User talk:Michael Aurel

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Greek deities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done -- a really worthy addition to the list, and I immensely enjoyed working with you on the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou, UC! The feeling is mutual, and I'm grateful for your guidance and encouragement throughout (without which the article mightn't have got to this point). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Bach's cantata was performed 300 years ago, by occasion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Today's main page has again memories of three people who died, for two just the name and for the third an image (great!) coupled with a little bit from her life which seems too little for my taste. What do you think? - A friend of mine sang in Verdi's Requiem at Trinity Church, - you can watch the lifestream (Verdi about 30 minutes into it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Very nice, Gerda. That hook is a bit out of my wheelhouse, but it seems (judging by this) that your preferred wording was indeed squeezed in, belatedly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was - better late than never. - Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, also a story about patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

thank you for updates to the FAC, - I'll look but not sure when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

... because today are anniversaries, 100 and 300: musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

all Verdi today: tenor Luigi Alva and the premiere OTD of his Requiem, see my talk - remember that early in the thread there was a link to a performance? - looking forward to what you think about my latest changes to the Easter Oratorio --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And just one year after the 150th anniversary as well (I've always loved Giulini's version with Schwarzkopf). (I'll hopefully get to replying at the Easter Oratorio FAC later today.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I brought it to OTD last year, - it's the laziness of that project that brings things back because nobody changes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I just found this short announcement of the Oratorio which I won't use as a ref because - while most is fine - it misses completely that Bach wasn't fueled by listening to Dresden opera to write his oratorios, at least not this one which was already composed then. It's phrasing is "It wasn’t until the mid-1730s that he became really interested in the concept of oratorios." Useful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've given that DYK a read, and I see how many times you had to repeat that it wasn't yet an oratorio in the 1720s! So yes, making it extra clear that he only became interested in that type of work the following decade could be helpful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, born 100 years ago, described by Alan Blyth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Ascension Day today, time for a service at a small church nearby and meeting friends. 300 years ago Bach performed a cantata for the occasion, with a rich use of brass and winds, and to the libretto of a woman. (The oratorio for that occasion came 13 years later, - great work, especially the closing chorus!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, incidentally, for your work on Interpretatio graeca. My experience editing on Celtic side of this subject has shown me how tricky the topic is (see Lugus#Caesar and Gaulish Mercury for a typically difficult example), and the difficulties involved in reducing such a practice to a wikitable. Happy editing, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenpop421. Syncretism indeed has many a pitfall, and I've wondered at least a few times whether reducing such a practice to a wikitable is really the best idea (though I suppose having a slightly less egregious table is still an improvement, regardless). I did also recently notice your deft handling of the topic at Lugus (with Greek religion, we at least usually have the advantage of knowing which deities it is we're talking about!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

From this, here not to derail. Re there isn't agreement (and there won't be) that the presence of an accompanying citation to a secondary source is necessary to indicate the relevance of a claim from a primary source. The issue with not requiring the presence of an accompanying citation is that it is not possible for the next editor to determine quickly which portions are or are not supported by a secondary source. This exact situation already came up in discussion earlier. Requiring it would have a huge benefit for maintainability. Ifly6 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ifly6: In that sort of situation, yes, I think we should be citing the primary sources such that it's clear they've come from a secondary source, and that all of the preceding text is supported by the secondary source. (Not doing so is particularly bad if the editor didn't actually read the primary sources before citing them, and later editors can also end up chopping things such that the secondary source and the text it supports are completely divorced.) I think there are others who disagree (or at least don't think it's necessary), but you can certainly try to convince them.

I'll also add that (as I'm sure you already realise) the quoted statement was referring to all claims from primary sources, so it would apply in other cases (eg., when we have a claim from a primary source which isn't repeated by any secondary source), and I think there are similar disagreements there. Not entirely sure what the solution is here; I think if/when/how/to what degree secondary sources need to be cited alongside primary sources when stating what those primary sources say is the main point of contention through the discussion (maybe even an RfC on this specific point would be appropriate?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think something such as Some editors believe that it would be undue weight to cite one of these sources without a corresponding secondary source demonstrating its relevance, strengthened as a recommendation rather than a statement of opinion, would probably be sufficiently justifiable as an interpretation or implementation of the WP:PRIMARY text in the context of the Graeco-Roman literary sources:

While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.

