Talk:Charon

Also active on the Nile river?

In thisdigitized book from 1698, written by a Dutch traveller Cornelis de Bruyn he writes, while on his way to the Pyramids from Cairo (or what he actually referred to as old-Cairo?) and while crossing the Nile river:

Oorspronk der fabel van Charon ’t Gevoelen is aldaar dat die vermaarde schipper Charon hier ter plaatse zynen dienst waargenomen zoude hebben, want de beeken van den Nyl meent men dat aan de oude Egyptenaren stoffe hebben gegeven om de fabelen van de helsche vloeden te verdigten + daar Charon de zielen, nadat ze uit de lichaamen gescheyden waaren, overzette. Die nauwkeurig over dit land hebben geschreven, meenen dat de fabel daaruit spruyt, dat de lichaamen hier aan den anderen oever wierden overgebracht om in of omtrent de pyramiden begraven te werden.

Which chatGPT translates into:

The belief there is that the renowned ferryman Charon would have performed his service at this location, as it is thought that the streams of the Nile provided the ancient Egyptians with material to fabricate the fables of the infernal floods, where Charon ferried the souls once they were separated from their bodies. Those who have written diligently about this land believe that the fable originates from the fact that the bodies were transported to the opposite bank here to be buried in or near the pyramids.

comment

Regarding this sentence near the end of the Charon entry: “The dwarf planet Pluto's largest moon is named Charon, and while not directly named after this figure, it did influence the choice.[10]” A minor (?) grammatical note: What's the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in that sentence?

One web site (among many) has this to say about the name:

Christy’s first thought was to name the new moon in honor of his wife, Char (short for Charlene), but the established international naming rules for astronomical objects prevented this. However, fate intervened: while looking through a book on Greco-Roman mythology, Christy was amazed to discover that the name of the ferryman who piloted dead souls across the River Styx and into Pluto’s realm was named Charon. The name was ideal, melding the official nomenclature requirements with his desire to honor his wife.

Perhaps something could be drawn from that and cited with a reputable published source (?).NickStuy (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to this article for info about Charon Himself and found this section a little puzzling. There is a cite, albeit to only one article (the same article cited - as far as I can tell - by every other website that tells the 'Charlene' story). So I'm not sure what I can ask for that would ease my doubts on this - I must presume that one cite is good enough. It's just that the 'Charlene' story (with all due respect to the lady herself) strikes me as a little implausible, given the already well-established convention of naming planets and moons after figures from mythology. Venetia Burnley named Pluto (the planet*) because of Pluto's (mythology) role as god of the (supposedly) dark and cold Underworld.

At best, it seems a pretty powerful coincidence if Christy just happened to settle on 'Charon' because it was a 'scientific-sounding variant on his wife Charlene's nickname', and only then discovered the mythological connection to Pluto. The simple coincidence of four letters would have been more realistic: are we sure that the article cited (which I can't access) isn't saying he chose Charon because the mythological name bore a similarity with that of his wife? - Silvensis (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (* I make no secret: I'm one of the "It's an Unnecessary Distinction" crowd.)

corrections and additions re Dante and Michelangelo

I went ahead and deleted the phrase describing the obolus, which is not in Dante, and added a clarifying sentence to explain why Michelangelo depicts Charon in the Sistine Chapel as a demonic figure beating with an oar the souls in his boat. Also clarified the claim that Charon is the first named figure in Dante (by saying first named mythological figure). Dante sees and names Virgil in canto 2.NickStuy (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Error regarding Dante

Re: Dante Alighieri also described Charon in his Divine Comedy. He is the same as his Greek counterpart, being paid an obolus to cross Acheron. Not so! Dante makes no reference whatsoever to an obolus. His depiction of Charon is based on Virgil's depiction in Aeneid Book 6. Dante knew no Greek and there were no translations of Greek literature (where Charon appears) available to him. (At most he had medieval summaries of authors such as Homer (where Charon does not appear). I will leave it up to those interested in this entry to make any corrections, but suggest the sentence in question be deleted. More detail might be added by reading Inferno canto 3.NickStuy (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I am in search of pictures or images of Charon. I want to have my guitar airbrushed with Charon's image. Please email me with pics or links at: the_bellwitch@yahoo.com

Thank you!

