Consistent with the no iron requirement, an early sixth-century BC lost Corinthian cup, Heracles is shown attacking Hades with a stone,Smallwood, pp. 96–97; Ogden 2013a, p. 111. while the iconographic tradition, from c. 560 BC, often shows Heracles using his wooden club against Cerberus.Ogden 2013a, p. 111.

:{{reflist}}

Here is what Ogden, 2103a, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA110 110]–[https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA111 111] says:

:”There were two broad traditions [of how Heracles got Cerberus]: either Heracles had to fight Hades for him, or Hades gave Heracles Cerberus to take away on condition that he could first master him. Homer knew the tradition that Heracles fought Hades, with the ‘’Iliad’’ telling that Heracles had contrived to shoot an arrow through Hades’ shoulder ‘in Pylos / at the Gate [sc. of the underworld]’²²⁴

::²²⁴ Homer ‘’Iliad’’ 5. 395–7, ἐν Πύλῳ, with schol. and Kirk 1990 ad loc.; cf. Homer ‘’Iliad’’8. 367–8, where Hades is himself described as πυλάρταο, ‘gate-warden’. Panyassis F26 West also spoke of ‘Elian Hades’ being shot by Heracles.

So Ogden believes that Il. 5. 395–7, is referring to Cerberus' capture.

Kirk, G. S. 1990 The Iliad: A Commentary: Volume 2, Books 5-8, ISBN 978-0521281720, p. 102, commenting on Il. 5. 396–7 is more equivocal:

:The scholia, drawing on earlier discussions e.g. by local historians of the Argolid, offered a variety of explanations: (i) the reference is to Herakles' attack on the Pylians, either (a) for supporting Orkhomenos against Thebes (T on 11.690) or (b) when he slew Neleus' sons at Pulos as recalled by Nestor at 11`.690-3 (bT on 5.392-4), the Pylians being supported by Poseidon, Here and Hades, according to the D-scholiast on 11.690; or (ii) the incident occurred when Herakles became angry with Plouton-Hades for his opposition to the removal of Kerberos from the underworld (bT on 595-7, cf. Σ on Pindar, Ol. 9, 33). Aristarchus (Arn(?)/T) evidently took 397 ἐν Πύλῳ as equivalent to ἐν πύλη, i.e. at the gate (sc. of the underworld), an interpretation supported by ἐν νεκύεσσι if this implies 'among the dead in Hades' (as when Helios at Od. 12.383 says he will go down to Hades καί ἐν νεκύεσσι ...) rather than 'among the corpses on the battlefield' (cf. e.g. 10.349 and ... of Ares at 886). Rhythmical criteria are ambiguous; ... The violent penetration of the underworld was an essential part of the mythical biography of Herakles, but the exact nature of the Pulos reference remains obscure. Pausanias (6.25.2) even assigned the incident to the Eleian Pulos, where Hades had a temple in his time.

Based upon the above sources, I’ve restored a qualified version of the deleted text, which now reads as follows:

:Homer does not name or describe Cerberus, but simply refers to Heracles being sent by Eurystheus to fetch the "hound of Hades", with Hermes and Athena as his guides,Homer, Iliad [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hom.+Il.+8.367 8.367–368], Odyssey [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=4783EB5441EA542B28D282C1BC90C00B?doc=Hom.+Od.+11.620 11.620–626]. and, in a possible reference to Cerberus' capture, that Heracles shot Hades with an arrow.Homer, Iliad [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hom.+Il.+5.395 5.395–397]; Kirk, p. 102; Ogden 2013a, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA110 110]–[https://books.google.com/books?id=FQ2pAK9luwkC&pg=PA111 111].

{{reflist}}

Paul August ☎ 12:10, 4 November 2017‎ (UTC)

Any objections to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for any thread older than say five years? Right now we have threads over ten years old. I'll give it at least a week before I make any changes. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

:Given I first asked about this over two years ago, I've turned on auto-archiving. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I invite editors to discuss the appropriateness of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cerberus&curid=6697&diff=982100207&oldid=982100080 this edit]. It appears to be an attempt to list every reference to Cerberus, without regard to the significance of each mention. In my estimation, this violates WP:IINFO, and possibly WP:NOR as well. A well-sourced prose section discussing Cerberus's significant appearances would, I feel, serve the article much better. DonIago (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:I agree that the new section is problematic for many reasons. As for a prose section on sources, the article already has a section on "Principal sources", which seems adequate to me. Paul August ☎ 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

::I find it amusing that editors in charge of such a woefully written article with much incorrect content would reject correct content.

