Talk:Antikythera mechanism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Calibration date of the device

The second last paragraph of the introduction includes a sentence “In 2022 researchers determined the first date the machine could show was 23 December 178 BC.” This is referenced to an article in Ars Technica on arXiv published (so not peer reviewed) research (ref 22) and the primary arXiv article (ref 23). Both references refer to the “initial calibration date”, not “the first date the machine could show”. The Ars Technica article also mentions that other researchers disagree with this proposed calibration date, “summer 204 BC” being mentioned as an alternate date. This research isn’t explained in more detail in the main article. I am going to change the reference in the introduction to more clearly reflect the nature of the proposed date and the fact that not all researchers agree with it. The reason for the selection of either of the dates should be discussed in more detail in the body of the article. My expertise is not sufficient to explain in the detail required, so I’ll leave this to someone who is better versed in the subject. Ayenaee (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's prominent feature of the mechanism

Should we mention Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's inclusion of the mechanism, and if so, how? Brayman30 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

it's already there, see last sentence of Popular culture and museum replicas section. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of British English

This article claims to be using British English ("artefact" vs "artifact"), but uses American English in other places -- for example using "counter clockwise" instead of "anti clockwise". Can we be internally consistent? Herodotus419 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please reword everything to use British. 2001:9E8:4608:D500:F4A5:FA6F:5259:B007 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for causing edit conflicts just now...

Dear Tom,
I just realised we were both editing at the same time, thus causing each other to experience edit conflicts; I can only offer my apologies for my part in this: it seems we've had similar ideas about tidying up the references!
I will give you precedence and withdraw from editing for now, and will return when the field is clear; probably tomorrow. I will also setup the {{in use}} & {{under construction}} templates before I start, just to make sure.
My own objective is to consolidate all citations in a consistent style, similar to the approach taken in the article on the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (a featured article), for example, as I did a few months ago in the article on the Almagest. Initially, I tend to reorganise all {{cite}} parameters in vertical format, to make it easier to review them before applying improvements where required. Obviously, I will endeavour to support your own efforts in this area.
I hope this is OK with you? Thank you for letting me know, whenever convenient.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

[Message text copied here from my talk page:]

hiya, no worries at all! happy editing, Tom B (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)