Editing Talk:Titanomachy (section)

== Relation to [[Titans]] ==

How does (or should) the scope of this page interact with that of [[Titans]]? The first part of this article appears to be a synopsis of part of the Greek succession myth, and I don't see what the second section contains that couldn't (or, more likely, isn't already) covered by the page on the Titans. The relationship between [[Giants (Greek mythology)]] and [[Gigantomachy]] seems comparable, and in that case the two are covered by the one article. It's also worth considering that this article is &ndash; at the present moment &ndash; not particularly wonderful. &ndash; [[User:Michael Aurel|Michael Aurel]] ([[User talk:Michael Aurel|talk]]) 14:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, it might be appropriate to merge this article into [[Titans]]. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 02:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Sounds good. I've added a merge template to the top of both articles, meaning the discussion will be displayed at [[WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Article alerts]]. One question which arises is whether the redirect "Titanomachy" should point to the top of [[Titans]], or to the section [[Titans#Overthrown]]; if the latter target is chosen, it would be worth considering whether that section should be named "Titanomachy" (though it does appear to cover some events beyond the war itself).
::A broader question here, which I've been pondering for a while, is whether we ought to have an article devoted to the [[Greek succession myth]]. We should of course cover relevant parts of the myth at [[Zeus]], [[Cronus]], [[Titans]], [[Uranus (mythology)]],  etc., and summarise different versions of it at [[Theogony]], [[Bibliotheca (Apollodorus)]], [[Fabulae]], etc., but it strikes me that there isn't currently a place where it can be covered comprehensively, discussing all its versions (and perhaps interpretations of the story as a whole, however many of those there are). Such a page may well be double-handling, though (or in this case more like [[wikt:tredecuple|tredecuple]]-handling). &ndash; [[User:Michael Aurel|Michael Aurel]] ([[User talk:Michael Aurel|talk]]) 12:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would favor renaming the section "Overthrown" to "Titanomachy" (along with a rewording of the introductory paragraph), and redirecting there. Regarding an article on the succession myth,  I'm generally in favor of several articles presenting overlapping content from different directions, so I don't think "double-handling" is an issue. When ''I'' think of the "succession myth" I think of the ''Theogony''. There could be enough other content (and secondary sources!) to support an independent article, but I don't know. Alternatively the scope of [[Theogony#The succession myth]] could be expanded. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 03:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think that's roughly where I sit on things. The appropriateness of a separate article on the succession myth is probably a question for the (brave!) editor who takes on the challenge of giving [[Theogony]] a complete rewrite. Concerns about the eventual [[WP:SIZERULE|length]] of that article might end up playing a role. &ndash; [[User:Michael Aurel|Michael Aurel]] ([[User talk:Michael Aurel|talk]]) 12:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:Even if it's technically feasible to merge this article into "Titans", it's a fairly substantial topic on its own, and would be a candidate for splitting off if merged, which argues against merging.  Perhaps some of the related content from "Titans" should be merged here instead.  That the article isn't of the highest quality doesn't seem like a strong argument; improvement is an ordinary, if sometimes painfully slow process.  But presumably the same people who keep "Titans" in good order should be the ones working on this content, irrespective of whether it's here or there.  I also note—though it's not a particularly strong argument either—that both of these articles were created in 2002, and are among the oldest articles we have.  They were meant to be complementary, and both have grown substantially since their beginning.  So I'm not sure much would be achieved by merging them.  [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 15:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not opposed to keeping the two separate, if we can delineate the scope of each. I'm ''sympathetic'' to the idea that there might be value in approaching a topic from two sides, as long as each page includes unique content; I broadly agree with the philosophy Paul has expressed above about {{tq|presenting overlapping content from different directions}}. My concern is that in this case I'm not sure there's much (or anything?) that can be said about the Titanomachy that shouldn't be in the main article on the Titans. What are your thoughts on what each page should cover? &ndash; [[User:Michael Aurel|Michael Aurel]] ([[User talk:Michael Aurel|talk]]) 12:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I think that the two articles should be combined because of the fact that this article has a section called after the titanomachy [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-17301-36|&#126;2026-17301-36]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-17301-36|talk]]) 11:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)