File talk:Apices du moyen-âge.PNG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2019 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Hoax?
[edit]
Dan Harkless, I have the feeling that this table was fabricated from whole cloth back in the late 19th century. The given sources for each repertoire of digit glyphs, however, allows trivial confirmation, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Interesting. Unfortunately I'm not at all a subject-matter expert, nor do I have access to the appropriate reference materials to do the confirmation you speak of, so I'll have to leave that to others to look into further. Thanks very much for being the first to comment regarding my April deletion / fair-use-lo-resification / proper attribution request. I'm a little confused why you spoke so vehemently against that on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apices du moyen-âge.PNG if you think the table is a hoax, though. --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- If it is a hoax, it is a 19th century hoax, which is totally relevant and in scope. That said, its inclusion in that English Wikipedia article is unfortunate, even if it is not a hoax, because it lacks proper commentary. Indeed what brought me to this file was exactly stumbling upon it in that article and finding it odd thereon. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rather late 20th, although the argument holds. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- As I said in my deletion/fair-useification request, it did appear to me to be "modern typography". However, you've now changed the "|Date=" from "circa 1870?" to "circa 1895?". Did you mean to put "1985"? I'm going to change the date to just "Unknown", because all else is guesswork. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I did mean here 1985 instead; unknown date is the surest best anyway. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- As I said in my deletion/fair-useification request, it did appear to me to be "modern typography". However, you've now changed the "|Date=" from "circa 1870?" to "circa 1895?". Did you mean to put "1985"? I'm going to change the date to just "Unknown", because all else is guesswork. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin and Dan Harkless: Ce n'est pas un canular mais probablement un travail dérivé. On retrouve ce même tableau dans Georges Ifrah, Histoire universelle des chiffres, Seghers, 1981, p. 507, fig. 240. Les dessins sont identiques. Les légendes (colonnes dates et sources) ont été retranscrites avec de très rares modifications. George Ifrah indique «Pour une information plus complète : voir G-F Hill, The development of Arabic numerals in Europe(exhibited in sixty-four tables). At the Clarendon Press. Oxford 1915». Ce fichier est peut-être éligible à la suppression pour travail dérivé. HB (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- (in poor english, please improve it) It's not a hoax, it's a derivative work from Georges Ifrah, Histoire universelle des chiffres, Seghers, 1981, p. 507, fig. 240. There are the same shapes of the number. The columns «date» and «source» were rewrited with only one or two modifications. George Ifrah wrote «Pour une information plus complète : voir G-F Hill, The development of Arabic numerals in Europe (exhibited in sixty-four tables). At the Clarendon Press. Oxford 1915». This picture perhaps must be deleted as derivative work. I don't know. HB (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @HB: Merci por cettes informations additionnelles. Mais ceci c’est pas un cas problematique du travail dérivatif, pourtant, par ce que touts éléments sont ou inéligibles pour copyright ou dejá au domain publique par son âge. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
