Talk:Cistercian numerals

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:

Did you know... that the Cistercian monastic order created an early competitor to Hindu–Arabic numerals with which they wrote years as a single character?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cistercian numerals.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

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

... that the Cistercian monastic order created an early competitor to the Hindo-Arabic numerals, with which they wrote year dates like 1323 as single characters?

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

ALT1: ... that the Cistercian numerals were created by the Cistercian monks as an early competitor to the Hindo-Arabic numerals?

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good to go. Ergo Sum 20:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's a photocopy of the manuscript. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Thank you. Please read WP:DYK#Cited hook: Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's try this:
ALT0a: ... that the Cistercian monastic order created an early competitor to the Hindo-Arabic numerals, with which they wrote year dates as a single character? Yoninah (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cistercian numerals/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How .. interesting. Will review shortly. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead:
- "After the Cistercians abandoned the system in favor of the Arabic numerals, marginal use continued until the early 20th century, with Freemasons, occultists and Nazis all briefly flirting with it." is cited in the lead, but it isn't present in the article body. MOS:LEAD is part of the GA criteria.
History:
- link for "ligatures"?
- The sentence starting "The numbers were not used for arithmetic or accounting..." in the second paragraph is pretty long and convoluted - is there a way to break this up?
Not required, but you do "13th century" in the lead but "thirteenth to fifteenth centuries" in the body - consistency wouldn't be a bad thing here ... but again, not required.
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows just one concern which is to a page that frankly looks like gibberish: https://newpeculiarworld.com.ng/crimestoppers-kelowna-qvz/cistercian-number-generator-6fb1bb.

I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the centuries were inconsistent in using words or digits. It would be nice to settle on one or the other. I’m currently bouncing down the highway with my husband in his semi so it’ll be a bit until I can deal with the paperwork here. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone started converting them but didn't finish. I spelled them out. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passed by User:Ealdgyth

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.