Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Astronomical symbols/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Astronomical symbols

edit

Astronomical symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets or surpasses the criteria for a Wikipedia featured list, and for inclusion in a print encyclopedia. The article is useful, comprehensive, and extensively researched. I put a lot of effort into editing and organizing the page several years ago (under IP addresses), including writing most of the body text, finding sources, and pruning unsourced and unreliable speculation. (Scouring Google Books for instances of astronomical glyphs in their OCRed scans of nineteenth-century print matter was fun.)

Regarding FL criterion 3b, I note that some of the scope and content of this article overlaps Astrological symbols, an article created in 2006 as a fork of this one. Astronomical symbols, the nominee, meets the criteria of WP:SUBPOV, and therefore I believe it should not be disqualified as a featured list.

Thank you for your consideration. W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking quickly I noticed that some sentences in the "represents" column start with a capital letter, where others do not. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: Fixed. The seven rogue capital letters have been lowercased. I also removed stray punctuation marks and made tiny fixes to the wording of a couple of entries. Thank you! W559 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  1. First paragraph of lead: "in the 18th-20th centuries" → "in the 18th to the 20th centuries".
  2. Third paragraph of lead: article "the" before names of Unicode blocks; you could also link to the WP articles of those blocks (e.g. Miscellaneous Symbols) and instead reserve the PDF external links to the code points.
  3. German almanac image: straight quotes ("") instead of curly quotes (“”) as per MOS:STRAIGHT.
  4. Row and column scopes for accessibility (see MOS:DTT) should be included.
  5. The contents of the "Represents" columns could be better off aligned to the left.
  6. "the center of our planetary system": I would suggest "centre" to conform with the British English "splendour" further down. Either way, a bit more consistency in the variation of English would be beneficial.
  7. Something in the "Represents" column for "new moon" would be apposite.
  8. "Solar constants": not sure that these examples are really necessary here, in view of an existing description above.
  9. "Symbols for minor planets" and "Other symbols": refs would look better on a separate line below each symbol, as in the other tables.
That's all for now; otherwise, it looks to be a generally well-written article overall. (Please {{ping}} when replying.) RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff: Thank you for your feedback. I've incorporated your suggestions in the article. To wit:
  1. First paragraph of lead: Fixed.
  2. Third paragraph of lead: Fixed.. I added wikilinks to the articles of the two Unicode blocks referenced. The PDF external links are attached to the code point ranges.
  3. German almanac image: Straightened the quotes.
  4. Row and caption scopes for accessibility: Added. I also added alt-text to images wherever it was missing.
  5. Text in the "Represents" columns: Left-aligned the headers and text.
  6. "center"/"splendour" inconsistency: Americanized according to the guidance in MOS:RETAIN to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." The edit with "center" (2016-01-05 00:35) preceded the edit with "splendour" (2016-11-14 11:06).
  7. "New Moon" representation: Added something.
  8. "Solar Constants": Deleted. The explanatory paragraph now includes the specific solar constants that used to be in the table. The source citations for the use of the solar symbol in these constants are preserved.
  9. "Symbols for minor planets" and "Other symbols": Added line breaks to put the refs below the symbols.
Let me know what you think. Thanks again for reviewing this article. W559 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this FLC, I'll just make a few more slight suggestions for improvement here:
  1. I see that you've left-aligned the column headers for the "Represents" columns: these should still be centre-aligned, regardless of the alignment of its contents.
  2. The captions for each table (e.g. "Sun", "Moon", "Planets") shouldn't be in the form of table rows but as proper table captions, using the |+ markup.
  3. Link "cf." in Ceres's symbol (MOS:ABBREV)
  4. The succession of relatively short paragraphs in the Symbols for minor planets section could be resolved by combining some of the one-sentence paragraphs together, although I'm more ambivalent about this one.
Even with the added comments above, I'm still happy to support the article as is. Good work indeed! RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff: Thank you for your support. I center-aligned the column headers and used table captions instead of table rows. I also wikilinked cf. The paragraphs were all two sentences long or longer, so I left them as is for now because each (short) paragraph addresses a different subject. W559 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 
  1. I'd replace papyri with "papyrus texts". I don't expect most readers to be familiar with the Latin plural form.
  2. just-discovered would be better as "newly-discovered".
  3. Per MOS:DTT, there should not be column headers in the middle of a table.
  4. I'd like the entries for waxing and waning moon to note that this is how they appear from the northern hemisphere.
  5. A diagram in Johannes Kamateros's – assuming this refers to the John Kamateros I think, I'd refer to him as "Byzantine astronomer Johannes Kamateros".
  6. Meanwhile, Struve presented – I'd add a few words to explain who Struve was.
  7. the letter Zeta (for Zeus) – I'd add a few words explaining the connection between Zeus and Jupiter (the reader shouldn't have to scroll up to the text above the table to find this information).
  8. the letter H (for Herschel) – I'd add "who discovered Uranus".
  9. the letters "L" and "V", (for Le Verrier) – I'd add "who discovered Neptune".
  10. Following Giuseppe Piazzi's discovery of Ceres – I'd add a few words explaining who Piazzi was, and say when Ceres was discovered.
  11. Franz Xaver von Zach should be linked, and I'd add a few words explaining who he was.
  12. Karl Ludwig Harding created the symbol for 3 Juno. – I'd add a few words explaining who Harding was.
  13. Harding, who discovered this asteroid – I'd add the year it was discovered.
  14. The next two asteroids, 5 Astraea and 6 Hebe, were both discovered by Karl Ludwig Hencke. – I'd add the years and a few words describing who Hencke was.
  15. 26 Proserpina, 28 Bellona, 35 Leukothea, and 37 Fides, all discovered by R. Luther – I'd add between which years.
  16. 29 Amphitrite, discovered by Albert Marth – I'd add the year.
  17. For consistency with the "Planets" table, the empty Unicode cells in the "Minor planets" table should say "N/A".
  18. thus, ♈︎ stands for the vernal equinox, ♋︎ the summer solstice, ♎︎ the autumnal equinox, and ♑︎ the winter solstice. – I believe this should be the "March equinox", the "June solstice", the "September equinox", and the "December solstice", respectively. I'd also add some text identifying the symbols since they may not show up for everyone (they don't for me, except when editing).
  19. ☊ formerly stood for the descending node, and ☋ for the ascending node – I'd add that this is the opposite of the modern usage (in case the symbols don't show up for everyone).
  20. the five Ptolemaic aspects should be linked to Astrological aspect#Major aspects.
  21. I'd add this page to {{Astronomy navbox}} (I'd suggest next to "Glossary"), and then add the navbox to the bottom of the article (see WP:BIDIRECTIONAL).