::I thought editors were meant to give you a reasonable and logical reason for deletion of content. Just saying it is problematic does not make it so. You have given no reasonable and logical reasons...only the subjective use of the word problematic and fail to give any of the "many reasons". Saying you can block me is not a reasonable or logical response to the content that I put up and was deleted.

:: I have already alerted you to some content that is incorrect, which remains and probably wasn't even thought of as incorrect until I came along. Yet the correct content that I put up is deleted. So you keep incorrect content if it suits you and delete correct content on a whim. Very Orwellian. If you want to run Wiki like that then it is up to you. Best of luck.

:: If it this violates WP:IINFO, and possibly WP:NOR then state the clauses and the violation before you delete it. Not delete it without reasonable explanation. Why bother to put anything on Wiki when it can be deleted for no reasonable and logical reason? What an irrational system! Suffice to say you have put me off further posting. The editorial decisions seem more like subjective censorship without knowing the subject matter.

::That being the case it should remain up until somebody gives a reason why it should be deleted. At the moment you are just deleting stuff based on your limited subjective opinion. The article is based on a few of the many and varied classical literature sources. This limitation is why the article is such a shallow, incorrect, expedient, contrived opinion of people who write like students still in secondary school.

::I will wait for the editorial consensus and repeat the following:

::It is very useful to know the many and varied references to Cerberus when studying Heracles. We do not need another superficial piece of prose like those that already comprise most of the article. How about some unbiased truthful and useful information rather than shallow contrived expedient opinion. The entire article is in need of revision...the start of that revision is knowing most of the sources. Unless you want to make things up. Most of the Greek Mythology pages in Wikipedia are very shallow and some articles are really embarrassing. The list will beef up the content by showing interested people the many and varied classical source references.

::If the list violates WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR, then they need to be changed.

::Take for example the line in the article: "often referred to as the hound of Hades". What is "often" about three references to "hound of Hades" in 228 references. Another piece of made up information by somebody who has not read most of the classical sources. A list would help that.

::And "Cerberus was the offspring of the monsters Echidna and Typhon," which ignores "Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 22 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman epic poetry C1st BC to C1st AD)". Again a list would help with that. By the way, Ovid says Cerberus was "Medusa's monstrous offspring"...interesting to know!

::And what about...

::"An exception is the Latin poet Horace's Cerberus which has a single dog head, and one hundred snake heads."

::Well maybe in West's translation Cerberus has one hundred and one heads, but the authoritative Bennett translation "Horace, Carmium 2. 13. 34 ff" in "Horace Odes and Erodes" trans. Bennett 1901 p. 68 says the following:

::"Quid miruin, ubi illis carminibus stupens Demittit atras belua centiceps Auris, et intorti capillis Eumenidum recreantur angues?"

::i.e. "belua centiceps" is "hundred-headed" according to trans. Lonsdale and Lee in "The Latin Classics" ed. Miller Vol 3 1909. Quoting a less authoritative translation without knowing one of the authoritative translations is misleading. A list would help with that as well.

::Finally, let us not forget the line in the article:

::"Cerberus' only mythology concerns his capture by Heracles."

::which ignores the following myths:

::doorkeeper of the Styx: Silius, Punica 3. 35 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD)

::guardian of the Styx: Seneca, Agamemnon 13 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Agamemnon 13 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539), Silius, Punica 2. 552 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Silius, Punica 2. 552 (Silius Italicus Punica, trans. Duff 1961 1927 Vol 1 p. 100) Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)

::hellish porter: Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 3. 12. 29 ff (trans. Rand & Stewart) (Roman philosophy C6th AD), Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 4. 7. 19 ff

::warden of Lethe: Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)

::him who blocks the entrance to the Lethaean stream: Seneca, Oedipus 559 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD): Scholiast on Seneca, Oedipus 559 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1938 1917 Vol 1 p. 474)

::Echidnean dog: Ovid, Metamorphoses 7. 408 ff

::Tartarean dog: Seneca, Hercules Furens 649 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 844 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 540)

::Stygian dog: Seneca, Hippolytus 223 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 223 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539) Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 79 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 79 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539) Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 1245 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus Oetaeus 1245 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)

::That's quite a lot of myths to ignore.