The first two clauses of the sentence seem to describe to me the summary issue that we discussed earlier. Exactly what "undue weight" means is something we should be able to determine. A cumbersome RfC procedure wouldn't be necessary; others, of course, could disagree. It wouldn't be something for the reliable sources noticeboard however, since the boundary of WP:NOR isn't a topical reliable source question. Ifly6 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

strengthened as a recommendation rather than a statement of opinion: Yes, I think we're basically in agreement then. My main goal with that original comment was to suggest that, if we have a choice between "Some editors believe ... [strong version]" and stating a less strong version (or equally strong version, if there is agreement with the original statement) in our own words, I would opt for the latter. As to an RfC, I was mindful that the number of editors consistently involved in that discussion was fairly slim, but I can see that starting one may simply lead to the same arguments being rehashed for the nth time, without bringing about any real progress. In any case, you've asked the question again there (I would like to refocus ...), so I'll respond there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be more compelling, I think, if you were to bring the matter of strengthening it to a recommendation on that page. Ifly6 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You think?. Paul August ☎ 10:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

(; – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

The places: a day full of great discoveries, culminating in Oliwa Cathedral which was called a must-see by Graham Waterhouse (subject of my first article, filling a red link) who played the organ once. Dinner right next to the Abbot's Palace, where Penderecki had also been a guest.

The story: Bazon Brock spoke at an exhibition at Kolumba to honour Anna and Bernhard Blume on her 80th birthday. Did you know "An Anna Blume"?

Easter Oratorio is planned to be on the Main page on 7 June. Would be nice to have questions resolved by then. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, if you're referring to the DYK, then whether or not the article is an FA yet hopefully shouldn't matter. I'll give responses today, and will try to crack on with the rest of the review once I get the chance (but I don't know we'll be able to resolve things by 7 June, and I think some others, such as UC, haven't got around to a comprehensive review yet). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Did I say FA? No, it just should be in the best possible form, meaning no open questions, if possible. UC wants to wait for you and me to complete, understandably ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I see, I really had no clue what you meant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio is on the main page, but of course told the story, which is admittedly complex, on Easter Sunday for the music's 300th anniversary. - Thank you for your creative reviewing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Nice! I will make sure to finish off the review when I get the chance, but I won't be especially active for the next week or so, and UC seems happy to resume their review, so that should keep the nomination rolling along. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died + I have a "defiant" cantata up for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

too many died, see my story and listen to Comfort ye (sung in German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not quite sure who's dying here, but let's hope it isn't the reviewers. ;) I've resumed the review, and will hopefully get through most of the remainder of the article over the next week or so. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

dying: my sad list, I keep forgetting that not everybody knows what keeps me busy here, more than Bach's works ;) - Alfred Brendel was especially hard, and should still be improved, - I'm ashamed that we didn't pay justice to him while he was alive. I'll get back to him, Joel Shapiro and then the review after real life, hopefully later today that is --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you today for Orphic Hymns, "about a rather unique survival from antiquity. The Orphic Hymns are among only a handful of ancient Greek hymns unquestionably used in a cultic context, and are the oldest surviving text from a genre known as Orphic literature (which consists of the works attributed in antiquity to the mythical poet and musician Orpheus). The Hymns were composed in Asia Minor, and were seemingly used as part of a private mystery cult; this, in conjunction with the general consensus among recent scholars that they are rather more "Orphic" than some earlier scholars gave them credit, makes them a tantalising piece of evidence for both Orphism and ancient Greek religion more broadly." - "... certainly the most effort I've put into a single page before; topics with "Orphic" in the title are somewhat notorious for being knotted and inscrutable."! - Enjoy TFA day! - We sing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed the traffic heading that way. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

...for your edits at Persephone. Instead of just reverting that edit, I wanted to make the edits you more-or-less have, but I just couldn't find the gumption, so thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem! (In the long run, that sentence should probably be replaced by something which mentions the presence of this parentage outside the Hymns – cf., for instance, Meisner, p. 183 – but the current sentence, sourced to Athanassakis and Wolkow, is fine enough.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

