This is actually a knotty problem. The position of Pandora in the genealogy is to some extent up for debate. The Wikipedia genealogy is based on M. L. West's reconstruction in his 1985 book The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. I based the genealogy in my earlier post on fragment 5 M-W, a three-line quotation from the relevant passage, which goes
And in the halls of noble Deukalion, the girl
Pandora to Zeus, father of gods and commander of all,
having sex with him, bore Graikos who rejoices in battle
(Apologies for the contorted phrasing: I'm sticking to the line divisions in the Greek.)
"In the halls of noble Deukalion" could mean either that she was his daughter or his wife. West prefers the former. As a result, he is committed to seeing the text of fragment 2 as corrupt: this is a piece of second-hand testimony, and the manuscript reading goes
Because Deukalion was the son of Prometheus and Pandora, Hesiod says in book 1 of the Catalogue; and because Hellen was the son of Prometheus (or Deukalion) and Pyrrha, which is where we get the names Hellenes and Hellas.
West's preferred emendation changes this passage to read
Because Deukalion was the son of Prometheus, Hesiod says in book 1 of the Catalogue; and because Hellen was the son of Deukalion, and Pyrrha the daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora. This is where we get the names Hellenes and Hellas.
I am separated now from the edition I was using earlier today, but IIRC it stuck with the manuscript reading for fr. 2. I imagine (but cannot check) that it had to emend the text of fr. 4 as a result of that choice: that's another piece of second-hand testimony where the manuscript reading goes
Deukalion, in whose time the flood occurred, had Prometheus as his father; his mother was Klymene, according to most, but according to Hesiod she was Pryneie.
It's impossible to reconcile the manuscript readings of frs. 2, 4, and 5 at the same time, so at least one of them must be corrupt. But which of them is it? That's an editorial choice. West is pretty confident that both frs. 2 and 4 are corrupt. I'd prefer to see a more conservative attitude to the manuscripts, and IIRC that's what Glenn Most's edition does (that's the edition I was using earlier on today).