Talk:History of sundials

Start class
Start -An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. It provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.
 * More detailed criteria
 * The article has a usable amount of good content- but is not comprehensive
 * The article must satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability.
 * Biography articles must satisfy fundamental BLP policies.
 * The article must provide sources to establish verifiability.
 * The article can be weak in many areas.
 * Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic.
 * MoS compliance non-existent.
 * May only address one aspect of the topic
 * May ramble and include superfluous material


 * Way forward to a C
 * Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised.
 * POVs, and original research should be culled.
 * Using a similar article as a model, the article should be given structure
 * Using a similar article as a model, the will also need substantial improvements in content.

See:Shrigley Hall (May 2012) --ClemRutter (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "nodus"
The article uses the word "nodus" ten times and "gnomon" twice. Are these synonyms? According to Wikipedia, a nodus is an entomological term meaning "A prominent cross-vein near the center of the leading edge of a wing." OTOH, a gnomon is clearly the pointer of a sundial. What is the reason for using the word "nodus"?  Randall Bart    Talk   21:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sundial may be part of the answer, but examination of the cited sources should confirm or deny the validity of this usage. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of sundials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314045819/http://www.arch.hku.hk/~kpcheung/sundial/sun02.htm to http://www.arch.hku.hk/~kpcheung/sundial/sun02.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010044606/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.353 to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.353

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Mass"
"Mass" as the liturgy of the Catholic Church is capitalized in every article here on Wikipedia. I am not sure why anyone wants to make exceptions to this rule. Mass is not a "doctrine" or anything that falls under WP:DOCTCAPS; policies and guidelines notwithstanding, WP:CONSENSUS has arrived at capitalizing it, so it would need a wide-ranging RFC to change that consensus. 70.162.235.236 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The key sentence, though it may be surprising is:
 * Doctrinal topics, canonical religious ideas, and procedural systems that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith or field are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin, transubstantiation, and method acting.
 * If this is not true, can you provide a link to the discussion. It would also be helpful is you were editing under your own use name rather than an IP. Here we are dealing with common nouns with mass as an adjective. I have opened a section on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. ClemRutter (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion per se; consensus does not require discussion when there is essentially no dispute - it happens primarily by editing activity! Therefore, it is wholly settled and uncontroversial that "Mass" is capitalized when referring to the liturgy of the Catholic Church - as you can see by its main articles. It matters not whether it is being used as a noun or an adjective. As I say, if you disagree, you will need to open a far wider-ranging RFC than one here or on the MoS. 70.162.235.236 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * According to books n-grams, the capitalized from is rare compared to the lowercase mass dial. So per MOS:CAPS, we would not cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great idea for getting data into the discussion. (Interesting peak of occurrences in the 1930s-’50s-?’60s period!)  Any figures on “Mass dial[s]” (capitalised)? to put alongside what you’ve presented, on “mass dial[s]” (uncapitalised)?


 * But the hard part will be separating out the hugely preponderant scientific use.


 * In terms of %-occurrences, both “mass” and “dial” are very largely scientific terms. (Really, that’s why “mass dial” is such a confusing term to the non-specialist reading the article, when the reference is to the Roman rite.)  I don’t think the big-data approach will really get us anywhere without some way to screen out the 99.9+% of occurrences tht aren’t relevant.  I don’t know books n-grams at all . . is there any way to select an appropriate corpus? to gather statistics on samples of non-scientific writing?


 * Now tht ClemRutter has opened a section on the Manual of Style Talk-page, that’s probably where to pursue this? (Partly cos this may be a quite useful case-study for MoS purposes, as well as something worth sorting out for sundials.)


 * - SquisherDa (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * PS: Improved link, to the MoS Talk section (following slight change to section title):

 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters


 * - SquisherDa (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)