# Talk:Cistercian numerals

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

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)
@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)

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

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.  — 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)

It's 9394. 3's are like arrow heads, and 4's like fletching. — kwami (talk) 13:31, 15 March 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)

You'll need to specify what the problem is. I don't see any whitespace. — kwami (talk) 11:11, 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)

1 was correct (if perhaps not the best substitute), but quite right for the 100. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 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)

Thanks for flagging this. I've fixed the image on Commons. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ars notaria points to art of memory that mentions Ars Notoria.
Are they the same?
Are they related?
-- Error (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ars Notoria is a specific tome, ars notaria/art of memory is the general topic/principle. The later is what (correctly) is linked here. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The glyph for 6789 is written with the digits in reverse order, so it actually reads 9876. could either change the label or rotate the glyph 180 degrees 68.205.76.99 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait no, I am a fool. 68.205.76.99 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
It is a bit hard to read. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

in the section that starts: "Horizontal numbers were the same, but rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise. (That is, ⌙ for 1..." the unicode symbol used to represent 1 is U+02319 - Turned Not Sign which, at least in my browser, shows up mirrored from the actual symbol (something that can happen depending on the browser apparently). This is a problem because as of now, on my chrome window, the sentence shows the Cistercian horizontal numeral for 10 and says it's 1. I propose using U+02A3D - Righthand Interior Product to avoid confusion. 129.112.109.53 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)