Talk:Maia

Maja

The note says

The alternative orthography Maja simply uses long i between two vowels, similar to Pompeji or Sequoja.

Especially since (for me at least) the accompanying "examples" are hardly familiar, would something like this be a less cryptic and confusing explanation:

The alternative orthography Maja reflects the Renaissance stage in the evolution of the letter J, in which it represented only a long-I vowel sound, rather than the consonantal sound that is J's predominant modern-English value.

Or am i somehow confused? (Well, i do know i'm confused about whether there is a distinction between the long-I and an ah-ee diphthong.)
--Jerzy•t 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are in operation.--Wetman (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm no linguist, this has to do with the behavior of intervocalic i; comparing the shift to "major" in English from Latin maior may perhaps be more illustrative for the general reader looking up the goddess than the sort of excruciating technical explanations favored by linguists. Maior was originally maiior. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Ma-ia /Ma= "mother" , ia ="earth" (in Luwian)

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses Böri (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sow-shaped wafer

Unless there is a reference, "a sow-shaped wafer might be substituted" sounds to me like nonsense. I would therefore eliminate it unless somebody has a source.

ICE77 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds like one of two things: either a modernized Neopagan ritual to avoid animal sacrifice, or, just possibly, the real deal, as cakes were often offered to ancient Greek and Roman deities. I can't remember whether they're ever in the shape of something this specific. There's a Wikipedian who might know, so I'll ask. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know if you find out something.

ICE77 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I did some preliminary checking when you first brought this up; it was suggested to me by another editor that Macrobius had something, but from what I saw, M. says only that a sow was the appropriate sacrifice, which is typical of earth and fertility deities. However, there are instances when cakes are substituted for animal victims, and sometimes cakes in the shape of something. "Wafer" I'd find dubious; "cake" less so. I'll spend a little time this morning looking, and if I find nothing, I take it you would agree that we should go ahead and delete it? Cynwolfe (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would delete it. Either way, there is no reference. I believe you already took care of it at this point.

ICE77 (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Article

Good job, now it says what Roman Maia is. However the detail on the lares praestitites should be expanded or WIseman's view explained.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you're right. I'm taking a break from WP (only checking my watchlist occasionally), and didn't get finished with this. The Greek section is also wanting. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Related links

Seems to be a broad pairing with related links. Please validate linkages are not simply to uprank referenced articles and actually have something to do with article here Phydroxide (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 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: consensus to move the pages as proposed, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

• Maia (mythology) → Maia
• Maia → Maia (disambiguation)

– The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A great many of the similarly named pages are based on the goddess, and this article outstrips them in pageviews. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy race of beings gets 57 percent of relevant traffic compared to 37 percent for the mythology subject, according this pageview analysis. At any rate, the proposal is certainly an improvement on the current situation. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't what to make of the 688 views a day that the Tolkien race gets. It doesn't seem to have any notability off Wikipedia: See Maia -wikipedia. Perhaps someone is using it as a test page. I picture a company somewhere with 700 computers that use Maia_(Middle-earth) as a browser homepage. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Or maybe 200,000 computers? Something interesting is going on: [1]. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe the tech people should look at and figure out where it's coming from. Off Wikipedia, February 10, 2018 was just another day.[2] Nine Zulu queens (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and long term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per long-term significance versus the goddess' various namesakes; and I think Tolkien would certainly agree that his use of the name in his own writings shouldn't be the primary topic versus the goddess. P Aculeius (talk) 12:57, 15 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.

Separate Roman Maia Page?

Currently I think the page's layout is a little confusing. The Roman Maia section is just kind of tacked onto the end, and there aren't any mentions of the article being about two separate deities until that section. I think Roman Maia should have her own page; she's definitely notable enough in the Roman pantheon and I haven't seen any other deity who has their Greek and Roman counterparts share a page.

I would be willing to create a new page for the Roman Maia if others agree it should be split. Lk.mer (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on the points about the article. Brill's New Pauly and the LIMC do treat the Greek and Roman goddesses under the one entry, though the Oxford Classical Dictionary and Grimal separate them as "Maia (1)" and "Maia (2)". The latter two sources also appear to consider the Roman Maia a pre-existing deity (or something close to it), who was identified with the Greek one. A well-written article probably could treat the two figures together, though my general preference in these sorts of situations is to disentangle the two figures into separate articles, and then discuss their "entanglement" from each perspective. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I also prefer when there’s two pages for the different iterations of a deity (as you could probably tell). I think I’ll start the new page and remove the Roman section on this one after I finish. What are your thoughts on the new page’s title? Would Maia (goddess) work? Lk.mer (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all. I would probably go for Maia (Roman goddess) (as the title which precisely refers to the article's subject). Once you've created that page, it would be worth considering how many of these links should point to the article on the Roman Maia. That rather daunting list is almost certainly greatly inflated by the presence of the current article in several templates (such as this one). This search should filter out such cases, and the search term "Roman" should exclude pages that are unlikely to mention a Roman goddess. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those links! I agree that clarifying she's a Roman goddess in the title is the best choice. Lk.mer (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)