Talk:Mušḫuššu

message: We don't know that the dragon from the additional book of Daniel was a Mušḫuššu. Also the Mušḫuššu has a history dating back much much further than Marduk, who came late in the evolution of the Mušḫuššu. To say it is connected to Marduk is like saying Native American mythology belongs to European Colonialists! True, the religion of Marduk assimilated the Mušḫuššu as a slave creature, but the religious leaders in Babylon appropriated many other religious icons for their own use with seemingly little understanding of the traditions extending back for centuries. I am busy writing the Ningishzida article right now, since the Mušḫuššu is a proper extension of the transtigridian snake gods, I will try to get to this article after Ningishzida is presentable. I just wanted to put a little "reader beware" here to let you know there is not a lot of reliable information here.
Ningishzidda (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and Assumptive 

message: ::Mušḫuššu isn't that dragon. It don't have any connection. Again, also is not easy to confirm a connection with Hydrus or with any other dragon: for example Mušmaḫḫu or the seven-head dragon or Lašmu have astrological conection but that doesn't make them Hydra. Also, the start of the article is a joke. And what about Transtigridian Snake Gods? and elamite roots?
Also the entire Cryptocrap section is irrelevant and non-encyclopedic.--Jakeukalane (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete, assumptive and with irrelevant sections

message: Why has this page been renamed? If it was so important to get rid of the special characters, couldn't it at least have been renamed to something approximating to the correct spelling of the name? BigEars42 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe such characters are not supposed to be used in titles. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Special characters can be used for titles. there is no rule to prohibit this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mušḫuššu renamed to Mushussu? 

message: A strangely omitted source on the sirrush is Koldewey's The Excavations at Babylon. One thing it has on page forty-six:  --tronvillain (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting find. I was actually unaware of this topic before encountering it by way of pseudoscience circles, but it appears there's the potential for a fascinating article here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: While I'm not strictly opposed to the bottom navbox, it's worth considering that not everyone's display of Wikipedia isn't the same. The sidebar navbox doesn't create any "ugly whitespace" for me with a 1920x1080 display (which is pretty common these days) and allows more than enough room for the article. It does push down the one image, but it's possible to tweak that (setting left rather than right, for example) and that becomes less relevant once an article expands. Plus, bottom navboxes don't display in the mobile mobile version, and the mobile version now essentially makes up half of all views. Personally I switch the desktop version even on mobile, but vast numbers of people don't. We don't have to cater to that, but it's worth keeping in mind. --tronvillain (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The side navbox does not appear in the mobile version either; in fact, there is no kind of navbox that I am aware of that shows up at all on the mobile version, so the part about the bottom one not appearing in the mobile version does not really make a difference here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I could have sworn it did. Neat. Still, the rest of it applies, though as I said I'm not strictly opposed to the bottom navbox. I do find the vertical one more readily accessible, and don't agree that it's inherently aesthetically displeasing. --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've removed the speculation about Mušḫuššu being related to Mulan's Mushu because neither of the sources given (one a baby name website!) support the claim even tangentially. If this was a joke it was a poor one. 2A00:23C6:B326:E901:E138:94FC:6A7F:A98E (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture section