![]() | Cistercian numerals has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 8, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Cistercian numerals appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, refs weren't duplicated when para was split. That's been fixed. — kwami ( talk) 23:16, 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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
How .. interesting. Will review shortly. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Ealdgyth: I think I've addressed your concerns. Re the dates, the system was developed in the 13th c but used from the 13th to the 15th, so that's not inconsistent. Some of our centuries are spelled out, some use digits -- does that matter?
The page Earwig found was created after I'd submitted this to GA. It does mention substitution ciphers, which King covers but I didn't think noteworthy. Perhaps it was cribbed from the online Unicode summary or number generator that we have in External Links? — kwami ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, someone started converting them but didn't finish. I spelled them out. — kwami ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Are they really more compact? For it seems to me that they still use 4 symbols for 4 digit numbers but use a 2x2 grid and a connecting stick instead of a 4x1 row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter20 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Ciphers of the Monks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The first image includes 9393, but labels it 9394. Correcting an image is beyond me. Can anyone help? (Probably need to verify that what I wrote is correct first). Jd2718 ( talk) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
[1] looks awful in PC with all that white space. Would appreciate if you don't revert a good faith edit and improve them instead. @ Kwamikagami:. Bennylin ( talk) 10:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
in the section about the horizontal Cypher, the example characters have the character for 1 and 100 with the line on the same side "That is, ˾ for 1, ⌐ for 10, ⌙ for 100—thus ⌴ for 101" Since they're rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise, the 1 should be ⌙ and the 100 should be inverted. 65.78.106.107 ( talk) 01:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The first image says "1 in units place", yet there is no 1 there, only the stem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.53.82 ( talk) 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Cistercian numerals has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 8, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Cistercian numerals appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, refs weren't duplicated when para was split. That's been fixed. — kwami ( talk) 23:16, 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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
How .. interesting. Will review shortly. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Ealdgyth: I think I've addressed your concerns. Re the dates, the system was developed in the 13th c but used from the 13th to the 15th, so that's not inconsistent. Some of our centuries are spelled out, some use digits -- does that matter?
The page Earwig found was created after I'd submitted this to GA. It does mention substitution ciphers, which King covers but I didn't think noteworthy. Perhaps it was cribbed from the online Unicode summary or number generator that we have in External Links? — kwami ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, someone started converting them but didn't finish. I spelled them out. — kwami ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Are they really more compact? For it seems to me that they still use 4 symbols for 4 digit numbers but use a 2x2 grid and a connecting stick instead of a 4x1 row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter20 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Ciphers of the Monks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The first image includes 9393, but labels it 9394. Correcting an image is beyond me. Can anyone help? (Probably need to verify that what I wrote is correct first). Jd2718 ( talk) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
[1] looks awful in PC with all that white space. Would appreciate if you don't revert a good faith edit and improve them instead. @ Kwamikagami:. Bennylin ( talk) 10:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
in the section about the horizontal Cypher, the example characters have the character for 1 and 100 with the line on the same side "That is, ˾ for 1, ⌐ for 10, ⌙ for 100—thus ⌴ for 101" Since they're rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise, the 1 should be ⌙ and the 100 should be inverted. 65.78.106.107 ( talk) 01:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The first image says "1 in units place", yet there is no 1 there, only the stem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.53.82 ( talk) 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)