If anyone can supply a primary source for the parentage of Charon being Erebus and Nyx, please let me know at jonnewman@yahoo.com

Acheron vs. Styx (mythology) .... I see references to both vis a vis where Charon plied his trade. Can someone provide evidence one way or the other (Wikipedia itself seems in conflict). dml 03:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica, a non-academic but pretty well done site, claims that Charon is usually said to have ferried souls across the Styx, but that this is a misconception. There's no source, though, so it's not authoritative... Tuf-Kat 07:27, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

From Virgil's Aeneid 6.322: “Anchisa generate, deum certissima proles, Cocyti stagna alta vides Stygiamque paludem, di cuius iurare timent et fallere numen. Haec omnis, quam cernis, inops inhumataque turba est; portitor ille Charon; hi, quos vehit unda, sepulti." (“Son of Anchises, offspring of the gods, Yon are Cocytus and the Stygian stream, By whose dread power the gods themselves do fear To take an oath in vain. Here far and wide Thou seest the hapless throng that hath no grave. That boatman Charon bears across the deep Such as be sepulchred with holy care.) Stygian equals "Styx" Text and translation from the Perseus Project. CaveatLector 02:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Britanica reference

According to the Encycylopedia Britanica Online Charon escorted dead souls across both Acheron and Styx. There is no indication of which work uses which River, nor which river is first referenced.

Plagerized

This whole article has been copied from encyclopedia.com's article on Charon. Shame on this "author"...

Pronounciation?

--Greasysteve13 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Sharon. Therequiembellishere 01:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had a cite for that. I'd like to add the pronunciation guide here. Anyone have a decent source? --GPa Hill (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is pronounced like karon, although it is sometimes mispronounced like the name sharon. Incidently, when James Christy discovered Pluto's largest moon, he named it Charon because it kept in line with naming astronomical objects after mythological figures, and also because it was spelt like his wife's name abbreviated (I think her name was Charlotte?), although they aren't pronounced the same way. ArdClose (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

River God?

In D’Aulaire’s Book of Greek Myths, there is a river god with the same name, though it doesn't mention a connection with Styx, in fact, I believe it gives an entirely different river. Any takes on this? Therequiembellishere 01:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Davy Jones

In POTC:At Worlds End, It seems as if Davy Jones has Charon's Job, Ferrying the dead to their final resting place. Could this be included in the "In Popular Culture section? EbeneezerSquid 10:18, 29 June 2007 (CST)

Meta-wiki

Congratulations on citing wikipedia in a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.129.130 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

God of War Section

Um, I think the section is a little long, and should be relocated to a pop culture section. Anyone agree?--Romulus (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Para. 3: "to and fro" - or "to and from [destination]"?

In the third paragraph, I edited "to and from" (prepositions missing an object) to "to and fro" (idiom meaning "back and forth") [2008-05-16T22:43:58]. However, it would make more sense as "to and from [destination]" if the error was an omission rather than a misspelling. Does anyone know if the "to and from [destination]" version would be more accurate/appropriate, and if so, what [destination] should read? Memetics (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unkempt Mourning

As I understand it the reason that Charon is unshaved and generally a bit grubby (at least in the Aeneid) is because Romans had a tradition of going without washing or shaving for several days to mourn the recently deceased. Since he's eternally ferrying the dead back and fourth, Charon is an eternal state of mourning. At least that's what I was taught Darien Shields (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy

Was he or was he not the son of Erebus and Nyx (Nox)? The article gives the impression that it can't be known, while other online articles (like encarta or even wikipedia in different languages) state as a fact that Erebus was his father. 86.34.187.2 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the Nyx (mythology) article, it says Charon was the son of Nyx and Erebus. Why does this article imply genealogy is unknown? ArdClose (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you check the source cited? When I followed the link (to Googlebooks), the book loaded but not the page intended; try searching the word "genealogical" when you get there. I'm the one who changed the sentence and added this link because I couldn't find any substantiation of the Erebos and Nyx genealogy. If you check out Sourvinou-Inwood's book online, you'll see that she made an extensive study of Charon, and you may be able to follow her sources if you're interested. I traced Erebos as the father of Charon to one of Smith's 19th-century dictionaries, but I can't find anything else to support that. The passage is given at Theoi.com on the Charon page (here); since Smith is rarely flat-out wrong, I assume there's a source somewhere, some Alexandrian or Byzantine mythographer, or some cousin to a Gnostic, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless it can be verified, and as it stands, Smith's passing reference doesn't outweigh the more thorough and extensive treatment of Charon. As FOR other encyclopedias, an encyclopedia is not a source, it's a reference work. Not to be a smartass, but it refers to something -- and in Smith's case this time, it's unclear what. Online encyclopedias often just cannibalize each other and replicate misinformation (as is the case with many, many references online to Charon's obol being placed on the eyes, which is never what the ancient literary sources say and which is only rarely, and then often dubiously, supported by any archaeology, at least for antiquity or the medieval era). Theoi.com, which gathers sources with admirable care and abundance, gives Erebos and Nyx as parents -- but none of his primary-source passages confirm this either. Nyx is never mentioned in the passages quoted; the two sources who mention Erebos don't say or imply that Charon is his son. The WIkipedia article on Nyx does indeed say that Nyx was the mother of Charon, and seems to say that Hesiod's Theogony is the source. I'm not finding that in my translation, nor in the discussion of the Children of Night in my particular text. I don't have a Greek edition at hand, but will check further. The text of the Theogony is particularly troubled, and that may be the source of the problem; the entry in Smith may be based on a neglected reading. My solution, therefore, was to note a work of scholarship from the 1990s that focuses at length on Charon; although some of her interpretations of the meaning of Charon may be open to criticism, she is a methodical researcher of sound scholarly credentials. I'm sorry this has disturbed a number of people, and will be happy if someone can find actual sources for this proposed genealogy. It's possible this is from a poet of a later era, which then should be distinguished as a literary construct rather than an integral part of Charon's mythico-religious meaning in antiquity. I didn't expect the information to be so elusive, actually. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't turned up Charon among the Children of Night (Nyx); however, the disseminator of the notion that Charon is the son of Nyx and Erebos appears to be a handbook called Dictionary of Ancient Deities online. Although no less than Oxford University Press is the publisher, this is a very general book that treats world mythologies, and I see no indication of where they got this genealogy. My distinction between reference works and sources applies. I still think the specialist work by Sourvinou-Inwood carries more weight, and the lack of any citation of a primary source is suspicious, but when I have the chance to get to the library I'll check Pauly-Wissowa, which ought to give the ancient sources if they exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Coin in mouth, not eyes

Charon's obol was placed in the mouth or on the lips of the dead person. The passage from Callimachus cited in the footnote specifies the mouth (read it in English here, with the Greek available on the previous page). No literary source in antiquity mentions coins on the eyes. The archaeological record produces very rare and disputed instances of a pair of coins that may have been placed on the eyes, but this is not certain. Please see the article on Charon's obol for a thorough discussion of the evidence; see especially the section Coins on the eyes?. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I agree with this statement, it is known that Catholics took this practice and tweeked it. They would place a bribe to a ferryman, one coin on each eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.67.170 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm

I'm really not sure how to add references, but on here, its etymology is "fierce brightness": behindthename.com pretty interesting, imo. HoopoeBaijiKite 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

“References in popular culture” section

Where the hell did “In popular culture” section go? And why? It looks like it was deleted by User:TallNapoleon on 2009-05-06 and replaced by “In astronomy” section, without any argumentation of such a major edit. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

trapped if you take his oar thing?

Is this the same character who, if he could get someone to take his oar or something, they'd be trapped into taking his job until they could trick another person into it? Or is that someone else?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

I'm not convinced of /ˈkərɒn/ - surely you can't have a stressed schwa in English. Dictionary.com gives /ˈkɛərən, ˈkær-/, is that a good enough source? Lfh (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't Pay The Ferryman?

Was Chris DeBurgh referring to Charon in that song? Shotguntony (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I came here thanks to the article appearing in Unfriended 2: Dark Web and from diamondbolt's review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:4080:6F10:921:F0:495A:27ED (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus, supported by the evidence, is that the mythological figure is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC despite the presence of the moon, another topic with considerable long-term significance and page views. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

• Charon (mythology) → Charon
• Charon → Charon (disambiguation)

