This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman numerals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mathematics C‑class High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. Writing systems C‑class Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Library Clock Has 'IIII' Instead of 'IV'". AP Strange News. July 2, 2004.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.

The Apostrophus table suggests 1500 is CIƆƆ while the Westerkerk picture seems to use CIƆIƆ (plus CXXX to give 1630) 17:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.40 (talk)

I wouldn't worry about this myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very poor answer of mine to a perfectly logical question! I have addressed the difficulty by changing the caption to the illustration, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for some time. I didn't intend to take a wikibreak, but it happens. Hopefully I can ease back into this, and in light of that, I'd like to make another attempt at adding formal rules to this article. My ruleset has been renovated and fine-tuned, much improved; perhaps relevant parties will take a different view this time. This article would benefit from having two different approaches side-by-side: a layman's description, and a more thorough treatment. I'm offering a more advanced description of the system which paraphrases RS. Given that there's plenty of interest in modern rules, and these are strongly supported and comprehensively described, I think this is a reasonable addition. Let me know if there are any issues, if there are, we can always move the relevant content here and discuss it. Xcalibur (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text like "formal, detailed approach" indicates a WP:NOTHOWTO problem. Is there anything missing in the article that the proposed text fixes? Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up valid concerns. first, this doesn't violate WP:NOTHOWTO because it's offering a detailed description of the system, not a step-by-step guide for converting a value to its Roman Numeral equivalent (which would indeed trip over that restriction). The article lays out basic ground rules, which is quite effective as an introduction for a layman. However, it doesn't have the comprehensiveness or precision of my content, which is useful for answering the many questions that come up on this topic (eg why can't I write RN this way, which string of RN is correct, etc. plenty of which you'll see on this talk page). In addition, my content paraphrases what the RS have to say on the topic, which I cited in the section lede. For these reasons, I believe my contribution is worthwhile. Xcalibur (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had had a chance to debate this properly BEFORE the article was changed unilaterally! Anyway, let's just look at a few problems. Some if not all of these were covered in our original debate.

• There are innumerable different (and often contradictory) "sets of rules" out there (many of which can be "cited"). The problem is that the whole notion of "rules" sits very ill as a "companion" piece to the very simple description of the current text. The descriptive (describing what actually happens) can never sit well with the proscriptive (a list of rules and instructions of what (not) to do). This is of course classic WP:NOTHOWTO - although I hesitate as a rule to argue from any Wiki guideline, especially in a dogmatic way, in a case like this. Point is, anyway, that if the description has described properly, then you don't need a "how to". It has to be one or the other (all else confusion!). In the previous debate I even suggested (or I should have) that a deficiency in the description might be better added there than in an alternative take on the whole thing.
• There IS no universally recognised set of rules anyway - and never has been. The current (more or less) standard "orthography" (not sure this is actually the right word anyway, but let's not quibble) did not "arise" in recent times but is very close indeed to the usual form the numerals had already taken by the early Empire period, (say the century BCE 50 - CE 150). The (sometimes quite startling) innovations of the medieval and early modern periods have been, in fact, more or completely discarded and forgotten. In any case, we describe them specifically later in the article. Usage sine the age of enlightenment, when there was a minor revival of interest in roman numerals has conformed to a rather dogmatic idea of revived 'classical' usage. In any case "variant" forms (what you and I might class as straight "mistakes" remain common.
• Any set of rules actually NEEDS jargon (in the sense of words used in a specialised and more or less technical way) if it to be reasonably concise and at the same time intelligible. But we cannot presume a general reader will be able to make sense of our jargon if the explanations are unclear or contradictory (or even just not there!). What is our reader here supposed to make of terms like "decimal/quinary numerals" or "additive/subtractive notation", for example - especially when these terms are used in ways that clash with the meanings they are given elsewhere in the article?
• Roman fractions and the use of the Vinculum or barring (only one way the Romans wrote large number anyway!) have no place in any set of rules of current usage - simply because we don't use them nowadays at all - no we don't (really)! The cryptic reference to the them here is in any case badly out out of place in that both are explained properly elsewhere in sections of their own.

Sorry if this is seen by anyone as less than duly patient, or taking a sledgehammer to a not, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be as fair as I can - have a look at the current "Standard forms" section, which I have now tweaked to cover the specific question that raised the purported need for prescriptive rules. The real reason this time rather than "because you're not allowed". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was only adding content, not editing or deleting, which is why I acted boldly; otherwise I would've asked on the talk page first. I disagree with many of your points, which I shall now address:

• I see no problems with combining descriptive and proscriptive, as long as each is in its own section. They are two different approaches to describing the same system. The contrast should provide clarity, not confusion, as long as the two approaches are both separate and consistent with one another, which they are. I don't see this as a WP:NOTHOWTO issue, since it's a detailed description taken from RS, rather than a step-by-step guide to constructing a numeral. it's left up to the reader to apply the rules correctly.
• But there is a universal set of rules, which are described quite consistently by multiple RS, including a scholarly journal. I believe I have described these rules correctly and thoroughly, so that only one permutation is legal for each value. If you can find any exceptions to this, by all means let me know. And on the contrary, my sources indicate that there was quite a bit of variant usage in classical antiquity, while the standard form only took shape in the past few centuries.
• Yes, there needs to be jargon, which is why the technical approach needs a basic overview to complement it. I did what I could to make these terms accessible by putting the relevant numerals in parentheses, so that the first mention of 'decimal numerals' is followed by (I, X, C, M) and that of 'quinary numerals' is followed by (V, L, D), in order to clear up confusion. I see no problems with additive/subtractive, the relation of these words to addition/subtraction should be apparent. I also don't see how they clash with the rest of the article, if you can cite an example, by all means do so.
• The vinculum and especially fractions rules are not required for my ruleset to work, they're merely extensions to the system (going higher and lower). It is possible to combine numerals with fractions, as I've seen in my sources, and the RS frequently refer to vinculums. Not only that, but I've seen a fair amount of use of iterated vinculums, including here on WP. Since the general limit is three sequential repetitions, it seemed logical to apply this to vinculums as well. With three vinculums, this could bring Roman Numerals up to the low trillions (one less than 4 trillion, to be exact) which should be sufficient.

