Talk:History of timekeeping devices/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Images

The sheer number of images is cramping up the text. We need to make a decision on what images to add in and where to put them. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a few are unremarkable, unnecessary, or of bad quality: I suggest we remove those (note: this one is of bad quality, but should be kept for historical importance). · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the cathedral clock pictures since they weren't really needed and shifted the other pictures into a better format. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit better, now we just need more text. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Title.

I think this should be renamed to "History of timekeeping," as not all methods are devices (i.e. calendars), and "devices" is a bit of an odd word for clocks. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, but check the peer review for reasons why it was changed. I agree, especially with the expanded timekeeping section. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see their point: we need to cover all timekeeping history in order to drop "devices". So still plenty of work to do before we can re-name it to the original title. · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO we should have both - the history of timekeeping (e.g. calendars, systems, etc.) and the devices. That means we get rid of all the abstract calendar stuff here, leaving the Aztec calendar stones and related stuff, and create something on the history of timekeeping. It wouldn't be in the collab, would it? If it were, what about history of timekeeping devices in Egypt? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, making a fork. There is certainly enough to work with. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as well as forks for each individual country with significant devices - e.g. Egypt or Switzerland. They can be put on the waiting list for future collaborations, is that OK? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No IMHO doing something like this would make all the new articles very stubby. I think we should rename it to "History of timekeeping", as that's a more general term for both calendars and devices. Maybe in the future, if this article suddenly grows extremely long, we can seperate them.--Phoenix -wiki 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with History of Timekeeping. The Helpful One ^(Review) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Ill move it right awaw. If anyone has any objections, just move it back and we'll discuss.--Phoenix -wiki 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit of gun jumping, Phoenix. I won't move it back, unless others have a problem with it. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do a tiny bit. I was GAing the article on the title as history of timekeeping devises. Now I know I was there pointing out my concerns about the title (see GA next review above). The problem I have now is surely an article that pertains to the history of timekeeping is much much wider, and if so will all the additions "cut the mustard." I have in a sandbox my notes for what was going to be the penultimate review which I will cut and paste to here now. By changing the title I think you have opened up the subject and therefore my review. Now there are at least two things you could do:

withdraw the GA request for a bit and reapply.
ask me not to review it on the second occasion - I have no problem with that - fresh eyes etc.
Put it up and if I am available I will start again.
retitle it back to original.
go for it! I will give you a time slot but will need an idea from you.

I have to say I was planning to put forward the penultimate review, see if the article matched it, and if so pass it WITH THE PROVISO that I returned in say 4 weeks to look again and see if anything detrimental to the original article has been done if so I would delist it. Crude I know but the only way I thought. I must say I have enjoyed the squad adopting an article and through obvious hard work and genuine interest in learning and getting knowledge out there improve this article well beyond its original limitations. Congrats to all involved. You lot are proving to be one of the hardest reviews but by far the most entertaining and learning one as well.

notes for penultimate review as follows unchecked against todays article. Written before the title change.
GA penultimate review
It is likely that the first calendars... likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions ... some research leads to the proposition...

What?

Many ancient civilizations used the motion of the sun, moon, planets and stars to determine time, date and seasons.[5][6] It is likely that the first calendars likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions or some research leads to the proposition that... read better and still get the point across. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it to reflect the reference more. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Egypt~~

~~daytime leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link.~~ Done.

~~Greece~~

~~barleycorn leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link.~~ No such link.

Mayan, I am not sure at all about the list of "months" or "days". What about Egyptian, Celtic, Norse, Greek etc. These are for the main article about that specific subject. I know calendars are timekeeping systems (and in some societies the only one they used) so the calender section does need to stay in a much reduced role as they were / are timekeeping devises

images:

Salisbury cathedral clock, restored for extra is it worth stating what type of clock - escapement, as the development of these meant that the timepieces became more accurate.
A longcase clock with a pine case:- why have that image, now one opened to show weights etc might be worthy, not sure of this one. And of course there is grandmother clocks as well.

