Talk:Erotes

Plan for DYK

• Lead (100 words?)
• Section on their general role. (100 words?) done
• Section with subsection for each Erote, using summary style. (50 words each = 200 words) done

• Lots of images to choose from, in individual articles. dene
• Media related to Erotes, Eros and Pothos at Wikimedia Commons

DYK:

• "that in Greek mythology, Aphrodite had a retinue of winged-Gods called Erotes"

• "the ancient Greek goddess Aphrodite's retinue included the Erotes, representing different aspects of love and homoerotic desire?"
• I like, "that the presence of the Greek mythological erotes in non-sexual images, such as of two women, has been interpreted to indicate a homoerotic subtext?" Gonzonoir (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far, if I think of anything I will add it in. Haiduc (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Erotes (mythology)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Nothing done to Erōtes (Lucian), as it is a redirect, but Erotes (Lucian) will be created as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Erotes (mythology) → Erotes
• Erōtes (Lucian) → Erotes (Lucian)

– Erotes is currently a dab, but it disambiguates only two article titles, Erotes (mythology) and Erōtes (Lucian). Erotes (mythology) should be moved because (1) it is the clear primary topic; and (2) erotes is also a term in art history for the visual motif of a bunch of little cupids, so the parenthetical disambiguator misrepresents the scope. Note too that Erōtes (Lucian) is only a redirect; the page is actually titled Amores (Lucian). Although Greek works are often known by Latin titles, I'm not sure that's still the predominate usage for this work. If it's decided that Lucian's page should be named Erotes (Lucian) (the macron isn't needed: who's going to search for it with that?), it not only seems less likely as the search _target, but also has a straightforward and sufficient disambiguator. Because only two pages are involved, no dab is needed: disambiguation can be accomplished with a "For" hatnote. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support this article seems to be the primary topic. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As long as the artistic motif is closely connected and reasonably covered in the article, there's no need to disambiguate here; the Lucian disambiguator should suffice. And macrons aren't normally used in western writing, except to indicate pronunciation. They should probably never occur in article titles from these languages (I believe they are widely used in some modes of representing Japanese in the Latin alphabet, however). P Aculeius (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true of Japanese. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I'm agnostic on the Ps.-Lucian title. Standard reference works will still generally follow the practice used in earlier treatments of Greek corpora, but I do remember at least one recent article that called it the Erotes.  davidiad { t } 12:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If Amores is more common for the title of the work than Erotes, that's more reason not to disambiguate. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, the OCD and New Pauly both still use the old corpus titles for Lucianic works. (I feel like I'm frowning at youths dancing to say I'm happy to see this and not "Loves". I'd drown my Lucian if this were the case.)  davidiad { t } 22:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, rational proposal with good rationale. — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.