TompaDompa (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for helping me improve the page. I've incorporated your feedback:
  1. "papyri": Replaced with "papyrus texts".
  2. "just-discovered": Replaced with "newly-discovered".
  3. Sun and Moon table: Split to avoid the column header in the middle of the table. I also added column scopes to the new table for accessibility.
  4. Descriptions for the waxing and waning moon symbols: Added "(as viewed from the northern hemisphere)" to each.
  5. Johannes Kamateros: Added "Byzantine astronomer".
  6. Struve: Added "German-Russian astronomer".
  7. Zeta for Zeus: Added "the Greek equivalent to the Roman god Jupiter".
  8. "H (for Herschel)": Added "who discovered Uranus" as suggested.
  9. "L and V (for Le Verrier)": Likewise, I added "who discovered Neptune".
  10. Ceres, Giuseppe Piazzi: Added "in 1801" and "the astronomer and Catholic priest".
  11. Franz Xaver von Zach: Linked, and added words describing him.
  12. Karl Ludwig Harding: Added the words "German astronomer".
  13. "Harding, who discovered this asteroid": Added "in 1804".
  14. Karl Ludwig Hencke, 5 Astraea, 6 Hebe: Added "a German amateur astronomer" and the discovery years. I also rewrote the sentence to use the active voice.
  15. 26 Proserpina, 28 Bellona, 35 Leukothea, and 37 Fides: Changed to "all discovered by German astronomer Robert Luther between 1853 and 1855".
  16. 29 Amphitrite: Rewrote the sentence. "29 Amphitrite was named and assigned a shell for its symbol by George Bishop, the owner of the observatory where astronomer Albert Marth discovered it in 1854."
  17. Empty Unicode cells in the "Minor planets" table: Added "N/A" to all the symbols not encoded in Unicode.
  18. "vernal equinox", "summer solstice", etc.: Added words identifying each symbol and changed seasons of equinoxes/solstices to the months. "Thus, ♈︎, the symbol for Aries, represents the March equinox", etc.
  19. Medieval vs. modern usage of the symbols for the lunar nodes: Added clarifying text.
  20. "Ptolemaic aspects": Linked to Astrological aspect#Major aspects.
  21. Astronomy navbox template: Added the navbox to the page and the page to the navbox (between Astronomer and Glossary).