In the long run that article needs to be rewritten. Paul August ☎ 11:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your edit here and edit summary. I understand that article creators can be twitchy when "their" article is TFA, but this was not a good edit. It restored many instances of the meaningless fluff phrase "a number of", a "so-called", and more, and thereby diminished the quality of the article, in my opinion. I do realise that you restored a small minority of the edits I made, but I think if you're going to do a sweeping revert like this, you should be prepared to defend it in article talk. John (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that I've been "twitchy", or am unprepared "to defend [my revert] in article talk". I think I provided a satisfactory reason for my reversion, and I restored the parts of your edits that I thought were helpful. All very standard WP:BRD stuff. As you seem to have raised the matter in two places, I'll respond at Talk:Orphic Hymns. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to rant about authors who seem to think that their deathless prose cannot be improved on, but instead get to the point: "The Orphic Hymns seem to have belonged to/originated in a cult community..."

"Belonged" implies ownership. Given the murky origins of these hymns, I don't see that they can be described as "belonging" to anybody; it doesn't "sound" right. I chose "originated" as it seems they did spring from this community, although perhaps they were adopted by them. Another possibility would be to say "used" or "employed" or something like that. JingleJim (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they belonged specifically to that association, and that's the point we're trying to make there. We don't need to use "used", as we state that later in the sentence (used the collection in ritual). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@JingleJim: Can you provide a single substantive reason for why you think the passage should be changed? All you gave in your edit summary was a single word, "diction", and all you've stated here is that you think it doesn't "sound" right, along with the vaguely rude characterisation that I'm an author[...] who seem[s] to think that their deathless prose cannot be improved on. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Check out my talk, - if you have little time, listen to Gilda Cruz-Romo in the final scene of Aida, if you have more read her article, and if you have still more check out my music, some sung with me in choir, some played by friends, all heard with friends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you can listen to yesterday's concert of all Brahms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I remember a 2016 TFA in today's story, in memory of 16 July 1916. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory, with his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen you've renamed some articles I created following proper naming conventions. Truth is I mostly wanted to avoid a) too many parentheses and b) overly long titles, particularly in the case of women (due to 'daughter' being a long word). However 'X of Y' is a common convention for ruling monarchs as seen in other articles (ie Demophon of Athens, Ptolemy of Thebes etc). Hence I think the renaming of Callidice (queen of Thesprotia) and Comaetho (lover of Cydnus) were not necessary, as both are ruling queens. Deiadameian (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Deiadameian, those sorts of titles are perfectly fine, just as long the title in question is used (at least somewhat commonly) in reliable sources. On this, see WP:NATDIS. In cases where I've moved a page away from the naturally disambiguated title, I was unable to find a source which used that title. For example, while Callidice is indeed Thesprotian in Greek mythology, I don't believe there are any sources (or at least any meaningful number of reliable sources) which refer to her as "Callidice of Thesprotia". If you do think there's a case where an "X of Y" title I've altered is found in sources (and is used fairly commonly), feel free to reverse that move or start an RM. Length is certainly a consideration, per WP:CONCISE, but we really still need the non-parenthetical title to occur in sources for us to use it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thinking of you on St. Michael's Day: on top of The Company of Heaven and a Bach cantata, I show a collection of DYK around people called Michael on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your great work cleaning up and saving Chikunga from deletion. --Lenny Marks (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Lenny! – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, Michael Aurel! The list you nominated, List of Greek deities, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on your first FL. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Shwabb1! – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding this edit, I included the planetary association because other pages do the same (e.g. Uranus and Neptune). If, for the sake of consistency, both the post-classical planets were removed from their name-sake deities, I would not object. But if not, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't stay for Caelus-Uranus. If the reason is just that the article doesn't mention the planet, that could easily be fixed. Demeticus (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Demeticus: Hi! Yes, the concern was that the article didn't mention that the Roman god was associated with the planet. The relevant guideline here is MOS:IBP, which states that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. I couldn't tell you exactly when this parameter should (and should not) be used, but I think it's reasonable to restrict it to cases where the association existed in ancient times. As the Greeks and Romans only knew of five planets, I've removed this parameter from Uranus (mythology) and Neptune (mythology). Also, while in this case your concern was reasonable, in general I wouldn't get too worried about trying to make information consistent between pages (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts One year! ...

