This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have."
Their quality-scale rating as of September 2010 is listed alongside each:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is over 120kb, and when exported to pdf is 27 pages long. There is a lot of room for the prose to be condensed, which would improve the article's readability and navigation. It seems like right now the article is a mashup of the Mechanism and the entirety of several researcher's careers. Tagged with the 'long' template. R0uge (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. A while back I thought to remove two sections, The "Latest results" and the "Investigations and reconstructions". This is where most of the "researcher's careers" information lies. I'm going to go ahead and do that as it appears to me to be mainly 20th century history rather than about the mechanism itself. Later this data can be collected into a "Hunt for the Antikythera Mechanism". :) SkoreKeep (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I also removed exhibitions, Purposes and oher similat machines. That reduced it about 40%. It's now 70 kb. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Comes cplakidas to restore some of the now missing history back into the History section. I appreciate the additions, but please wait until the companion article, containing the information that I deleted yesterday from this one, is published; it should be within the next couple of days, and the story of Admiral Theofanidis will be there. I don't really intend to squat on this article and not allow others to edit, just give me a little time from the rather brutal cuts of yesterday to get coherence back into both articles. Thanks. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not seen that there was a wholesale restructuring, I just happened to come across it and found it odd that Theofanidis had been removed. I am eagerly awaiting the companion piece. Cheers, Constantine✍ 15:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you move the "Descrition" section to the end. Such changes must be made after careful reading of the entire document, but after a first reading I think "Description" (with major and minor fragment subsections) should be moved to the end. Encyclopedic articles almost by definition must contain more information than the average reader wants to read. This can be alleviated by putting less relevant material at the end of the document. I rarely find the second half of any WP article very interesting.--guyvan52 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A good suggestion. The problem is that in the detailed re-construction to follow some references to "fragments" and specific fragments are made. I did look at it and decide the size of the description could be reduced by moving the fragment specific notes into the table. Not too sure what else can be done. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A set of quizzes for this article is under construction.
Concerning the changes made to the text by 188.8.131.52 and my reversion of them, allow me to be clear: the Ptolemaic system with deferents, single epicycles per deferent, eccentrics and equants, is precisely as predictive as Copernicus' system of deferents, double epicycles per deferent, and eccentrics, and also indeed to Brahe's hybrid system. They are mathematically equivalent systems: given the same input data, they will generate the same orbital predictions. More epicycles added to either system was an attempt to make the orbits more closely match the unevenness now attributed to elliptical orbits under Newton's gravitational theory. Geocentrist/heliocentrist point of view is irrelevant to this fact. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The text in the article implies that the "instructions" part of the inscription has been translated. Why then, is it not in the article?--Aurictalk 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
About 2200 of the estimated 22,000 characters of text that once existed on the face plates and the covers has been detected. Obviously, given the nature of the wreckage, it is in localized chunks and individual small groupings of disconnected text in areas of less disintegration. Some of it is displayed on the front cover display linked to in the text. The ability of the modern technical means to read the text is amazing, but that has about reached its limit, unless new archaeological finds are made. The text is in the papers which discuss findings. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
An edit defining the AM as an "astronomical clock" (in addition to the earlier "analog computer") was added to the lede. I don't think this can be supported. The mechanism has no autonomous time-keeping mechanisms; it has only a crank, gears, and indicator pointers on fixed dials. At best (vis-a-vis time keeping), it performs calculations between various solar and lunar calendars. It's best resolution is a solar day; turning the crank one revolution advances the calendar by approximately 73 days. The use of "astronomical clock" might be stretched to cover calendrical functions; only in this sense would the phrase work. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)