I'm willing to negotiate my 'extended rules' on vinculums and fractions, if that's the issue. but the core rules are fine. They're backed by RS, there's no gaps in their logic, they're consistent with the universal convention, they illuminate the topic further, and are reasonably intelligible, especially when used in complementary fashion. They are also within the scope of an encyclopedia, and do not explicitly violate WP:NOTHOWTO. For these reasons, I believe my content is worth adding. Xcalibur (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that this would be easier to follow if I linked the relevant content and sources. Thus:

Current orthography the proposed section (current link further down)

^[1][2][3][4] supporting RS (there are other consistent sources out there, such as Lee K. Seitz but I didn't want to overload on citations).

Xcalibur (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a breakthrough and significantly improved my ruleset! While the old one was logically consistent, it was also somewhat inefficient. Now it's much more efficient, thanks to a rule I borrowed from a source I had glossed over. I may post it on this talk page later. Xcalibur (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been argued a dozen times before. IMHO any "rules" longer than the basic description is wrong. I think the citations for "rules" might be useful, and your introductory sentence is much better than the one in the current article.

Here is an example of simple rules, with the many redundancies in your set removed:

1. Symbols are written in order from highest to lowest and their sum is the value of the number

2. I, X, and C can be written at most once each directly before a symbol with 10x or 5x value (thus out of order), and is subtracted from the sum.

3. The shortest pattern that sums to the correct value is used.

Many of the "variants" can be described as relaxing rule 2 toward "any symbol written before a larger one is subtracted", and perhaps not using the shortest pattern.

Spitzak (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is interesting and quite logical. However, explicit rules are supported in Reliable Sources, and I think they're better at answering specific questions (eg why is 99 XCIX, and not IC?). Moreover, while I thought I had fine-tuned it, my recent alteration has been a leap forward. In the earlier discussion, you rightly pointed out that describing a decimal system with more than 10 rules is inefficient. this is because there was a weakness in my ruleset, which I had patched over with a few cumbersome rules (any amount, not redundant, rightmost). In reviewing a source I had overlooked, I found the rule I was missing: addition must be less than subtraction for a given numeral. Thus, I replaced 3 rules with this one, which slid perfectly into place. Now I've got 13 rules, 3 of which are about fractions and vinculums. Ignoring the extended rules, I can now describe the basic system with 10 rules, which is efficient. With this latest advance, there's even more reason to add this, alongside clarity and RS. Xcalibur (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my last addition (deleted by Spitzak as redundant, with which I actually concur) - it DOES cover the only thing that could be described as "missing" from current text. "Following RS" is all very well - but as I pointed out there are any number of different on-line approaches to RMs - many of which could well qualify as "RS". Forgetting the forums, and those sources that actually make incompatible statements, these different approaches are mostly very much WP:NOTHOWTO - and very properly indeed, since they ARE basically "how to" manuals rather than encyclopedic descriptions. The "trouble" with your rules isn't so much that they are written in technical language that won't be understood by the very people who come to an article like this for information (although that happens to be true). It's NOT that they lay stress things like "Roman fractions" and vinculum which are not part of normal modern use (although both these things have their own sections elsewhere, which, just quietly, you might like to (re-)read). It's NOT that in making the rules more "efficient" (=shorter) they have been robbed of whatever comprehensibility they might have once possessed. It's not even that they interrupt the flow of the article - rather the real problem is that this interruption is unnecessary, unless there is something missing from the description. In which case a tweak or two of the description, which is something you have never suggested, through all your myriad posts to this and previous threads on this topic, would be better than a new section that basically starts again from the beginning and tells the same story in a different way. Even if it were a clearer and/or more comprehensive way, which is patently just not so (and which, to be fair, you have never claimed). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spitzak (talk) I've added another tweak to the article itself - expanding the introductory note to the "Standard forms" section with reference to the introduction to Xcalibur's new "rules". Is this helpful, do you feel? Far from essential, in my point of view, if you feel it is "redundant verbiage". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(pardon me for fixing your margins. I think talk page discussions are easier to follow if you only change the margin for each new author). The problem, Soundofmusicals, is that almost none of that is correct. There is, in fact, a single modern convention for Roman Numerals, and the various RS are entirely consistent on this matter. Thus, an accurate description of this convention which paraphrases the RS is a perfectly reasonable addition. it's providing relevant info on the topic, which dispels the "real problem" of it being unnecessary. The rest doesn't really ring true either: it fits right into the article and is fairly short, it's a bit technical but not excessively so, and I don't think there's any serious conflict with WP:NOTHOWTO, at least, no more than there is for the current description. it is in fact an encyclopedic description of the modern universal standard, as given by the RS, especially now that I've filled in the missing rule and taken away the scaffolding, so that it's even more cohesive and efficient. Yes, vinculums/fractions are both extensions of the basic system, but they too are mentioned in the RS -- one of them mentions that fractions should only be added, and most of them mention vinculums. The rules are comprehensive, and they're not meant to be a replacement. Rather, "telling the same story in a different way" is exactly what would benefit the article; the basic intro and the more advanced description complement one another. To reiterate, the ruleset I've offered is quite correct (and more efficient than before), it accurately paraphrases RS, and helps explain the consistent modern standard. And yes, there is a consistent standard, and all the sources agree on that, without any incompatibilities that I've seen, yet for some reason you don't seem to believe this.

In light of my significant change, it's pertinent that I link the ruleset as it currently stands: Current orthography (I added then reverted so that I could link it here, I also struck through the earlier link to keep all interested parties on the same page). Xcalibur (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~

It seems you've been helpful after all. One of your major criticisms is that the style is too technical for easy reading; while I downplayed this before, I now concede this is true. I focused too much on formal accuracy, and not enough on ease and clarity. Thus, I've re-written the ruleset in plainer, more direct English. I owe a small debt to both you and Spitzak for offering critiques which spurred me into making significant improvements.