Good Bits: the natural progression from calendars to time pieces very well done. the order of the sections reflects the development of the pieces. END Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back, there was no consensus for the move, and it seemed to have created more problems. I've commented on a few quick changes above, and stricken some. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the grandfather clock, it takes up a lot of space, and an image that shows the interior workings as well would be preferrable, but there are surprisingly few suitable grandfather clocks on WikiCommons. In the meantime, I have replaced it with a picture from the Przypkowscy Clock Museum - certainly notable, and it frees up some space for more pictures. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review - Final

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is an excellent piece of work Both you as editors and I as reviewer have run through the mill on this one.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Just watch the choice of words occasionally. Read it as a inquiring reader would.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
With this title it must stay broad and comprehensive.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Well done rest come back refreshed. Note to future reviewers. GA discussions spread throughout this page into other sections - something that may happen I think when you get a squad working on the article.

I will keep a watch on this article it is growing wonderfully. I may drop in bits that I find to the talk page so Tzatziki Squad can add or not. It is a big complex one to take to FA; I wish you well. Thank you. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, GA? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

as it says in the box, well done, but my you have work for FA. But you do seem to be enjoying yourself. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

bits and pieces.

it is great to watch this article grow as it is. For images of clocks - escapements etc have a look at [1]. They might be useful or not. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The direction we are taking

I want to see this article through to FA, but I'm a bit unsure of the direction it's taking. I know I'm bringing up some old points again, but I just want them clarified.

Is this article going to be "History of timekeeping devices" or "History of timekeeping"? I know from the Peer Review that we seem to be looking at it as a history of the devices, but will we be starting a more general article on "History of timekeeping"? (I would have supported the move to History of timekeeping, but it seems we didn't have a consensus on this). The reason for my question is as to where we will talk about the French Revolution's reform to decimal clocks (a change of timekeeping system rather than device mechanics), or the how the people of the Middle Ages took their concept of time from monastic timekeeping and the canonical hours, for example. I'm not quite ready with the sources for this, but it should be borne in mind.
Why do we use American English instead of British English? I agree we should have consistency, though I wonder what consensus we draw on. I noticed that in Cannon, for example, we used American English, but went with the British spelling for "archaeological findings" in that same article.
Why do we use the CE/BCE system? It was brought up earlier by AndonicO earlier, but it has already begun to cause some confusion in the article (example here where BC was used alongside BCE: [2]). The footnote briefly explaining the two systems is good, but I think we should have a consensus here that we will follow through for the Squad's other articles. Having glanced over the sources for the clocks section, they all give preference to AD where a system is used at all. AD is again the traditional system (which we used for the Cannon article), and the one with which the reader will be most familiar.
Lastly, as has been mentioned in the ongoing Peer Review, it is probably better to have short author names for the footnotes ("Notes") and keep the full publisher to the bibliography ("References"), as we did for Cannon.

On the whole, these are just consistency issues, but we should clarify them to improve the article and avoid them recurring in future collaborations. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the American English versus British English, the rule is if the article is not about either country to write the same way the first editor wrote it and to make the rest of the article uniform with that. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think AmE is the consensus here. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's first editor doesn't seem to have favoured either, so it must have been a case of "first-to-plant-the-flag-for-their-national-spelling". ;-) I don't really mind either way (I was just curious), but since we have an "implicit consensus", I suppose we best stick with it. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the consensus is for the article to be "History of timekeeping devices," with a fork for History of calendars. I agree with you, though.
Neither cannon nor this article are strictly American or British topics (more like Mediterranean/European early on, and then worldwide), so neither is "better." For cannon, we decided AmE because most of us editing were American (I think "archaeological" is both AmE and BrE, by the way).
I don't think there was consensus on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD; might be worth a fresh discussion. I prefer BC/AD, because it's more common, and will likely be what the reader is more accustomed to using.
I'll go through the article in a few hours and sort that out. · AndonicO ^Engage 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ae" instead of "e" is typically British spelling (see here), though I see "archaeology" more than "archeology" anyway. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on the whole thing.