Precious

One year!

Close

Thank you for giving us more featured content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! It's difficult to believe it's been a full year ... – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Michael. I just wanted to thank you for the incredible work you have done on Wikipedia on articles regarding Greek mythology and religious practices, and how you strive to remove incorrect or badly sourced "facts". Your work on the List of Greek deities in particular was simply astounding. I hope my comments in the FLC were helpful, and you really should feel proud of the work you did there.

It's great keeping track of your work here, and especially with your recently-created Cult of Zeus article. I'm excited to see you work further on that, and plan on helping in any way I can, when the time comes.

May I ask why you chose to work on an article of the cult of Zeus, specifically? Was it out of practically (it having the most sources available) or you simply prefering Zeus over other deities? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, PanagiotisZois. Honestly, that list article wasn't too bad (most of it is based on one or two dozen major reference works). As to "why Zeus?": I'd love to rewrite every article about a Greek god – as would we all, I'm sure, in our respective areas of interest – and I can't think of a better place to start. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be nice if I could get every article relating to things like Final Destination or the X-Men to FA status, but I think that's too tall of an order for me to do. XD

Greek and Roman mythological deities are also figures I'd like to work on, but I think I'd prefer to take on something relating to a relatively minor figure; kinda like the Amaltheia article you worked on. She's a figure that doesn't have a huge role in mythology, and no presence in cult activities, so I'm guessing it was easier to write a holistic article about her, compared to trying to do the same thing with a figure like Zeus. There mere fact you're working on a "Cult of Zeus" article already shows you couldn't possibly fit EVERYTHING there is about him in a single page.

Having said that, working on a major mythological figure is something I'd like to do, if I were to focus on a particular aspect of them. Like, "Depiction of Aphrodite/Venus" in Latin texts and how they differed from her depiction in earlier Greek texts; or how they may have influenced Greek authors later on. Something like that.

Anyway. Again, I hope your article goes well, and I can understand why Zeus is one of the best places to start. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good: there are plenty of neglected Greek mythology articles out there, and any help is appreciated. If you are indeed interested in trying your hand at some, Template:Greek mythology (deities) and List of Greek deities are good places to look for more approachable ones. Brill's New Pauly and the Oxford Classical Dictionary are generally the best sources to start with when researching a particular figure, and Gantz's Early Greek Myth and Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology are two particularly useful handbooks. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Thank you for the sources! I think a figure I'd like to work on is Hermaphroditus. I actually remember coming up with a theory sometime ago as to how he ended up coming into existence, but I have not idea if I was accurate or not, lol. I guess with some of these sources, I can figure it out. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

BTW, since you've read so much on Amaltheia, there's a question that I would like to ask you that relates to her. The kouretes were basically the dancing soldiers that protected Zeus during his infancy in Crete; I actually knew this as a kid from a book. However, on Wikipedia there is no separate page for the kouretes, with it linking instead to the korybantes, who were instead associated with Cybele from Asia Minor. Based on the source you're read on Amaltheia, do you think there is enough material to have a separate page just for the kouretes? Part of my apprehension about doing this, especially since I'm not all that knowledgeable on the subject, is that as far as I'm aware, the kouretes appear only in mythology and not cult practises, so it's possibly that they were just a variation of Cybele's korybantes.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't see an issue with having two pages. My general philosophy on such matters is that similar but distinct figures should be treated in separate articles, which discuss those similarities and distinctions. (For example, I'd argue that Silenoi should be its own article; the linked page unfortunately treats silenoi as identical to satyrs). If we continue to cover the Kouretes and Korybantes in a single page, it should probably be titled "Kouretes", as that's the more common name. (Not that it matters much, but the Kouretes did in fact have a fairly substantial cult: see the sentence starting with Their cult was spread across Crete at List of Greek deities#Groups of divinities and nature spirits, and the source cited there.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If you've got the time for a longish article (and an above-average tolerance for Virgil), I've got Golden Bough (Aeneid) up at FAC. I'd be grateful for any thoughts you may have on it, particularly on the material about antiquity itself -- it's the sort of thing that sounds like it should have some connection to Orphism, but so far I've failed to find anything concrete (beyond the fact that both have an unusual fondness for shiny yellow stuff). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. It isn't really my area, so I doubt I'll have anything particularly insightful to say, but I'm certainly more than happy to have a look. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was just coming here to ask some questions about the removal of my section in the Artemis article. You said that I needed to cite a reliable source, when Hellenion (in my opinion) is a very reliable source for matters on the modern worship of the Greek gods, due to it being an official religous organisation.