Current orthography Much improved, I'm sure you'll agree (I'm using mainspace because my sandbox is a mess, and to show how it fits into the article as a whole). Xcalibur (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your own references somehow manage to restrict themselves to 3 rules, how come you cannot? Almost all the rules are covered by "use the shortest allowed pattern". In any case there should NOT be two descriptions of how to write numbers, if your "rules" are better then you should replace the other text, having two texts just leads readers to try to figure out what the differences between them are. And stop duplicating the intro information about this being modern usage. I do think your intro is much better though.Spitzak (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because my refs tend to compound and summarize rules, while I spell them out explicitly. You'll find that the coverage is not that different, especially the last link (which I should probably turn into a ref). As I said, your approach is logical and effective, but it's not as detailed or as well-supported by RS. I'm not duplicating any text, at least not intentionally. Most importantly, I fundamentally disagree that there has to be only one description -- two different approaches to the same system sheds more light on the subject. I doubt it would cause problems for readers, especially since they're entirely consistent with each other -- one is outlining the general pattern, the other is more in-depth. This seems to be a philosophical disagreement more than anything. Xcalibur (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still need a consensus it you want to make this major change - neither Spitzak nor I (not to mention Johnuniq) agree with you so you are a minority of one. The fact that the sources don't find it necessary to "codify" to this level of detail - rather cuts the ground from under your plea that you are "following sources" better than the rest of us.

ANYWAY I am trying hard to use all this to improves the article - and am in the process of using my sandbox to (try to) craft a better article from this mess. (see next thread).

Granted, I do need consensus. I only restored the content because I made significant stylistic and structural changes, which resolved a couple major criticisms. I thought this might be enough, so I re-started WP:BRD. I certainly won't attempt to override others, which goes against policy.

It really doesn't undercut me. Read closely, and you'll see that my sources cover similar rules-based ground, just with less detail in some cases. My ruleset corresponds very well with two of my best sources, namely Allen Shaw - Note on Roman Numerals & Lee K. Seitz which have a similar degree of detail. So yes, I'm following RS, by weaving together the various sources into a single work. Also relevant is that those two linked sources take the 'dual approach' I recommended, with both rules-based analysis and a simple description of the decimal pattern. I see no reason why this article can't follow the same concept. Xcalibur (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Description (introduction).

I have basically reduced the sources to three. All are R.S. - and all refer to the points made by the text to which they are appended. "Sources" I have cut are redundant, or contain major factual errors (one "clearly" states that Roman numerals have no "fractional" forms at all - which is contradicted by a whole section we devote to them! They (the sources) are certainly not more "professional" or "comprehensive" than others we already use elsewhere in the article to make specific points (just have a look at them!)

• There really ISN'T a "universial standard" - (the point of the Adams source) In fact Adams is not really a totally "reliable" source - he seems to favour the use any form you like! But we now hint that this is probably a minority view ("some writers" standing for Adams and his ilk).

• The "Hayes' source actually refers directly to the U.S. copyright example (just one reason why using standard "orthography" (pace Adams) makes such good sense!

• I have kept the best (at least the best looking) of the new references!

2. Heading "Individual decimal places".

• I actually prefer this for a heading! But it does need a separate note about the "base 10" nature of RNs to make sense of what follows. As I said in a separate edit summary it is possible the paragraph concerned could be better worded.

• I finally yield to the "1 to 9" count rather than "1 to 10" - although this rankles. Strict "base 10" counting goes from "0 to 9", of course, but RNs don't have a "zero" so "1 to 10" was actually better in this context.

Hopefully Vinculum explanation will suffice - I think some people have actually suggested its use as "completing RNs for modern use - a totally unnecessary exercise!! In any case no need to complicate things here.

PLEASE forgive mad inconsequential thrashing produced by silly sandbox thrashing!

Soundofmusicals (talk)

Pardon me for interjecting, but the whole point of the sandbox is to experiment. By all means, act as you'd like within its bounds. Xcalibur (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I appologised for is what I actually did - which was to pile up 20 virtually identical versions of the article in mainspace - an administrator or someone might like to wipe them, I don't know how. No bearing whatever on our current disagreement - just a tired old man making a dog's dinner of the very sound technique of making multiple edits in a sandbox copy of an article and then copying the whole (edited) sandbox back into the article. I've used said technique for years without the least problem. Somehow let myself get rattled - but never mind, the end result is what I intended (I think)!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems to be the latest form of the proposed rulesset:

• Repeated decimal numerals (I, X, C, M) are added together.
• Up to three (3) decimal numerals may be repeated in sequence per power (there may be up to four (4) non-sequential repetitions per power).
• Smaller numerals placed to the right are also added.
• Smaller decimal numerals placed to the left are subtracted.
• Quinary numerals (V, L, D) may not be repeated.
• Quinary numerals may not be subtracted, only added.
• Only one (1) decimal numeral may be subtracted per power.
• Subtraction must be by 1/5 or 1/10 (i.e. the next lower decimal numeral).
• Addition must be less than subtraction for any given numeral.
• Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.
• Fractions may only be added to the right of all numerals (not subtracted).
• Placing a bar (vinculum) over a numeral multiplies it x1000.
• The vinculum is preferred for values of 4,000 and greater (it is not used up to 3,999); and may be iterated up to three (3) times.

Quite apart from the fact that they add nothing whatever to the article not already explained much better in the description (and explained much less cryptically and in a proper sequence) let's look, purely academically, at how what is wrong with each rule!

• Repeated decimal numerals (I, X, C, M) are added together.

All very well, but what is a "decimal number" in this context? Listing them (as I, X, C, M) is much less helpful than you seem to think. We need, following this kind of approach, to have a "rule" distinguishing the symbols used in Roman numbers as "decimal", and "quinary" (V, L, D). And what does "added together" (or "additive") actually mean? We probably could not explain what actually happens here at all without a few examples (as in I, II, III) - certainly that is the best way of doing so - but that is getting us right back to how we do this in the current "description", isn't it?

• Up to three (3) decimal numerals may be repeated in sequence per power (there may be up to four (4) non-sequential repetitions per power)..

Again, a simple example example, like say "III" is needed here - but then, isn't that what we do in the current description? In fact these first two rules seem to overlap a bit, don't they? Finally - what exactly is "four non-sequential repetitions per power"? Are you referring to the use of IIII for 4? But they ARE sequential, surely? Or perhaps you mean that fact that the RN for a particular digit can be represented by four symbols (as VIII)? But there are still only three "repetitions" here. And what does "power" mean in this context? Again, an explanation of the significance of the powers of 10 needs to come before this rule if it to make any sense at all.

