This template is within the scope ofWikiProject 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 ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This template is supported byWikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach toMythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editingthe article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit theWikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide tonovels,novellas,novelettes andshort stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to thegeneral Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.For how to use this banner template, see itsdocumentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Odyssey is part ofWikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and completemusical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the template attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre
This template is part ofWikiProject Theatre, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage oftheatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the template attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvideo games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsongs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related tomedia franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
As one of the oldest works of literature, adaptations are never going anywhere, but presenting these as directly material to theOdyssey dilutes the box's actual purpose: grouping encyclopaedic entries on the Homeric text.O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a great film, but is it as related toOdyssey asEnglish translations of Homer? I don't believe so. How important isEpic: The Musical to the Odyssey? In my view, not at all.
I believe the navbox should group together articles directly related to the Homeric poem and not include adaptations. Adaptations can be tracked via the dedicated categories:
Other targets for removal include Wiktionary links (i.e.,Homeric Laughter), "Phrases" (In medias res,Between Scylla and Charybdis) and the many, many paintings. These should be incorporatedinto the article and linked in that style.
I generally think that big navboxes like this are counterproductive – how many people actually look through the several hundred links included in a navbox this size?O Brother, Where Art Thou is at least described by our article as "loosely based on" the Odyssey – our article on the filmCold Mountain (film) doesn't even mention the Odyssey once, and the bestthe novel gets is "shares several similarities with Homer's Odyssey". I've put a slightly trimmed version in my sandboxhere, which cuts out the most obviously tenuously connected stuff (modern media described as "sharing similarities" with the Odyssey; stuff which is really about the Iliad) but really I would be happy to trim it much more radically than that.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)12:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of these, especially things like the paintings,Epic, andO Brother, Where Art Thou (i.e.O Brother seems a definite Keep for this navbox, both a homage and a step-by-step chronicle reflecting theOdyssey).Cold Mountain, not so much, and I don't think theOdyssey is even mentioned on the page (and the navbox is not used on it), so that one at least should be removed. Navboxes feature paintings of the subject, nothing unusual, or broken, in their being linked.Randy Kryn (talk)12:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are directly related, not tangential (unless you count everything besides the original manuscript as tangential). Films (but ditchCold Mountain), paintings, plays, etc., reflect and culturally enhance and bring-forward the original. Navboxes are a map to Wikipedia's collection on the subject, and this one has both stood the test of time and usefulness.Randy Kryn (talk)13:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I saidon my talk page, I'd support removing all (or at least most) of the cultural references here.WP:NAVBOX encourages keeping these kinds of templates from including too many links, and recommends sticking to a taut, well-defined list of articles. At a minimum, I think that if a reference isn't mentioned atOdyssey#Legacy, it shouldn't be mentioned here. Something around the size of ImaginesTigers' proposed version seems much better to me. –Michael Aurel (talk)13:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Aurel, your comment seems to argue against itself. The Legacy section you link to includes most of the entries in the navbox except the paintings (and since subjects of paintings are routinely and correctly added to the navbox maps they could, and should, be added to that legacy section as well). The concept of navboxes, one of the excellent features of original Wikipedia, allows for the full topic map.Randy Kryn (talk)13:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing it, please consider adding the paintings. It fits the page well. As for the navbox discussion, please take a look at hundreds of other navboxes, the use of popular culture links within them is as old as the concept of navboxes themselves. There is nothing broken here, although your work to focus is appreciated. You mention theDracula navbox, that one is well-stocked with popular culture (as it should be). Popular culture is just about the only way people remember the primary topics, Dracula would not be Dracula without the films, and the same concept exists for older works such as theOdyssey.Randy Kryn (talk)13:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "at a minimum". I'm counting a bit under 60 works which are mentioned here, and around 20 which are mentioned atOdyssey#Legacy; including fewer than around 20 works here would be a significant reduction. I think it would be best to include far fewer works than this (either none or a careful selection), this is the just the upper bound I'm suggesting. –Michael Aurel (talk)13:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do support removing any subject from the template that presents no content related to seminal work. If the page does not mention and link to Odyssey it does not belong on this template, because the point is to link it to subjects that have related content. Whether a subject is listed atOdyssey#Legacy, is a bit arbitrary. The point is to determine where there is confirmed/verifyable content related to this subject. I believe that all works "adapted from" should remain in the template. Due to the template's size, some consideration should be made regarding "inspired by", "loosely based on" works should be examined on a case-by-case basis. It would be ridiculous to point to a loosely based upon work as a reason why an adapted from work should not belong. A belief thatO Brother, Where Art Thou is not directly relevant is not grounds for removal ofThe Odyssey (1997 miniseries). Prosifying the whole template because of a FAC nomination is not very logical to me.