Talk:MUL.APIN

Is there any good reason why the article have been moved from MUL.APIN without any good motivation except the nonexplanatory and hasty "Is there some special reason why this should be in all caps"? The very good reason for everything being in allcaps is that in cuneiform transcription, believed sumerian symbol names are in allcaps, while akkadian pronunciations is in lowercase. This mixed case form doesn't exist. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork3) 08:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I just found it strange that it was in all caps; I've never come across a Wiki article with a title in all caps before. If there is strong evidence from linguistic scholars that all caps should be accepted, by all means, move the article name back to all caps. Regards.--Pericles of Athens ^Talk 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, no big deal, however. Although also I find it odd why not Mul.apin? ... said: Rursus (mb_ork3) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

See the Babylonian star catalogues article for the answers.-(and Sumerogram)-(If one is going to understand the history, archaeology, etc, one has to put things in "categories", i.e. "sumerogram", etc.).. Mmcannis (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

The Article Sumerogram needs some clarifications: I'm going to request those at the talk page there. If I get it right then MUL.APIN is a sumerogram and belongs to that category... or? ... said: Rursus (mb_ork3) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

No, I change my opinion: I now believe I understand that article after some consideration. But now, MUL.APIN in Wikipedia, refers to some clay tablets, while in Babylonian times, MUL.APIN refered to a constellation, and then also probably to a plough, since the constellation MUL.APIN was imagined as The Plough, see my notes on the path of Enlil at Talk:Babylonian star catalogues, taken from the ref given above it. It actually has at least two meanings (three including the current one), does it then fit the definition of Sumerogram? ... said: Rursus (mb_ork3) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

MUL.APIN are two Sumerograms. The move was quite apparently done by an editor who was completely unaware of the concept, so I am moving it back. If there is an informed debate, aware of the Assyriological spelling coneventions, that again results in the decision to move, that would be another matter.

Of course anyone is welcome to comment, but it would be good practice to familiarize yourself with the questions involved before commenting. In this case, you need to realize what a sumerogram is, and that the title given to the text is an incipit. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

J. H. Rogers' interpretations on MUL.APINs path of Enlil (northern path) is:

In order to improve this article, I recommend a plain language title be substituted, or a subtitle added, (maybe in parentheses). Another improvement to the article would be an etymology/history explanation; for example, who/when was 'it' named after Mul. And what was this "dot.something" called before that time; perhaps that would be the substitute title or a subtitle. Perhaps more on where the old stuff has been, and maybe who has studied them in the ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mulapin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I propose to merge MUL.APIN into Babylonian star catalogues. I think that the content in the MUL.APIN article can easily be explained in the context of Babylonian star catalogues, and the Babylonian star catalogues article is of a reasonable size that the merging of MUL.APIN will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. pablohoney (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• Disagreed. The Mulapin is not just a Babylonian star catalogue and well-known texts deserve their own page.Haddarr (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose, MUL APIN seems to be notable by itself. Artem.G (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose, no! only the first list in MUL.APIN is a catalogue - a catalogue of constellations (not only stars). As shown in the content tables, the rest of the compendium contains information on calendar making and much more — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleAstronomer (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The image shown of MUL.APIN states "This exemplar shows that the tablet is unusually huge (as large as a sheet of paper) and the text is written in two columns." In fact, the image is from the British Museum (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1899-0610-108) which gives the dimensions as 3.25 inches in length and 2.375 inches in width - this is 8.2cm x 6cm, so is certainly not huge and not as large as a typical sheet of paper (which itself is a fairly arbitrary measurement). LeicesterChris (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]