• Smaller numerals placed to the right are also added.

Yet again, what do you mean? Adding a "I" to the right of "II" make "III" or 3? Isn't this a bit redundant with the first two rules? Or are we talking about adding "I" to "V" to make "VI" or 6? Or "I" to "XX" to make "XXI" or 21? Sort of, although not the clearest way to put it. Are we allowed, by this rule, to add "VI" to the right of "XXI" to make "XXIVI", or 27? (the first "I" is added to "XX" and the second "I" to "V". This last is in fact quite a common type of beginner's mistake. You have mentioned "powers" (of what) but not explained that each power (of 10 - this is important) is separate, we don't add or subtract between powers (in this case units and tens).

• Smaller decimal numerals placed to the left are subtracted.

Your intentions here are impeccable - this is your explanation of subtractive notation. But can we subtract "I" from "C" to make 99? (NO, because we would be mixing, or "crossing" powers). And what is wrong with "VC" for 95? You do mention "decimal numbers" and thus by implication disqualify "V", "L" and "D" - but a rule needs to be specific. In fact there are only six permissible subtractive notations in standard RNs "IV" and "IX" in the units, "XL" and "XC" in the tens, and "CD" and "CM" in the hundreds. To explain this in a single "rule" would be difficult. With all respect, you don't come close, even allowing for the other "subtractive" rules in this set. To explain it using examples, as the current article does, in the context of the common template followed by each power of 10, is not only clear, simpler, and more concise - but it heads off user questions about "subtractivity" far more effectively.

• Quinary numerals (V, L, D) may not be repeated.

Logically this must be so. What can "VV" mean but 10 ("X" )- or "DD" than "M"). But much more importantly - a "legal" RN may not include more than one instance of a quinary number, repeated or not (note the real-life example of "MDCDIII" for 1903 on a respected art museum of all places)!

• Quinary numerals may not be subtracted, only added.

Indeed. But surely you have already said so. what is the point of having a rule that "only" decimal numbers can be subtracted if you're going to have another that quinary ones can't? Or is there a third class of RNs that can? (or can't?)

• Only one (1) decimal numeral may be subtracted per power.

This one is very closely connected with your inadequate little rule about subtractive notation. It needs either to go - or be integrated with that rule (or at the very least to follow it! And you STILL haven't explained what power means in the context of RNs (and why).

• Subtraction must be by 1/5 or 1/10 (i.e. the next lower decimal numeral).

Clumsy, cryptic, ambiguous, and its meaning (assuming I have read it correctly) needs to be part of at least one other rule, so it is potentially redundant as well. We already cover this much better in the current article, using examples.

• Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.

This needs to be rule no.1 - several of the other rules need to refer to it. (hence it coming at the beginning of our existing description).

• Fractions may only be added to the right of all numerals (not subtracted).

This is superfluous nonsense. We don't use Roman fractions at all as part of a "standard, modern RN", so a rule about where they go in a ruleset about standard RNs is plain silly. The Romans themselves only used an inscribed "numeral" fraction to indicate the value of their small change. (see the section on fractions in the article). There is one exception to this, modern pharmacists use "S" (= 6/12 or a half) I'm told. But this is hardly "standard orthography" in anyone's book.

• Placing a bar (vinculum) over a numeral multiplies it x1000.
• The vinculum is preferred for values of 4,000 and greater (it is not used up to 3,999); and may be iterated up to three (3) times.

But vinculum is NOT part of "standard, modern orthography". Its use by the Romans is speculative - its use in medieval times is largely irrelevant (we have ditched most uniquely medieval forms) - and its use in modern times is hypothetical (we don't need it).

Nor, trying hard to be kind here, do we need these rules! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the rules must be taken together. Many of the 'loopholes' you pointed out are filled by other rules. I'll admit, you did find a chink in my armor -- I didn't specify that quinary numerals may not be repeated non-sequentially, and I'll have to tinker to remove that bit of vagueness. for the record, non-sequential repetition can be seen in a numeral like 39: XXXIX, which has 4 Xs, but no more than 3 in a row. The fractions rule is supported by one of my sources, and the vinculum is widely supported by RS, so it belongs. we do in fact need vinculums if we want to extend coverage beyond 3,999 up to the low trillions. You also didn't comment on the subtraction>addition rule, which is very significant to structural integrity.

Aside from the quinary fix, I'd be willing to rearrange and fold rules together. I was thinking myself that perhaps the 'powers of ten' rule could be set at the beginning rather than at the end. To re-iterate, the ruleset and decimal pattern complement one another, as seen in my sources. I'll be back with a revision. Xcalibur (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.
• Repeated decimal numerals (I, X, C, M) are added together, with up to three (3) permitted in sequence (there may be up to four (4) non-sequential repetitions per power).
• Quinary numerals (V, L, D) may only be added once per power (not repeated nor subtracted).
• Smaller numerals placed to the right are added, while smaller decimal numerals placed to the left are subtracted.
• Only one (1) decimal numeral may be subtracted per power, and this must be by 1/5 or 1/10 (i.e. the next lower decimal numeral).
• Addition must be less than subtraction for any given numeral.
• Fractions may only be added to the right of all numerals (not subtracted).
• Placing a bar (vinculum) over a numeral multiplies it x1000.
• The vinculum is used for values of 4,000 and greater (it is not used up to 3,999), and may be iterated up to three (3) times.

Behold, significant renovations have been made. Does this address your concerns? Xcalibur (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BUT it doesn't really address any of my "concerns" at all, in fact apart from my mention of the fact that one of the rules ought to come first it doesn't seriously pretend to do anything of the kind.

• I have repeatedly pointed out (with reasons) why ANY rule about fractions or vinculum is nonsense in this context. To repeat - neither is part of any 'modern, standardised" RN notation. If you are determined to keep the last three rules at least give some kind of reason! Even an example of a "real" modern inscription or document using either would be a step in the right direction.
• Several of your rules are still misleading or meaningless except in combination with other "rules". If a rule has a "loophole" it needs to be "plugged" as part of the original rule.
• The other "renovationed" rules are still (in themselves) highly cryptic, if not meaningless. I pointed out that this could be improved, if not fixed, with an example or two.

