This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, they totally made the design for the antykithera look like the actual thing right? No.
I mean I understand that they made it look "cooler", but I think that if they made it like the original it would be less like that one itch that is just out of reach. In summary, I wish that they would've been more attenuate to the details. Jeremy Porter (MD) (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