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)21:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion for change is not related to FAC; that isn't on the cards right now. I was saying it is arbitrary to use the adaptation section as a guide because it would completely changeif I did FAC, not that a navbox was going to be proseified. —ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)21:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "Whether a subject is listed at Odyssey#Legacy", what I mean is: could the cultural reference, in the relevant article, be sourced in aMOS:POPCULT-compliant manner (as it should only be mentioned in that section if it is)? The idea is also not necessarily to replicate that list here, but rather to make sure any reference which wouldn't make it over that bar isn't included (I think it would be preferable to have a much more restrictive list than that here). –Michael Aurel (talk)21:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of templates should not be based on any article-space bar related to a distinct list article. Contents of templates should be based on whether the template is connecting to content that is relevant to the reader, regardless of article space rules. It should not be up to the template editor to assess references in dozens of articles. They should assume the content in articles is valid and assess whether that content is something that should be connected via navigation to the seminal subject.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)22:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm not suggesting we use this as the criterion for inclusion. As I've made clear above, I think we should include no (or very few) cultural references here (and by "very few", if this helps to clarify, I mean under five, probably). All I've said is that, at aminimum, if a cultural reference isn't significant enough to discuss atOdyssey#Legacy (and that section should only contain references whichare of significance to the work itself; if it doesn't, that should be rectified), then it isn't significant enough to mention here. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance it seems to me that the number of popular culture references is excessive. Omit them. Boxes like these should serve navigation, not drown people in links.Ifly6 (talk)01:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers,TonyTheTiger, etc., an error in the navbox, imo, is that a few sections should go above the cultural mentions. Study, Translations, and Phrases should follow the Character section. Typically I'd just move them, but since the navbox is under discussion thought I'd add that into the mix and ask participants if those moves seem like a good idea. Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)01:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the "Films", "TV", "Prose fiction", "Poems", "Stage", "Music", "Paintings", and "Video games" sections, I would assume (except for any ancient works, of which I count three). –Michael Aurel (talk)10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then saying chop some because there are a lot is not very logical. For some multimedia franchises/seminal cultural works there will be dozens (maybe 100+) related subjects that include content related to the franchise and some will only have the bare minimum (3ish) related subjects. Inclusion is based on whether the navigation leads to instructive encyclopedic content, not whether you are able to count the number of links with all your fingers and toes. Beyond that some templates get split because of transclustion technology limits.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)21:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a merge. That template is so small, there is no point in having the contents split up. It was previously proposed at that temp's talk years ago, but nothing came of it then.Trailblazer101 (talk)16:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only merge in topics that mention Odyssey in the article. This isn't just a list for fun to mention related things. This is a navbox to link to related content. If the element of this navbox does not mention Odyssey don't add it.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)21:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Some of those links are either already included here or not directly pertaining to the Odyssey itself. Regardless, it serves no need to exist separately. I can make the merge but will wait for others to respond.Trailblazer101 (talk)21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. It certainly doesn't make too much sense to have a separate template solely for that purpose, especially since almost half of the links there aren't actually to locations. Perhaps not every link needs to be transferred (and some are already here), but at least the locations which are known primarily from theOdyssey should be moved here. –Michael Aurel (talk)03:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As there seems to be general agreement that the two don't need to be separate, I've merged them. Happy to discuss if someone disagrees. –Michael Aurel (talk)01:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