Could you let me know your reasoning about why you think Hellenion is not a reliable source? I am open to different perspectives,

In the meantime, I will probably put my section (with Hellenion as a source) back.

Have a great day :)

- TheWikiEditor3000 TheWikiEditor3000 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheWikiEditor3000. A pleasant day to you too. This was the source you added. For Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source", see WP:RS; sources should be reliable, independent, published[, and have] a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For a subject like Greek religion, we generally stick to scholarly works written by academics and published by a reputable presses (OUP, Brill, De Gruyter, and the like). It's generally also best if the source is WP:INDEPENDENT (which an organisation dedicated to the revival and practice of Hellenic polytheism won't be). Regards, Michael Aurel (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

On 7 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curlew sandpiper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the small curlew sandpiper (pictured) respects neighbour territories when chasing intruders away? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curlew sandpiper. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Curlew sandpiper), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 12:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose, but I definitely didn't write this! (I was simply the GA reviewer.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I have recently been trying to increase my knowledge of classics so that it can reflect in my reviews of articles on the topic. I am, after all, a teenager with no background in the area.

Do you have any suggestions for where a beginner might start? I would also be happy to review the prose of any articles you intend to take to FAC. Thanks. MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MSincccc. If you'd like to learn about classical topics, your best bet is probably to pick up a book aimed at readers with no background in the subject. In my area of interest (which is, broadly speaking, Greek religion and mythology), Bremmer's Greek Religion and the books in Routledge's "Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World" series fall into this category. What area of classical studies are you interested in? It's a vast topic. If all you're after is a source which explains concepts you encounter while reviewing at FAC, the entries in an encyclopedia such as the Oxford Classical Dictionary will probably suffice.

If you're referring to Amalthea (mythology), thanks for the offer; I think I'll go ahead and nominate it once I've fixed up a few things. Feel free to review it at FAC. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will try to read those after my examinations. My interest in classics stems from the articles I have reviewed on the topic at FAC and GAN.

Looking at a few users, including yourself, I thought that brushing up my knowledge would help me provide more thorough reviews, rather than simply checking for typos, unidiomatic phrasing, or redundancies. Meanwhile, I might take a look at Amalthea and make minor revisions, if necessary, if you don't mind. Thanks again. MSincccc (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you can make changes if you like (as long as they're nothing too controversial). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you intend to complete the FAC nomination of this article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Yup, sorry. I got midway through writing the introduction before something came up in real life. Sorted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Having just seen this, I've briefly taken a look at the changes you've made to this article. I may have a comment or two for you somewhere, but for now, very impressive! Paul August ☎ 16:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I've received a fair bit of advice already (I woke up to 30,000 bytes!), but please do jump in if you have some comments. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

