Talk:Momus

Comments
What's with the "retirement" and "shot glasses" and "taxes" parts of the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.153.23 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a reference to "Momus" in the libretto of La Boheme I think. Anyone want to hunt it down? Wetman 08:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merger of Momos
As proposed by Heiko_A, I think that the article Momos should be absorbed into this one, and Momos to redirect here. I started a disscussion on the Momos talk page. Would appreciate any input. --VonWoland 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Parents
According to "Der Olymp, oder Mythologie der Aegypter, Griechen und Römer" by Prof. A.H. Petiscus (Berlin 1832, 5th Edition), Momos is the son of Morpheus. Sadly, he doesn't mention any sources. 93.215.35.144 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision
The policy of allowing the transfer of articles from the out of copyright 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was always a mistake, particularly in the case of this article. The EB style does not fit Wikipedia's, being often opinionated and unsupported by references. The language is old-fashioned, while scholarship has moved on in the century or more since those articles were written. In the case of the article on Momus, it was a disgrace even back then, being little more than a largely unconnected list of miscellaneous facts, to which editors here have added since without attempting to draw connections between them. This will explain the reasons for reordering some of the material, while omitting more trivial mentions. As per WP:MISC, not every occurence of the name is significant. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Georgian laughing philosopher
I added a sentence about a writer taking "Momus or the laughing philosopher" as his(?) 1779 nom de plume in Westminster Magazine or the Pantheon of Taste, one of a plethora of literary publications of that era for which we still don't have articles. It was reverted because I had not sufficiently explained its relevance. It might belong better in the comedy section than social satire, though it's a fine line. I don't see it as any less relevant than any of the other examples. Any objections to re-adding it? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:OFFTOPIC. The article is about the god, not those who assume his name. At the head of the article there are links to others who have used it. You would have to create an article about the writer, not just dump a random fact you've discovered into this one. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)