– Don't really see what other "Charon" could be the primary topic. The moon was clearly named after the god - so were most other things on the disambiguation page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I actually think the moon is the primary topic. All the planets like Jupiter and Saturn were named after mythological beings, but the celestial bodies are still considered the primary topic. A lot of the moon/mythology articles seem to be disambig pages, but there are some exceptions like Enceladus where the moon is set as the primary topic. I'd actually prefer we move all the moons to be the primary with a hatnote redirecting to the mythology article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Charon has had a significant impact in culture long before the moon was named, such as appearing in The Divine Comedy. In the case of Enceladus, not so much. When talking about the primary planets of the solar system it makes sense to have them as primary topics, but in this case I'm not convinced._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support First of all, the moon is obviously named after the ferryman of the dead from Greek mythology, which, in itself, serves as strong evidence in favor of the mythological figure's greater significance. Furthermore, Charon the ferryman is far better known than the moon of Pluto and he has a strong presence in both literature and popular culture. Most people searching for "Charon" are going to be looking for the mythological figure. If you compare the number of people viewing each article, this article consistently receives more than twice as many page views as the article about the moon. Yesterday, this article received 915 views; whereas the article about the moon only received 403. The highest number of views that the article about the moon has received in the past four months was on 19 March when it received 790 views; on that same day, this article (the one about the mythological figure) received 1,075. There has not been a single day when the article about the moon received more page views than the article about the ferryman of the dead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The ferryman gets nearly twice as many views as the moon. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE, strongly - PLEASE DON'T. The moon has a whole lot of long-term significance - possibly even moreso than the mythological figure. The mythological figure only has a 65-35 pageview ratio against the moon, which isn't necessarily enough to be the 100% obvious primary topic. It would be strongly preferred to have the disambiguation page at the main basename to direct users to the correct page. 1 out of every 3 people looking for one of the two Charon pages would be looking for the moon's page, which is way too high of a number to give the primary to the mythological figure. Not everyone who knows about the moon knows about the mythological figure, and vice versa. It's best in situations like these to leave it how it is and keep the dab page at the main basename. It's been this way for a while, and it's worked perfectly well. Just keep it the way it is; it's fine. (Also, as an example, see the situation with the Mercury disambiguation page, and the recent discussion on Eris - there wasn't a consensus there, even on an article where the mythological figure Eris is even more of a major figure than Charon the ferryman.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paintspot: You do realize that, if we make the mythological figure the primary topic, we will have a hatnote at the top of the page linking directly to the article about the moon, right? We have to pick primary topics sometimes, or else every search would lead to a disambiguation page. Here, we have a case where the mythological figure is clearly and obviously the primary topic. Charon, the ferryman of the dead, was making major appearances in vital works of classic literature, including Aristophanes's Frogs and Dante's Divine Comedy, millennia before anyone even knew Pluto existed, let alone that it had moons. Even today, Charon is still a significant figure in popular culture. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of people who have heard of the moon will also at least be aware that it was named after the mythological figure, even if some of them do not know much about the myths surrounding that figure. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if ~40% of the people in this discussion are still opposing the move, then it must not be too clearly and obviously the primary. (Also, Pluto the mythological figure, was also making major appearances (if not more so than Charon the ferryman) in vital works of classic literature before the planet was discovered, but the planet Pluto is still the primary for that basename.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paintspot: Please read my explanation below. Your comparison with Pluto does not hold up, in my view, because there is a huge difference in significance between a planet in our solar systems that every child learns about in first grade and a moon that the vast majority of people have probably never heard of. There are hundreds of moons in our solar system and, of those moons, the only one we can be certain every educated person is bound to know of is our own (although I suspect quite a few people probably also know about the two moons of Mars). The number of people who know or care about the moons of Pluto is certainly much lower than the number of people who care about Pluto itself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support a namesake should always be primary. Being named after something else is proof of long-term significance. -- Netoholic @ 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I believe a case has been made here for a primary topic by both historical importance and interest. bd2412 T 16:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not that much more likely than the other topic, and many of the links to the disambiguation page are intended for the moon (most from the reference desk are). Peter James (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peter James: What do you mean "many of the links to the disambiguation page are intended for the moon"? Of the thirty pages linked on the disambiguation page, the only one relating to the moon is the single link to the article about the moon itself. I do not consider one article to be "many". On the other hand, if you click on the links on the page, almost all of the articles listed explicitly state that their subjects are named after the ferryman of the dead (including, I might add, the article about the moon, which has a whole section about the moon's name). --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Links to the disambiguation page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Charon), not links from the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If there were any misplaced article links to that dab page, they are gone now. -- Netoholic @ 21:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Links from other namespaces can be relevant, and here I think they are, because people are linking to "Charon" expecting it to be the moon. Peter James (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Their expectations are not something we could possibly know. Haploidavey (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support The enduring figure of mythology and literature, not the obscure, briefly publicised planetary body named after that figure. Haploidavey (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." This is the case here. Paul August ☎ 13:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the moon is named after the mythological figure, it's extremely relevant in its own right - to the extent of being "more important" and perhaps more referenced than the "original". The examples of Jupiter and Saturn are on point; celestial bodies are among the most important possible topics out there. Even if it was to be granted that they are similar in importance, or possibly slightly preferring the mythological feature out of it being the original, the many other topics on the disambig page make the argument for a disambig page being the primary pretty strong. This is basically like Mercury where both the planet and the god are extremely relevant, but neither is really primary. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• The comparison with Jupiter/Saturn doesn't fit this topic - it was the observations of visible planets like Jupiter and Saturn which inspired the mythological stories being created to explain their presence and movements. Charon, on the other hand, is was certainly not observed by ancient peoples, and was named in the modern age after a "supporting player" in the mythology. The comparison doesn't quite line up. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• That isn't that important, IMO. "Primacy" routinely gets overruled when the "original" isn't clearly more notable / relevant than a successor. The ancients had no idea Pluto existed, but the planet beats out Pluto (mythology), correctly IMO. It's less clear-cut here since the mythological character has more page views, hence the disambig page winning, but the moon is still an extremely important topic with high long-term significance and a lot of page views in its own right. SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you're into space topics like me, this may come as a shock, but the moon has no significance to almost all humans. It is a thing, that exists, and there is data gathered about it by a handful of humans, but that's all. It has little long-term significance as we are unlikely as species to gather resources from it, populate it, make technological discoveries because of it, or even visit it apart from a single space probe. So let's please not overinflate its value with hyperbolic language. The mythological figure, though, is part of a mythology which is studied by every college student and it lends its name across a wide diversity of real-life things people interact with every day. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Regarding your comparison with Pluto, I think there is another flaw that Netoholic has not pointed out, and that is that there is a huge difference in significance between a planet in our solar systems that every child learns about in first grade and a moon that the vast majority of people have probably never heard of. There are hundreds of moons in our solar system and, of those moons, the only one we can be certain every educated person is bound to know of is our own (although I suspect quite a few people probably also know about the two moons of Mars). The number of people who know or care about the moons of Pluto is certainly much lower than the number of people who care about Pluto itself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the mythological figure is the primary topic. Vpab15 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vpab15: Do you have any reason why you think that? Have you read my explanations above? --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have done a quick google search, and at least for the news the results have more references to the moon. Most of it is related to the relatively recent New Horizons probe, so that might change in the future. But for the moment it seems the wider internet is more evenly split than the Wikipedia view count suggests. Vpab15 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"a quick google search" is probably the worst method in the world to test for long-term significance. Not only does the sample size fail to include literary and reference resources from anything older than the last few years, but the results can be tainted by Google algorithms that display topics of interest to you, and your guess is also tainted by your internal biases. Citing the news results is nothing more than WP:RECENTISM. Consider that we're coming off a peak of interest in Pluto-Charon, and yet the mythological figure is still twice as likely to be viewed here, and that gap will only grow as the news cycle moves on to other topics. -- Netoholic @ 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Long-term significance clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire and the WP:D example case Mercury. Dekimasuよ! 01:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Charon has long-term significance as a mythological figure (and not nearly as obscure as some of the others included in the associated move proposals; even non-classical scholars know who Charon is), and while technically Charon isn't a deity (I think deities ought to have primary status over their namesakes), I'd still apply that principle in cases where the namesake doesn't appear to be the primary topic. I understand the argument that if two articles have similar page views then neither should be primary, but I think that principle should yield when the subject of one is clearly named after the subject of the other. The case is only strengthened when the original bearer of the name has significantly more page views, even if not in the kind of ratio that would make this discussion unnecessary. P Aculeius (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

As with Talk:Endymion (mythology)#Requested move 7 April 2018 there are many questionable arguments above, see my comments at that other RM. Here I'll just annotate the nom's rationale:

Don't really see what other "Charon" could be the primary topic. The other possibility is that there's no primary topic, in which case the DAB should stay where it is.

The moon was clearly named after the god - so were most other things on the disambiguation page. True but irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Unfriended

So This Page appears in Unfriended 2: Dark web so Nice 2601:644:4080:6F10:98AC:21B7:4AE9:9A0F (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikitalee02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nikitalee02 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BundlesofRoses013 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bella088.

— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)