Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Cistercian numerals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Cistercian numerals

(
)
A concordance for the word aqua using Cistercian numerals for page numbers
A concordance for the word aqua using Cistercian numerals for page numbers

Created by Kwamikagami (talk). Self-nominated at 22:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: QPQ exempt. I have linked Cistercian in hook 1. Paragraphs 2 and 3 under section "Form" lack inline citations. Kwamikagami, once those are added, the nom will be good to go. Ergo Sum 05:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Same source for the whole section, but I added a second that summarizes it. Thanks for the review. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Good to go. Ergo Sum 20:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't understand the public-domain license on images scanned from a 2001 book. This image, in particular—was it King's own drawing, or was it copied from an ancient manuscript? Thanks for explaining. Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a photocopy of the manuscript. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. But we need an inline cite for the hook fact in the article. This sentence needs an inline cite: were developed by the Cistercian monastic order in the early 13th century at about the time that Arabic numerals were introduced to northwestern Europe. Otherwise there is no mention of it being an early competitor to the Hindo-Arabic numerals, and if the article doesn't mention this 1325 date, it can't be in the hook either. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean copy one of the refs into the DYK blurb? — kwami (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean add an inline cite to the sentence in the article that confirms the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, refs weren't duplicated when para was split. That's been fixed. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Kwamikagami: I don't understand what you did here. The King book has no page number. The hook facts mentioned above are still uncited and, in the case of the year 1325, unmentioned in the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll dig up the page number.

As for the date, the digits cover numbers in the range 1–9999. That's mentioned several times. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That's done. 3 pages that discuss the co-occurrence of the two systems, along with Roman numerals.

Reg. you asking me to read 'cited hook', you can't be objecting to the date 1325 not being given as a specific example, can you? You've hinted at that before. Because that would be, well, there's no polite word. But just in case, I've changed the date to 1323, which is given specifically. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Any date example that you're giving in the hook needs to be mentioned and cited in the article. How can I say this any more simply? I don't see 1323 in the article either; could you point it out to me please? Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's near the btm of p. 34, but really, your quibbling is in violation of WP:BLUE. If we have a RS that someone was born in 1950 and died in 2000, we don't need a source that they were alive specifically in 1975. Likewise, if we have a source that this numeral system can write all numbers between 1 and 9999, we don't need it to specify all of those numbers individually. That would be a ridiculous constraint to place on sourcing. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page 34? In a source? I'm talking about the Wikipedia page. Where does it appear on the page that you wrote titled istercian numerals]]? Honestly, I'm trying to promote this to an image slot and you're treating me like garbage. If this goes up the way it is, it will immediately be flagged at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put the date in the article, but really, people shouldn't have to edit the article to target DYK. And if they don't, if they usually just lift a line out of the article verbatim, then no wonder the DYK snips are usually so inane that they're not worth reading. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I guess, but now that we've wasted all this time adding a source that the sky is blue, you decide we shouldn't mention it at all? I really don't understand the issue. Any year date we used would be supported by RS's, so we could pick any one we liked, and now the WP has the same year date as this blurb, and is specifically supported by the source. So why change the blurb now that it's the way you want it? — kwami (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  • ALT0a good, and not ALT0. If nothing else, there isn't any relevance to highlighting one random year - instead of a different year or a list of years - so I would find the inclusion in the hook baffling. ALT1 also seems fine, no preference. Rest of review per @Yoninah:. Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cistercian_numerals&oldid=995102982"