...for this. I had looked at that IP's edit, and since I couldn't find support for that removed phrase on the cited p. 178 of West (or anywhere else), I let that removal stand. So I was well and truly puzzled to see your undo. I was just about to undo your undo, when I decided I should instead take a look at West again. And at first I still couldn't find it ... until I realized I was looking for "endangered" instead of "engendered"! So I guess I need new glasses. Paul August ☎ 15:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem. "endangered" by earth and water would certainly be interesting! – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello - I noticed that you've had some edit history on the page Eryx (mythology). I've created a fuller article on Eryx, the king. But I'm not 100% sure if I should be creating a new Wikipedia page or if I should be taking over the Eryx (mythology) page and adding a hatnote on the other Eryx. You can see what I've been working on here: my sandbox draft. It will be amazing to get your opinion before I do anything. Kned Wiki (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kned Wiki: Thanks for working on that new article. At first blush, it looks good to me. Eryx (mythology) is a set index article, meaning that it lists each Greek mythological figure named "Eryx", but doesn't cover any in detail. If any of the figures listed there are notable enough for their own article (and that is evidently the case for this Sicilian king), a separate article can be created and a link added to their entry at the set index article. Compare how things are done at Medusa (mythology): the Gorgon Medusa is the only figure named "Medusa" who is worthy of an article, so the first entry at the set index article links to Medusa. If you're looking for some other sources on this figure, the following ones might be handy: The Virgil Encyclopedia, s.v. Eryx; RE, s.v. Eryx (2); LIMC, s.v. Eryx; Hard, p. 266; Grimal, s.v. Eryx (see also the list of primary sources Grimal provides in the back of his book). Wilson's Sicily Under the Roman Empire, pp. 283–285, also appears to discuss this figure, though I don't have access to it. I'd also be happy to provide some more specific comments on the article's content, if you like, before or after you've moved it into mainspace. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks too for pointing me to the other sources of information. I'll definitely take a look at them.

I thought the same as you about the Eryx (mythology) page, but when I took a look at wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q430157) I noticed that Eryx is defined as the king and links to 23 Wikipedia language pages, including the English Eryx (mythology) one. This is the main difference to the Medusa (mythology) page, which has no other alternative language versions.

On the disambiguation page on the English wikipedia for Eryx, there's also only a single link to the Eryx (mythology) page with a description of the king. Once on the Eryx (mythology) page, the short description is: King of the city Eryx in Sicily. All of this seemed to point toward Eryx the king taking over that page and perhaps moving the information for Eryx, one of the supporters of Phineus, to the disambiguation page Eryx.

It will be great if you could think about this while I work on adding additional information to the article from the sources you provided. I'll let you know when I'm ready for you to take another look. Thanks again for your help! Kned Wiki (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem. What I think has happened here is that the page was once upon a time only about the king of Sicily, before someone (correctly) separated out some information about the other Eryx. Years later, another editor turned the page into a set index article, but must not have updated these descriptions of its contents. I've fixed the entry on the DAB page and the short description, and I imagine it shouldn't be too difficult to fix the Wikidata page once you've created the new article. I think Eryx (king of Sicily) is probably the best title for your new article, though I'll admit I've always found the naming practices employed at these set index articles rather strange (how is the reader supposed to know that "Medusa" is about the Gorgon but "Medusa (mythology)" is about multiple figures of the same name?). Thanks again for starting up the new article, and let me know if you'd like any further help. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello - Those additional sources you gave me did produce a few new insights, which I've now included. If everything looks okay to you (feel free to edit if you think something needs to change), I'll publish the page as Eryx (king of Sicily) and attempt to attach it to the Wikidata point. Kned Wiki (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it all looks good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Brilliant - I've published it. I managed to change the Wikidata routing. Most of the important mythology pages (e.g. Venus) are protected and so I can't reroute the hyperlinks to the new page on the king. If you have permission to edit those, it will be great if you could help direct the links to the new spot. Thanks again for all your help! I came to this topic out of interest in the town rather than mythology...but it's being educational and entertaining to learn about something new! Kned Wiki (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kned Wiki: Nice! I think I've sorted out all of the remaining links. I doubt we have anyone else with a specific interest in Sicily-related topics, so please keep up the good work! – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Kned Wiki (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MA. I managed to get my hands on a copy of Lehmann's Mythologische Prachtreliefs to see what he says about the so-called Amaltheia relief in the Vatican. If you're interested, I can send you a PDF of the relevant pages. It's a curious discussion in some respects, since he acknowledges that the infant satyr must be a satyr, not Zeus, but he still considers the possibility that the nymph wearing the ivy crown might be Amaltheia. I don't see the point of this, since the only reason anyone ever suggested that she was Amaltheia is because they mistook the child for Zeus. If you start from the knowledge that the child is not Zeus, what reason is there to even consider identifying the woman as A.? The horn itself is not diagnostic, since it appears frequently enough in Dionysian scenes, as well as in connection with other unrelated figures (e.g. Tyche/Fortuna). It's as if he was trying to find some reason to sustain the old identification, but wasn't able to do so. Anyway, if you want me to send you his discussion, you'll have to send me an email first, since I don't think the Wikipedia email system allows attachments.