My real "concern" is one I expressed at the beginning, and have repeated innumerable times now - a rules set that is any use at all will actually look very like the description we already have. If the description is satisfactory then we don't need to boil our cabbages again - even if the rules really were "compatible with the description". In fact the more compatible they were, the less they would be needed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of splitting the rules into two parts, 6 basic rules and then an extended section to cover fractions/vinculums. would that be acceptable? either way, I would like to keep the extra rules, given their representation in RS and elsewhere (including WP, there's a doubled vinculum in the infobox for 1,000,000,000). On the contrary, I addressed your concerns quite well, clearing up the quinary rule, compounding rules so that they're less fragmented, and re-writing for ease of understanding. Yes, they must be taken together, which is less of an issue when there's only 6 primary rules. My re-formatting has also brought the ruleset closer in line with the RS; they really should be self-explanatory in their current form. finally, two different angles is exactly what's needed to illuminate the topic, and the 'dual approach' can be seen in my best sources. Xcalibur (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quinary means base 5 so that you count 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20. It does not mean 5x10^n Decimal number is also suspect, powers of 10 is better. The whole business of a ruleset is getting far too technical for ordinary readers, and are mathematicians interested? The only reason that I can see for this detailed set is if you are using as the basis for some sort of programming. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Yes, I understand base numbers well, and I guess my use of 'decimal' and 'quinary' is a misnomer. Maybe I could refer to them as 'fives numerals' and 'tens numerals' instead? I'll admit, my initial approach was overly technical, in fact I originally thought of it in terms of programming logic. However, I also believe the 6 basic rules I've narrowed it down to are reasonably accessible, well-supported, and help answer the various questions that come up on this topic. Xcalibur (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that we already have separate sections on fractions and vinculum? Read them - and consider adding anything that we don't already cover to your satisfaction there, rather than under a heading that has nothing to do with either. But please cite any changes - which doesn't mean vague references to "RS" that on examination prove to either to have nothing to do with the case, actually lie closer to the current article, or treat the subject in a puerile or erratic way that is very far from being "reliable" anyway. There is an awful lot of contradictory nonsense on the web on this subject. In the meantime why not just cut these so-called 'advanced rules" out altogether - however important they might be to the topic as a whole they have nothing to do with "current orthography" because - and I am getting a little fed up repeating this, they do NOT form a part of the Roman numerals in current use. Just saying that an unnamed "RS" mentions them is no argument - so do we, in the right place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see no reason we can't discuss fractions/vinculums in the rules section while fleshing them out further down. I'd be willing to consider paring down the rules to the basic pattern, although I'd rather have more content than less. I cited my sources above [Duplicated set of "refs" cut here] in fact, there is a universal modern standard for RNs, and this is supported by a consensus among Reliable Sources, referenced above. You'll note that they refer to vinculums and fractions, and are quite consistent with my rules, even moreso now that I've re-formatted. I suppose I could dig for even more sources, but these should be sufficient (I don't want to overcite). my proposed rule section is well-sourced, logically sound, cohesive, adds something original to the article, is not overly long, and is better than ever thanks to constructive criticism. I'm not sure why you're still in opposition. Xcalibur (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please refer to the text on any of those websites that supports (or in fact relates to) any specific point you have been making here. One of them actually contradicts your "fractions" argument, stating that the Romans didn't have notation for fractions at all (well, they did, but the only examples we have are on small value coins). And to repeat - aspects of Roman numerals that are no part of current usage (and neither Roman fractions nor vinculum are in current use) don't belong in a description (whether formatted as "rules" or not). Exactly what part of that don't you get? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's right there in plain sight. even if you don't have JSTOR access, you should be able to see the first page of the scholarly journal. None of my sources contradict fractions; I believe you're referring to the MathForum section on Calculation, specifically the first paragraph which states that the Romans didn't have standard means of writing fractions using their numerals (as we do). That's true, they used the separate system of unciae and semi, which is explained by the next two paragraphs! it seems like you skimmed over without reading it properly. as for your point, I get that, but I'm not sure if it's correct to rule out fractions/vinculums from modern use, especially since my sources discuss them, and I've seen references to iterated vinculums, and you mentioned pharmaceutical use of S. Xcalibur (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the point more directly. How can you be sure that fractions/vinculums are not part of modern orthography? my sources mention both, especially vinculums. with that said, if that's the sticking point, I'd be willing to put up the basic rules without the extended, at least for the time being. Xcalibur (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they were "part of modern orthography" then we'd still be using them - which we're not (so they aren't). Otherwise, how exactly do you define "modern orthography"? If you want to concoct a "set of rules" (on any subject) it needs NOT to stray from its topic. What about a further "rule 1." stating "Roman numerals are no longer the principal way of indicating numeric values - but remain in use in some specialised contexts for integers between 1 and 4000". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that 'rule 1' is background/context rather than a rule. in any case, if the sticking point is fractions/vinculums, I could leave those out, and just put up the basic 6 rules. Do you assent? Xcalibur (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assent to what? Assent to your apparent recognition that fractions and the use of vinculum have nothing to do with the case? Definitely. In which case by all means have a look at our current write up on these (separate and discrete) subjects (neither of which has anything to do with "current orthography") and improve them if you find them inadequate. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we've come to an agreement? I've restored the section with basic rules, leaving out extended rules and referring the reader to the sections on fractions/vinculums instead. is this acceptable? Xcalibur (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is actually "wrong" with those rules of is that they do not make sense at all without "context". Add enough context to make them clear and meaningful and you'd actually have something very like the current text, only ten times as long and not one half as comprehensible.
But no - unless you can get "assent" from a consensus of other users that your set of rules IS an improvement, then no. That's how it works. --Soundofmusicals (talk)

The context is provided by the article, so that my rules complement the basic description (and again, the 'dual approach' is used by my best sources). For a moment, I thought we had an agreement, your continued objection is rather unfortunate.Xcalibur (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course by "context" I meant specific context, such as supplied by the introductory sentences to your new section. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is my latest draft: (comments by Soundofmusicals in italics)

Modern Orthography

The modern era has seen the emergence of a standardized orthography for roman numerals, which permits only one permutation for any given value. While exceptions can be made (notably IIII instead of IV on clockfaces), the modern convention is widely recognized and adhered to, and may be described by the following ruleset:

This bit really IS redundant - in fact if you had noticed I actually incorporated the relevant part of it into the introductory remarks to the description, so it is now a permanent part of the article!

• Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.

How about "A number containing several decimal digits is represented by the notation for each digit, from the highest to the lowest power" oops - that's what the current article already says!

• Repeated 'tens' numerals (I, X, C, M) are added together, with up to three (3) permitted in sequence (there may be up to four (4) non-sequential repetitions per power).

The objection here was to the "jargon" use of "decimal". Coining a new jargon term ("tens") doesn't really work either. Better might be something like "The numerals governing each power, (I, X, C, M) may be repeated up to three times (but no more) - within the part of the numeral corresponding to a single digit". But the effect of this is made much more clearly in the description, the difference being merely in the fact that we go by line, rather than by column.

• 'Fives' numerals (V, L, D) may only be added once per power (not repeated nor subtracted).

As was pointed out, "quinary" really has another meaning altogether, but coining a new jargon word yourself doesn't really work here. The fact is that no "standard" Roman numeral can logically contain more than one example of any of the "quinary" numbers. Is this rule therefore redundant? Or might we restate it as something like "None of the symbols for the numbers representing the powers of 5 (V, L, D) are ever repeated within a conventionally expressed Roman numeral, nor are they ever used subtractively." still rather silly really.

• Smaller numerals placed to the right are added, while smaller decimal numerals placed to the left are subtracted.

Smaller than what, and to the right/left of what, and when? Totally and comprehensively nonsensical - at least without context or an example or two to show what you are talking about

• Only one (1) decimal numeral may be subtracted per power, and this must be by 1/5 or 1/10 (i.e. the next lower decimal numeral).

"Standard" subtractive notation is limited to powers of 4 (IV, XL, CD) and 9 (IX, XC, CM) - why not just say that?

• Addition must be less than subtraction for any given numeral.

What exactly does this mean? I'm serious, it's very late/early here but I honestly don't know quite what you're talking about - an example or two - clearer if slightly "windier" prose?

These rules describe the basic pattern from 1 - 3,999. The system can be extended by employing fractions and vinculums, which are detailed in later sections.

I really thought we had agreed on that point. Any attempt to append a fraction to a Roman numeral, or express a number over 3999 may be wonderful fun, but it goes into quite another realm than "modern standard orthography"!

This is the result of a fair amount of fine-tuning and constructive criticism, and in its current form would make a useful addition. the 'dual approach' of describing the same system two different ways is quite useful, and it specifically answers the many queries that come up on this topic.

Alas, no - the whole notion is basically flawed - and, even more importantly, unnecessary - although no one is saying the current text is perfect and might not be improved it does the same job, and at least for the time being much better! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided examples in the other thread. I'm not sure if 'powers of 5' or 'powers of 4 or 9' is correct. jargon seems to be the best way to describe the relevant numerals; 'fives' and 'tens' are intuitive and accurate. as for the right/left rule being nonsensical, it makes perfect sense in the context of the 'powers of ten' rule. subtraction can be described either way, my way is more formal and backed by sources. as for subtract>add, is that not self-explanatory? IXX is wrong because X is greater than I, XIX is correct because nothing is added to the rightmost X; IXI is wrong because then addition and subtraction are equal; MCMD is illegal because the addition is larger. it's not flawed, it's perfectly sound, and backed by RS. I still think extended rules for vinculums/fractions are worthwhile (as they're mentioned alongside other rules in the RS), but I'm willing to compromise on that point. Xcalibur (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use jargon at all (rather than just spell out what you mean) at least use a term someone else has used - making up your own jargon is patent OR however "intuitive" and "accurate" its inventor may feel it is. And anyway you reverted to "decimal" in the following rules! Have a look again at that rule I called "nonsensical". The reason that IXX is "wrong" is because it breaks the "separate notation for each digit, and in the normal order" rule. "I" is always a "unit" value - "X" only has a unit value when preceded by a "I" - as in IX, which means 9. So IXX looks like an attempt to write 19 - (either 1 subtracted from 20, just not the way it's done, or nine and ten, which is out of order - tens always go before units. A further problem is that it is an occasional ancient/medieval variant of 21! Lets not get into that one here. XIX is the correct way to write 19 first the "tens" (X) then the units (IX). All nothing to do with the strange mess you'd made of that rule - sorry but calling a spade a spade for once! MCMD is nonsense because you already have a complete "hundreds" notation in CM (900). Adding another hundreds numeral D (500) doesn't make any sense at all - is it an error for "L"? or is it a fanciful way of writing MMCD. Again - no obvious connection with your "rule". This isn't really quite what I meant by "flawed" however. The very idea of a set of rules for Roman numerals that will have a one for one correspondence with every possible "mistake" a clumsy user might make is the "flawed" idea. On the one hand no one really designed the system - it grew like Topsy, and on the other hand as such things go it's just not that complicated anyway - get hold of one or two basic ideas and everything else follows without any real problems. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't change every use of 'decimal', thanks for catching that. I don't see a problem with using different terms, especially when they're similar to a term the RS use, namely 'powers of ten'. in any case, I could work around that if needed. as for the rest, I'm not sure if you're following things correctly. there's nothing flawed about the concept of rules that answer every possible error, because it's quite possible in a limited system such as this, and I believe (with the help of sources) I've pulled it off. Xcalibur (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had mutual "assent" to the principle of WP:BRD. We need a change of consensus here - not a "wearing down" process. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I accept BRD. I thought you agreed that the section could go up, so long as fractions/vinculums were left out. I took you the wrong way. I'm not attempt to 'wear down' anyone; in fact, I've made numerous fixes and improvements in response to constructive criticism. it's my hope that I can achieve a consensus on this, but you seem to have a basic philosophical disagreement with my content. Xcalibur (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of the other parties who seem to be watching this please chime in here with a suggestion about how this dispute might be resolved - since the two of us seem to have stopped at the stage of wishing the other one would go away? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xcalibur Please, once more, just read and assess the current "section we have instead of rules" - see what we say, and list your objections to it. In what way(s) is it inadequate? Don't just say "it is a different approach" again, because in fact that really isn't so. The emphasis might be different but the basic ground covered is the same. We DON'T need to do it twice, even in an encyclopedia. The current text "arose" (if you have the patience to get a really early form of this article you can check this) out of something much closer to a "set of rules" like yours. If you like, it REMAINS a set of rules - only more in the form of a narrative than a list. Narratives are very widely favoured in Wikipedia and lists often deprecated (although I don't like generalised arguments like this as a rule I think this is one case...). Nonetheless I have always been very open to the idea of replacing what we have with something better. A number of people (well two or three anyway) have pointed out things that they think are wrong with your "rules"; in spite of what you say you have made no real attempt to meet this "constructive criticism", which would have required a complete rethink rather than a little tinkering at the edges. On the other hand nobody (even you) has had any real problems with what we have, although (as always) it has been subject to repeated tweaking over the years, and by no means just by me. Might we try to rewrite the current description to be a bit more prescriptive? I may end up doing something that is (quite rightly) not encouraged as a rule, and send a "round robin" request for help around other people who have edited the article over the years, but we do need to get this silly fuss behind us both - the article is the thing! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the thing, that's why I'm trying to add something of value to it. to reiterate, it shouldn't be just one or the other -- there should be both a descriptive and prescriptive section, side by side. they are two paths that lead to the same place, complementing one another and providing a better explanation than any single method. And again, my best sources use the 'dual approach', laying down rules, and then demonstrating the decimal pattern, and I think this article should do the same.