::The writer obviously does not know of the many and varied classical sources for Cerberus. A list would definitely help with that. The rigour of the article is a joke. I am trying to increase the rigour without writing inane prose which we could all do without. Most of it has been already said and in much better English by the sources and scholiasts on those sources ...which I am listing.

::Please respond with a reasonable and logical argument before deleting, instead of citing possible breaches to WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR.

::Regards Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:Firstly, I would ask that you reconsider your tone. You're coming off as more adversarial than necessary, and I would ask that you assume good faith of your fellow editors.

:I'm not really sure what's unclear about what you've been told here...you inserted basically a laundry list of mentions of Cerberus with no critical analysis included, much less sourced critical analysis. When it was reverted you proceeded to edit-war in an apparent effort to force your additions through rather than coming here. More than one editor has noted that simply plugging in an exhaustive list of mentions of Cerberus is an apparent violation of WP:IINFO, which states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" and yet you're still asking for an argument to be provided. You may think that prose would be "inane", but prose is what would lend your list some context and indication as to how your laundry list is significant. I certainly have no interest in going through every mention you provided to determine which mention Cerberus in a significant way versus a one-off mention. If every one of those mentions is significant (for all I know they don't even mention Cerberus at all), then it should be easy enough to find sources that highlight them. I hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks for calling it a laundry list...how astute! Suffice to say I will not be posting further onto this Orwellian site. The couple of paragraphs I have read of your writing explain much about the standard of the article.

::If you apply some reasonable and logical thinking to the content I put up, then you will realise the list is divided into headings which are very relevant to the study of Heracles. With reference to "data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"...well the whole table is a very useful chronological listing of Classic source material for Heracles, and as such the explanation is contained in the list itself and in the chronological order of the list. This point is subtle and I fully expect you guys not to understand that. Very useful to those who really study Heracles, but problematic to those who edit Wiki. All references under the word contain that word...I thought that was obvious...you need have no doubt of that. I did not realise I was dealing with people of secondary school mentality.

::Well...have fun with the new Orwellian Wiki. This is me signing off from Wiki.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very useful to know the many and varied references to Cerberus when studying Heracles. We do not need another superficial piece of prose like those that already comprise most of the article. How about some unbiased truthful and useful information rather than shallow contrived expedient opinion. The entire article is in need of revision...the start of that revision is knowing most of the sources. Unless you want to make things up. Most of the Greek Mythology pages in Wikipedia are very shallow and some articles are really embarrassing. The list will beef up the content by showing interested people the many and varied classical source references.

If the list violates WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR, then they need to be changed.

Take for example the line in the article: "often referred to as the hound of Hades". What is "often" about three references to "hound of Hades" in 228 references. Another piece of made up information by somebody who has not read most of the classical sources. A list would help that.

And "Cerberus was the offspring of the monsters Echidna and Typhon," which ignores "Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 22 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman epic poetry C1st BC to C1st AD)". Again a list would help with that. By the way, Ovid says Cerberus was "Medusa's monstrous offspring"...interesting to know!

And what about...

"An exception is the Latin poet Horace's Cerberus which has a single dog head, and one hundred snake heads."

Well maybe in West's translation Cerberus has one hundred and one heads, but the authoritative Bennett translation "Horace, Carmium 2. 13. 34 ff" in "Horace Odes and Erodes" trans. Bennett 1901 p. 68 says the following:

"Quid miruin, ubi illis carminibus stupens

Demittit atras belua centiceps

Auris, et intorti capillis

Eumenidum recreantur angues?"

i.e. "belua centiceps" is "hundred-headed" according to trans. Lonsdale and Lee in "The Latin Classics" ed. Miller Vol 3 1909. Quoting a less authoritative translation without knowing one of the authoritative translations is misleading. A list would help with that as well.

