Talk:Hipparchic cycle

references

Someone added a "no references tag". I removed it. The references to the relevant paragraphs in the Almagest are given in-line. Almost everything we know about Hipparchos and his work comes from the Almagest. Maybe the editor wants Wiki-style references. I can't be bothered. First, Wikipedia changed its referencing method and syntax several times and I am fed up with re-doing previous work. Moreover, I think the Wiki references are stupid because they do not make a distinction between a footnote and a literature reference. Finally, as a scientist I think a convention with numbered references sucks totally. I prefer the convention that has author(s) and year in-line, and exact refs in a list ordered alphabetically by first author name. Tom Peters (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

using Wikipedia as a source

the second paragraph of the Calendar Cycle section begins with the sentence, "Indeed, from the values of the tropical year (365.2421896698 days) and the synodic month (29.530588853) cited in the respective articles of Wikipedia..." Is this acceptable? Shouldn't a published source be referenced? Slowflyingmonkey (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be better, I guess, to copy over the sources cited in those articles, to save one step of indirection. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)