if you'd like, I could tinker with my ruleset even further by providing examples as to which permutations are legal and illegal according to a rule, e.g. XXXIX is legal but XXXX is not; XCIX is legal, but IIX & IC are not, etc. Xcalibur (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite what you think you're talking about here. "XXXIX" is perfectly "legal" - it means 39. Two powers or decimal places here "XXX" = 30 (tens) and "IX" = 9 (units). Nothing whatever to do with "consecutive iterations of a symbol. "XXXX" is not "illegal" - there are no "laws" in that sense. It unambiguously means 40 - but we'd normally write "XL" - at least since before the construction of the colloseum. By all means give us yet another version with the odd example if you must (but do check they are "correct"! - sounds as if they might provide the "context" to make some of the more cryptic rules understandable anyway. How far down that road before you're left with something like the current description? But seriously, where are those "unanswered questions", what exactly are they, and do they form a finite set. I just want to see a criticism (constructive if possible) of the current article in those kinds of terms. Does the article even need reorganisation into a sort of FAQ (not in favour of that myself, really). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course XXXIX is legal. XXXX is not, it's a variant that breaks the rules I've thoroughly sourced. the unanswered questions can be found strewn across this talk page and its archives. and yes, my ruleset is complete and logical, without any defects, and functions more efficiently than before.

one of the major complaints is that it's too technical/theoretical and difficult for beginners. hopefully, by combining it with examples, this final objection can be resolved.

Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.

so that MCMXCIX and CIV are legal, while IC and MXM are not.

Repeated 'tens' numerals (I, X, C, M) are added together, with up to three (3) permitted in sequence (there may be up to four (4) non-sequential repetitions per power).

so that XXXIX is legal, while XXXX is not.

but surely the number 39 has two powers - units and tens?? so how is this an example of "(4) non-sequential repetitions per power)"? That was the point of my last comment on this one, although it may have been a little unclear.

'Fives' numerals (V, L, D) may only be added once per power (not repeated nor subtracted).

so that XLV and MDCCC are legal, while VL and MDCD are not.

Although "VL" is hardly a good example - since it has the same value a LV anyway.

Smaller numerals placed to the right are added, while smaller decimal numerals placed to the left are subtracted.

this should be self-explanatory. XVI is 16, IX is 9, MDCCLXXVI is 1776, MCMXCIX is 1999, etc.

Only one (1) decimal numeral may be subtracted per power, and this must be by 1/5 or 1/10 (i.e. the next lower decimal numeral).

so that IX, XLV, and MCMXCIX are legal, while IIX, VL, and IC are not.

Addition must be less than subtraction for any given numeral.

so that XIV, XLVII, and XCIX are legal, while IXV and IXI are not.

how's this for a first draft? Xcalibur (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are certainly an improvement! In fact - why not go just a little further and explain each example? getting more and more like a version of the current text? (only still LESS comprehensively and far less coherently) or am I imagining things! Get over the "legal" bit - no law has ever been passed about Roman numerals (not even a proclamation by a Roman emperor, so far as I know). Correctness, or at least following the convention, is desirable, and a description of the convention at some stage of the article is necessary, but this only needs to be done once!!! (Really) Saying exactly the same thing over again but in a different order and in other words isn't "another approach" - it's repetitious and redundant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - have a look at my interleaved comments on the previous thread --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain each example, because detailed instruction would violate WP:NOTHOWTO. yes, there is a convention, but there are two different approaches: basic decimal pattern, and explicit rules. again, my best sources use the dual method of description and prescription, and I think that would work fine for the article. Xcalibur (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are topics where WP:NOTHOWTO represents a dangerous pitfall for an encyclopedia article - there are others where it is less of an issue. I don't honestly think you can avoid a certain degree of "instruction" with a topic like this one, although this remains a reason we prefer description and explanation (NOT in itself "instructional") with format rules which ARE, however you do them. Have a look, as I said, at my "interleaved" comments on the last thread (although I hadn't at that stage looked at any of your examples - some of which do clarify things a bit). I honestly don't see anywhere where the existing text (current article) is insufficiently 'explicit' - can you give an example of a place where it could be taken more than one way, or where anything is implied rather than spelled out? Why do you apparently need three rules to cover the very simple (and, in modern orthography especially, very limited) concept of "subtractivity"? We have said (preferably as rule 1. since all else depends on it) that the notation for a given digit ("place" or "power") - is separate and discrete. "IC" for 99 cuts across two "powers" and thus clearly breaks this rule, quite apart from any subtractivity consideration. There are just 6 meaningful subtractive numbers in modern notation - why not just say so? At least, wouldn't it be clearer if all the "subtractive rules" were integrated into one, in order to clearly make this point? This is in itself very useful background indeed for a little later in the article, when we go into the many (mostly but not entirely) historical NON-standard forms. Which, as I'm sure you would agree, is something else that the article needs to do. The "questions asked" about Roman numerals are almost incredibly varied - no "set of rules" (and no logical description either) could possibly forestall them all. The real answer to "why can't I..." may well be "well actually you can, but if you want your numeral to convey a particular number in a format people will recognise (rather than just look impressive) you had better stick to the standard forms - now this is the standard form for the number you are asking about, and this is how it is derived". To a question like "What is wrong with IIMM for 1998? - the answer is "nothing whatever, but MCMXCVIII is very much more usual, because the standard form is "M CM XC VIII" (without the gaps - the Romans didn't even put them between words). Each arabic digit has its own numeral". If we get (as we probably will) a supplementary question "But my way is shorter and I read it somewhere" then what can you do? All a bit like this discussion. Round in circles and never a resolution. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, and WP policies should always be applied with some flexibility. however, I had WP:NOTHOWTO brought up to me merely for proposing rules, which is an excessive interpretation. I think a rules section is fine, but a step-by-step guide to constructing RN would indeed go too far.