Finally, let us not forget the line in the article:

"Cerberus' only mythology concerns his capture by Heracles."

which ignores the following myths:

doorkeeper of the Styx: Silius, Punica 3. 35 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD)

guardian of the Styx: Seneca, Agamemnon 13 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Agamemnon 13 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539), Silius, Punica 2. 552 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Silius, Punica 2. 552 (Silius Italicus Punica, trans. Duff 1961 1927 Vol 1 p. 100)

Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)

hellish porter: Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 3. 12. 29 ff (trans. Rand & Stewart) (Roman philosophy C6th AD), Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 4. 7. 19 ff

warden of Lethe: Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)

him who blocks the entrance to the Lethaean stream: Seneca, Oedipus 559 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD): Scholiast on Seneca, Oedipus 559 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1938 1917 Vol 1 p. 474)

Echidnean dog: Ovid, Metamorphoses 7. 408 ff

Tartarean dog: Seneca, Hercules Furens 649 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 844 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 540)

Stygian dog: Seneca, Hippolytus 223 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 223 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)

Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 79 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 79 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)

Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 1245 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus Oetaeus 1245 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)

That's quite a lot of myths to ignore.

The writer obviously does not know of the many and varied classical sources for Cerberus. A list would definitely help with that. The rigour of the article is a joke. I am trying to increase the rigour without writing inane prose which we could all do without. Most of it has been already said and in much better English by the sources and scholiasts on those sources ...which I am listing.

Please respond with a reasonable and logical argument before deleting, instead of citing possible breaches to WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{yo|Darylprasad}} Hi Daryl. Since I think this new section is problematic for several reasons, I've removed it for now. I've also noticed that another editor also removed this section, but that you've added it back three times. As you are a new editor, you may not know, but this is what we call "edit-warring" (please read WP:EDITWAR), and editors can lose their edit privileges, as a result of doing this. You are in fact already in violation of what we call the "the three revert rule" (See WP:3RR), and any administrator (like myself) could block your account. Because you are new, I've decided not to block your account, for now. But please don't continue to edit war, or you probably will be blocked. What you should do instead is to discuss your proposed additions with other editors, by joining the discussion already started in the section just above this one, until a consensus of editorial opinion is reached. Regards, Paul August ☎ 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

{{yo|DarthSiqsa}} We cannot add an "In popular culture" section unless the entries contained within it are sourced. Moreover, if we are to have such a section, we must have sources which indicate the significance of what is being mentioned there to Cerberus himself. MOS:POPCULT states that {{tq|[c]ultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist}}, and unless we had some source which somehow indicated that the appearance of Cerberus in the video game is of significance to Cerberus, we should not be mentioning it here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{yo|DarthSiqsa}} Please discuss your proposed addition here, on the talk page, rather than continuing to re-add it. Repeatedly reverting other users is called edit warring (see WP:EDITWAR), and can lead to you being blocked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::@Michael Aurel: In what way are you not edit warring then? DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::{{yo|DarthSiqsa}} On Wikipedia we have something called the three-revert rule (see WP:3RR), which states that {{tq|[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period}}. As you have re-added the section four times after it was removed by myself and another editor, you are now in breach of this (whereas I only reverted you twice). If you have material that you would like to be added in such a section, you can propose it here, though it is unlikely to be added unless it has sourcing which establishes some notability with respect to Cerberus himself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::I see. Would it maybe be a solution to create a seperate page for it (like I have seen for other articles) and just link that in "see also"? That way, someone that would search for Cerberus in popular culture could look there, meanwhile the main article stays focused on the mythological character. DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::You'd still need to provide a source that satisfies WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::Ok, but why? Seriously, if I can't find a source you find satisfying, why? Only in this article, people are that strict about it. In what way can a pop culture reference be ever significant to the mythological creature? You guys didn't even allow the Cerberus from Harry Potter or Disney from what I can gather from previous talks. A seperate page would solve that. And since it sadly is an indie game, the only sources I can add are the steam page for the game or its artbook. And obviously, since the artbook has to be purchased, that doesn't really work. So, should I just link the steam page or the creator's twitter account? And if I want to add other Cerberuses? Why should Disney or J.K. Rowling for example state "my Cerberus is based off of Cerberus from greek mythology" if it's obvious? DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Regarding the video game, if you cannot find satisfactory sourcing, then, sorry, but it shouldn't be here. As to appearances of Cerberus in those other places you've mentioned, we can have those in the article assuming that we have sourcing which gives some indication of their significance to Cerberus himself (in line with WP:IPCV). I would be hesitant to start a new page dedicated entirely to Cerberus in popular culture, unless we have enough sourcing to justify its existence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::So, does the game itself count as a source? It's free, so technically available to anyone. DarthSiqsa (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::No, the game itself doesn't count as a satisfactory source here. MOS:POPCULT states that {{tq|A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources}}, and the game itself is a primary source, meaning it is not sufficient here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::So if I get it right, if an article proves the connection between any Cerberus from any other work and the mythological one, if from a reliable source, it's good? DarthSiqsa (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sort of. If by {{tq|proves the connection}}, you mean that the source establishes that the depiction in question is of significance to Cerberus himself, then yes. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::By the way, don't think I'm against us adding some such section altogether, it just needs to be sufficiently sourced in line with the above guidelines. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Okay, I see, I might have also misinterpreted your use of the word significant. Like, the depiction has to be significant in a sense that it is a depiction of the hellhound Cerberus and not just something named Cerberus that has nothing to do with the mythological one or just vaguely references it, correct?