In your comment at FAC I thought you implied that you had forwarded Sinn's description of the relief to me. Did I misunderstand you? If you did, I didn't receive it. Note that the gmail account I use for Wikimedia purposes has the user name choliambos, not choliamb (to my great surprise, choliamb was already taken!). Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Choliamb. It's interesting to hear that Lehmann leaves open the possibility that the female figure is Amalthea. Sinn's approach is similar, and I found it somewhat surprising; she even mentions the genealogy from Diodorus Siculus as a possible Dionysian connection. Regarding the PDF, I did send it (from michaelaurelwp@outlook.com to choliambos@gmail.com on 23 March). Assuming it isn't somewhere like spam or junk mail, it must not have come through. I've tried sending it again. In case this second email doesn't come through, I've also sent you a message through Wikipedia's "Email this user" function; try replying to that, and I should be able to attach the PDF in a return email. Thanks for offering to send a PDF of Lehmann's discussion. I'd be most interested to read it, and would be very grateful if you'd be willing to send it through. Thanks, Michael Aurel (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was languishing in the spam folder. I've got it now, thanks, and I've sent Lehmann in return. Given the cautious approach taken by both of them, it seems I overstated the case when I wrote that there is a consensus among modern scholars that the relief does not depict Zeus and Amaltheia. There is certainly consensus that the infant is not Zeus, but it is accompanied by a strange reluctance to take the obvious next step and conclude that the woman is not Amaltheia. I find this puzzling, and I still believe it's better not to include the image in the article, but if you want to restore it (along with a clear statement that the child is not Zeus), I wouldn't object. For the record, I'll add a note to that effect to the FAC page. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Today is the last day Easter Oratorio is on the main page, - did you know that the article became FA because I was sooo frustrated that neither DYK nor OTD accepted it for Easter last year, the 300th anniversary, and you helpd in the process - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's FA is Bridge, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge, adding to Chain bridge and Müngsten Bridge, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page, Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Bill Ramsey whose regular Swingtime I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, she was. Lovely to see that she was on the main page. I was saddened to hear of her passing. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Michael. Firstly, I wanted to congratulate you on the promotion of Amaltheia. It is always great to have an article relating to classical mythology be promoted, and I did find this figure to be interesting.

Since you're kind of an expert on this topic, I wanted to run something by you. I was thinking about the goddess Prosperpjna, and started a discussion on her talk page. Basically, I'm wondering if there should even be a separate article on her, or if information about her should be moved to a section of the Persephone article in a section along the lines of "Worship in Rome". What do you think? PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Roman religion isn't really my area, but I don't see an issue with separate pages. It's worth noting that the article also covers Libera, who was sometimes identified with Ariadne. In general, the relationships between Greek and Roman counterparts aren't always as neat as the ancient Romans (and Greeks) would have us believe. I'd also keep in mind that we only have so much room at Persephone. If you're looking for a source about Proserpina herself, Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Proserpina, might be useful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess that's not something I had taken into account. Although Proserpina's name and mythology seems entirely taken from Persephone, how her figure was formed is something to take into account; as you said, the amalgamation of Ariadne, Libera, and Persephone into one figure. Plus, although I haven't done any reading on this topic, it would be interesting to see if the cult of Proserpina was in any way different to that of Persephone.

Thank you for your help, Michael. I truly am in awe of your work, and really happy that someone like you is working on Wikipedia. I also want to thank you for the multiple sources you've directed me to. They've been really helpful on a personal project of mine that I'm working on. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I wonder if when you have a spare moment, you would kindly be able to lend a review to Dimitri Mascarenhas at FAC? Thoroughly enjoy your reviews, so hope you don't mind me asking!!! Cheers, AA (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll have a squiz. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Just a courtesy message to let you know I've pinged you at a WP:ANI thread about إبراهيم جبر 1996's behaviour (not concerning your behaviour), but that of course you're free to ignore it. R Prazeres (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look at it, but probably won't get involved. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 10 June 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it up for TFA, and will do. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)