Let me know if you have any other suggestions, or if I broke anything. W559 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the remaining instances of "papyri" to "papyrus texts" and added the {{N/A}} template (which I just discovered) to the tables. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." I am not clear what you are saying here. Do you mean that the papyrus texts were neither preserved nor copied, and only survive by their incorporation in Byzantine codices?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when?
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • monogram should be linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've reviewed your comments:
  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." – Replaced "the" with "many" to avoid the implication that Greek papyri survived only as copies in Byzantine codices. Is this better?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when? – Per MOS:LEAD, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". I believe that specific details about when different symbols fell into disuse among professional astronomers are best left for the article.
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced. – Source citations in the lead are not strictly necessary; see WP:WHENNOTCITE. I tried to limit sources in the lead while still citing sources for any claims that might reasonably be challenged. The sentence beginning "New symbols were further invented..." is a one-sentence summary of the Symbols for minor planets section, which introduces 34 sources and uses more. The section "with some exceptions..." briefly alludes to sourced material in bits and pieces throughout the body of the article. If you think the lead would work better with more or fewer source citations, let me know.
  • My understanding is that list articles are an exception to the rule that leads do not require referencing because they generally contain information which is not referenced below, but I see that you have repeated and referenced below, so I agree that more referencing is not necessary in this case. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • monogram should be linked. – Agreed. The first occurrence of monogram (in the Symbols for the planets section) is now linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. – Not done. The article is about "astronomical symbols", which is what reliable English-language sources call the symbols described in the article. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:CONCISE. An article about "astronomical notation", a different topic, would properly cover modern notation in more depth, and would reasonably be expected to include more information about Arabic, Indian, and Chinese astronomy, but this isn't that article.
Let me know what you think. W559 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough regarding modern symbols as they are often referred to as notation, although I would like to see a comment or note explaining why they are not covered. I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols. Just because sources are Eurocentric does not justify Wikipedia in following their example. There are for example off-wiki sources about Maya astronomical symbols, and I would expect at least brief coverage in a generic article about the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I'm not convinced that the characters used in the Maya calendar belong in this article any more than, for example, the written names of the planets and zodiac signs in Hindi and Chinese, both because the article is about "astronomical symbols" as opposed to normal written language (and, come to think of it, numerals and mathematical operators), and, of course, because English-language sources do not generally group them with the symbols that make up the content of this article. However, a link to the Maya characters in the "See also" section would be appropriate. Here's what I've done:
  • "a comment or note explaining why they are not covered": Added some text to the first sentence of the lead further clarifying the scope of the article.
  • coverage about Maya astronomical symbols: Added a link to the relevant page in the "See also" section of the article.
How's this? W559 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read what you linked; Google Books gives me the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." If the source you linked has content that would improve the page, feel free to be bold and incorporate it into the article. Edit: I switched browsers and went incognito, and Google Books is serving up the page for me now. The page you linked doesn't seem relevant at all to this article other than being a search result for the words "Chinese", "astronomical", and "symbols". The section of that book discusses the "Chaco supernova pictograph" (see Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Archaeoastronomy, reviews several theories about the image, and then concludes that the drawing marks a Zuni sun-watching station. The page specifically discusses the star next to the crescent in the petroglyph, compares it with the Islamic star-and-crescent symbol, and mentions the theory that the symbols together originally depicted a conjunction of the moon and Venus.
Regarding your previous comment, "I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols", we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I note in passing that the equivalent pages on the Chinese and Hindi Wikipediae, zh:天文符號 and hi:खगोलीय चिन्ह respectively, both have "general titles" while also being about the same set of "European symbols" that the astronomical symbols page discusses. W559 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles just a quick question, are you complete with your comments here? The nomination has been stalled for about six weeks now, so it would be great if you'd be prepared to offer some guidance on your current view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I do not have a problem with the article text but I do with its title so I prefer to neither support or oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The two external links in the third paragraph are a Manual of Style violation. I suggest replacing the bare "The Unicode Consortium" citations here with properly formatted references that include these links.
  • Photo caption: "in a German almanac printed 1850". This needs "in" directly before the year.
  • Symbols for the planets: Minor point, but if other key figures have their full names included later in the article, than Struve probably should be formatted that way here.
  • Symbols for minor planets: "The circle later became a pair of parentheses, and the parentheses sometimes omitted altogether over the next few decades." For this to work grammatically, it needs "were" before "sometimes".
  • Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Are the items in the table referenced anywhere? I don't see inline cites in the table, unlike the others. In addition, the last sentence of the section, on symbols related to solstices and equinoxes, isn't cited either. If the references before are meant to cover this sentence, I'd suggest adding cites there as well.
  • Not doing a full source review right now, but I did see that reference 26 has different formatting for its access date than other refs, which use the YYYY-MM-DD format. This formatting should be made consistent throughout, however you choose to do it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thank you for reviewing the article. I've made changes in line with your comments:
  • The two external links in the third paragraph: Fixed. The links are now reflinks formatted with Template:Cite web.
  • Photo caption: Added "in" before the year as suggested.
  • Symbols for the planets: Included Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve's full name.
  • Symbols for minor planets: I could defend the original phrasing as an instance of gapping in a coordinate structure, but I added "were" before "sometimes" as suggested.
  • Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Added references for the images of the zodiac symbols, the English translations of the names of the signs, and the modern IAU abbreviations.
  • Different formatting for the access date of reference 26: Reformatted to use the YYYY-MM-DD. I also found and reformatted a small number of differently formatted dates in the references; all publication, archive, and access dates now use the same formatting throughout the article.
Let me know if there are any other changes that you would like to see. I will be offline for most of this weekend, but I will definitely be able to follow up by no later than Tuesday. W559 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; I'm fine with the title, but think that it would be helpful to have something in the lead explicitly discussing that the symbols are part of the European astronomical tradition, and other traditions use(d) words or logograms instead of non-language-based symbols. I'm not going to hold this nomination up for it, though. Promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Astronomical_symbols/archive1&oldid=871428516"