:::::::::::::Also sorry for asking so much, I don't wanna waste anyones time but it want to be able to add that category and try to avoid any future complications. And if any of my previous comments seemed in any way rude or passive-aggressive I apologize, it wasn't my intention. DarthSiqsa (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Precisely, It has to have significance to Cerberus. Glad to see you understand. And you certainly don't need to apologise for asking questions, thankyou you for being willing to discuss this in a civil manner. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thx, I will try to do that then, I know that the Cerberus I mentioned does have a true form that is the three-headed dog, I just need to find where that was officialy stated. And I'll try to put it on a separate article and link it (seems to be a common practice with mythological beings that have lots of appearances in fiction) with a bunch of other Cerberuses in modern media, probably on the weekend so I can take some time to do it. DarthSiqsa (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

{{od|15}} You mean creating a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article? Remember that everything you write needs to be properly sourced to secondary (or tertiary) sources. I've checked a few sources I thought might discuss representations of Cerberus in various media (the Brill's New Pauly supplements and the Cambridge Companion to Greek mythology), but I couldn't find anything which seemed significant enough for inclusion here. If you want to create a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article, we would need to see quite significant sourcing to justify that, and if you want to add a section here, it also needs to be well sourced. Maybe, when (or if) it's something you want to do, you could propose what you want to add/create on this talk page here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:I will look into it when I get to it. I just wanted to add that you might just look at a few other "In popular culture" articles for other mythological/religious characters. They are nowhere near as adamant about their sources, even if some of them are arguably more significant than Cerberus. That might just be my personal opinion, but you could probably delete at least a third of wikipedia if you are 100% following the rules letter by letter. But I will try to source as good as I can and the talk page seems like a good idea I might use. DarthSiqsa (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::Alright. I will add that most of those "In popular culture" articles are very inadequately sourced, and popular culture sections in articles often suffer from the same problem, but that is an issue with those pages, and doesn't change the situation here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::Also I checked the sections about verifiable and reliable sources and it was never mentioned the original work or statements by the publisher are not reliable, but that it depends on the context. DarthSiqsa (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::The relevant guideline is MOS:POPCULT, which says that {{tq|[a] Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources}}. Primary sources by themselves are not enough for the purposes of a popular culture section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I see why no one ever tried to do one before now. Well, wasting my time with that seems pointless, it's gonna get deleted anyway. There's instances where you should leave a little wiggle room and there's instances where rules must be strictly followed. But if admins on this article have to be so pedantic I can spend my time doing something else.

::::Thank you for your time anyways and I wish you a good day regardless. DarthSiqsa (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:::{{yo|DarthSiqsa}} Primary sources can be used for certain purposes. For example, a primary source can be used to establish the existence of the primary source itself. But, sources (whether primary or not) that merely establish the existence of a character named Cerberus in some other context are not enough. Nor is it enough to establish that a character is based on the mythological Cerberus. Rather, as several editors have tried to point out to you, what is needed are reliable sources which establish the relevance, significance, and notability of the character with respect to the mythological Cerberus. That some thing is true is not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, like every other encyclopedia, Wikipedia has certain standards governing whether some thing is noteworthy. Not every use of the name Cerberus, will necessarily be noteworthy enough to be included. For a humorous take on this see this [https://xkcd.com/446/ xkcd comic]. Paul August ☎ 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Yes, I see it. I will stop editing this article. DarthSiqsa (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No one knows 96.244.78.79 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

:No source says that Cerberus died. As our article says, according to Apollodorus, Heracles returned Cerberus to the underworld.Apollodorus, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=9AC4F2564ED0593B31146372FEC08E36?doc=Apollod.+2.5.12 2.5.12].

{{reftalk}}

:Paul August ☎ 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)