This article is about the history of timekeeping devices, anything about timekeeping that isn't about the devices likely belongs in history of calendars. I've been forking stuff over there as I find it, it may be a reasonable candidate for the Squad's help if someone chooses it.
I think it's basically AmE now because it's what's been in use. It would be a pain to switch it back, why bother?
I prefer BCE/CE because it's more neutral than BC/AD, simply because BC/AD has religious connotations (Anno Domini, Before Christ). Since this is both a worldwide topic and a non-religious one, I think the scientifically accepted BCE/CE would be better.
Yes, concur, I haven't been able to get to that, sorry. I've just been copyediting, but AO says he'll do it and I don't want to butt in on whatever system he may have going for that. (BTW, AO, if you do want help just post and I'll help transfer.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, two more things. I think we can fit some of that stuff you talked about here if it discusses a change in devices or new ones being invented, otherwise it belongs at history of calendars. Also, I really want to see this through FAC as well... :-) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting changes

Hi there, I took the liberty to make some formatting changes as I saw a lot of information overlap and unnecessary categorisation. Of course if you don't agree, the rv button is nearby :-) -- Avg 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! We appreciate the help. Have you considered joining the WP:TSQUAD? We'd love to have you along for the ride -- it'd make the group an even 20! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a proper cabal. Finally my dreams come true :-)-- Avg 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a cabal, just part of the Epsilon. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References.

Anyone know anything about refs 54 and 55? I can't find anything on that book. · AndonicO ^Engage 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The ref using cite book is: Houghton Mifflin Publishing (2005). Inventions (DK Pockets). Dorling Kindersley Publishing. ISBN 978-1564588890. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). HTH— Rod ^talk 10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Two publishers? · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The publishing information has already been on ref 49:

Davies, Eryl (1995). Pockets: Inventions, p 42. Dorling Kindersley Publishers Ltd. ISBN 0751351849; ISBN 978-0751351842

I don't know where you are getting the second publisher from. Also remember that we cite two authors surnamed "Davies". --Grimhelm (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the 2005 edition on Amazon see [3] & your ref is to a 1995 edition.— Rod ^talk 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A sundial is a dial

I believe that a sundial is by definition a dial that is a shadow clock. Shadow clocks that are not round are not sundials. I if am right this article needs to be changed. Z gin der 2008-04-19T12:48Z (UTC)

Could we be less Euro-centric?

A lot of the article is very focused on Western devices while ignoring the Eastern, oriental ones. I've started the China and Incense clock sections, but I'd like some help chasing down sources. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find some; if I do I'll post them here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Push to FA by The Squad

OK, I think we need a more thorough and specific status report based on the current state of the article. How are we going? What more needs to be done? What aspects of the article should we now be focusing on improving? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the article and copyediting, at the moment. I think the "Early history" sections (mainly China and Greece) need more information, they're a little sparse. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll work on those over the next few days. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GPS also needs to be cited. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 21:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For the incense clock section, I found a great book on Google Books: The Trail of Time: Time Measurement with Incense in East Asia by Silvio A. Bedini. Unfortunately, the preview does not cover incense clocks, mostly consisting of the first chapter discussing Asian time measurement in general. Is it possible for one of us to procure the book and use it to cite? bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate systems

This article should note that there have been many different systems of measurement of time; see the articles linked from systems of measurement, such as Chinese units of measurement. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Style of References?

It seems that the footnotes have been merged together, so that they give all the publisher information but don't give any of the page references. (See here). This will be a serious problem if this is to move toward FA status. Referring to page numbers quoted is key to Wikipedia articles' verifiability. We had agreed earlier on this talk page (and it was also brought up in the archived peer review) to use a Notes/References system, keeping the footnotes short and putting the full book information in the Bibliography. Today's Featured Article, for example, the Battle of Blenheim, shows exactly how this should be done.

The further reading section could still be useful if kept separate, so perhaps we could work it into a mixed system like this:

Footnotes

Author, page number. Eg.

Alder, p 21

Bibliography

References

The full title and publisher information for books cited in the footnotes. Eg.

Alder, Ken (2002). The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World. London: Little, Brown. ISBN 0743216768. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)