Talk:The Ciphers of the Monks

Wrong picture

The picture Template of Numbers is wrong. The positions for 1 and 10 and for 100 and 1000 are on the wrong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.40.196 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The template also shows the top and bottom numbers sharing the middle horizontal line which is wrong. Consider how to write 2222. The vertical line should be elongated with separate horizontal '2' lines for the top and bottom halves.

This page linked to number system. That is a redirect to a section of the article titled Number, and that section is not about numeral systems. The article titled Numeral system deals with those. And that is as it should be. I've fixed the link.

The table showing the sysmbols was far too small to be legible. I made it bigger. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability argument could be strengthened

It's odd to me that this article is about the book (The Ciphers of the Monks) rather than the topic of the book (the cipher itself).

Regarding the book, it's not clear to me that Wikipedia:Notability (books) is satisfied.

Regarding the topic, all of the sources cited seem to be derived from the book. The archimedes-lab.org source might have independent material, but it is not sourced and does not seem to be a reliable source. Are there reliable sources, independent of the book, that establish this topic as notable?

It all smells like an advertisement for the book. The edit history is also worrying. The original editor is perma-banned, and another repeat editor has edited only this page. Mgnbar (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Speculum article cited here seems to have some good information, including claims that the topic has been studied by several authors over centuries. So my revised opinion is that this article should be kept, but should be renamed and rewritten to be about the topic rather than the book. Mgnbar (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To my eyes the Cistercian_numerals article already cover the topic of the number system itself. Therefore this article should in my opinion either be kept to the subject of the book, or if that topic isn't notable enough to have a page, be deleted. - unregistered user, 11:52 15 febuary 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.236.64.188 (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that this article should be deleted (more accurately, converted into a redirect to Cistercian numerals), and any (if any) material worthy of preservation should be merged into Cistercian numerals.--Nø (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I just proposed the move. See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2021 (withdrawn; wrong template)

(Requested move withdrawn; wrong template. Please discuss merging instead.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Ciphers of the Monks → Cistercian numerals – Per discussion at Talk:The Ciphers of the Monks#Notability argument could be strengthened. Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed spurious endparens that made the links to Cistercian numerals above a redlink. Formally, since that article exists (and has significantly more material that the present one), is it a move we wnat - isn't it rather a merge? And why not leave a redirect?--Nø (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I am not sure where you got the idea that a move request doesn't leave a redirect, but Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page says "When ready, click the Move page button and, if successful, the page will be renamed to the new title. The old title will become a redirect page, so any links to the old title will still go to the new page."

I don't see anything on the Ciphers of the Monks page that needs to be merged into the Cistercian numerals page, but of course you or any other editor is free to merge whatever material you think should be merged. You can do that now, or you can do that after the move if there is one (the current version will still be available in the history of the redirect that the move would leave behind.). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why is this at RM? Cistercian numerals is a GA. RM is not the place for merges and deletions. This page cannot be moved to the destination, since it is occpied by an article! Srnec (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Right. This article should not be moved to Cistercian numerals. Rather, we should just edit this article to redirect it to Cistercian numerals. I'd do it right now, but I want to make sure that we have consensus that there is nothing to be salvaged from this article. Mgnbar (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move withdrawn; wrong template. Please discuss merging instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think some more, there is a problem with the redirect idea: Per Wikipedia:Astonish, the redirect target should explain why the redirect happened, preferably in the lede. But I doubt that Cistercian numerals should give such prominent treatment to The Ciphers of the Monks.

So I agree that the correct mechanism is merging, not moving or redirecting. Proceeding under that assumption, we should strive for consensus on what content needs to be merged. If no content needs to be merged, then The Ciphers of the Monks can simply be deleted. Mgnbar (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say a paragraph about the book The Ciphers of the Monks in the Cistercian numerals article, with an anchor that the page "The Ciphers of the Monks" redirects to. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)