the 'powers of ten' rule is supposed to be redundant and intersect with the rest. again, there are two different ways of explaining this, which are complementary. yes, you can describe subtraction as 4s and 9s only, but that's only describing the decimal pattern, it's not explaining why that is the case. my rules make matters explicit, by limiting subtraction to a single decimal value that is 1/5 or 1/10, which coincides with the decimal pattern of subtractive 4s and 9s. we can have it both ways, and we should. on the contrary, my ruleset can indeed forestall any possible question about proper form, ending all circular discussions; it fills in all gaps with a coherent, logical system, which is why it's worthwhile, alongside a simpler overview of the pattern.

as for this discussion however, it seems you have a fundamental disagreement with a rules-based treatment of this subject, in spite of the RS supporting it, and various other benefits. you've denied that there's a universal convention for orthography, even though there demonstrably is. I think this discussion keeps going because we're meandering around, and not getting to the crux of why you object to my ruleset, in spite of it being well-sourced, well-constructed, and an original addition to the current article. Xcalibur (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing facts by reference to good sources is one thing. Drawing from another source for something like a basic approach (say a heavily didactic one) that may well be appropriate to the source but NOT here is quite another. Among innumerable other pitfalls we could even run into copyright problems. Even good sources on a subject like this will vary tremendously. And please read this extract from the article:

There has never been an officially "binding", or universally accepted standard for Roman numerals. Usage in ancient Rome varied greatly and became thoroughly chaotic in medieval times. Even the post-renaissance restoration of a largely "classical" notation has failed to produce total consistency: variant forms are even defended by some modern writers as offering improved "flexibility". On the other hand, especially where a Roman numeral is considered a legally binding expression of a number, as in U.S. Copyright law (where an "incorrect" or ambiguous numeral may invalidate a copyright claim, or affect the termination date of the copyright period) it is usually desirable to strictly follow the usual modern standardized orthography which permits only one equivalent Roman numeral for any given value.

Do you really have an issue with this? We then go one, of course, to describe the usual standard forms, But "the existence of a universal convention for orthography" is still highly deniable - there really is no such thing - no law has been passed, no panel of experts has sat, it is all based on observation of what forms have usually been followed in relatively recent times. As for your praise of your wonderful set of rules - I have to say no. If one rule actually explins 90% of errors then it should be allowed to do so. If there remains anything else to be said - then say it. Then have the grace to finish. --Soundofmusicals (talk)

I disagree with much of this. there's nothing inappropriate about a didactic section, especially in combination with a basic description. I see no issues with copyright, especially when I'm paraphrasing multiple sources. And no, the sources don't vary, they're all completely consistent in describing a single universal standard. yes, there is one correct, legal way, as shown by the RS, and this is not deniable. the fact that there's been plenty of variation, especially in antiquity, doesn't take anything away from this. Xcalibur (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rulsets are a very 21C idea and we are attempting to force a 2 or 3 thousand-year old system into a modern mathematicians view of the universe. Would it not be much simpler to simply do the following and forget rules altogether? There are after all only a few possible components, not an indefinite number that readers need to construct.

it's more of a 20th century idea. the graph table is an interesting, efficient approach to showing the patterns. however, there's no need to scrap the rules, especially when they're very consistent and backed by RS. rather, we can discuss the same system in different ways, showing the basic pattern and the internal logic side by side. That's what my best sources do in fact, and I think it would work here also. Xcalibur (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What graph? I just suggested the table above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant table, pardon my verbal slip. Xcalibur (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This table is a *vast* improvement over the "rules". I still object to any "rules" where it takes more rules than there are actual patterns. Again even the references for the "rules" only have 3 rules each. About 3/4 of your "rules" can be replaced with "use the shortest pattern". But in the end, I do not want to see the system described twice. If "rules" are better then you must replace the current description with your "rules". If you don't think this is a good idea, then it means your "rules" are not a good idea.Spitzak (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My references have more than 3 rules, they tend to compound them, even the NMSU source has 5 rules (not counting vinculums). my current ruleset has 7 rules, which is quite efficient. No, I don't have to replace the description, and that doesn't mean they're not a good idea. it's an alternate approach, which complements the basic description. again, my sources offer both rules and a basic description side-by-side, I see no reason why we shouldn't do this. I've also reworked the intro to tell the reader that the system can be described both ways consistently. Xcalibur (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally about this table - thank you Martin of Sheffield!! it's a very neat way of expressing the real "information" conveyed by the proposed rules - and what's more consistent with the way we illustrate similar information elsewhere in the article. Never mind "replacing the rules" with it (since there are problems with the rules that Xcalibur continues to refuse to address) But it could well form a part of a simplified "description". Exactly where it would fit in, and whether it might be even better with the pattern of symbols running across ("landscape") rather than up and down, are the things we'd have to thrash out - in fact that's where this discussion needs to go. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try the above. Personally I would go for the tall rather than wide form, a lot of people use things like mobile phones to view WP and width can be an issue. Ultimately though it's a personal choice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about THIS - on second thoughts I prefer the columns, but in the ordinary "arithmetic order" (powers descending). With a suitable little note this just about covers all bases! I have also cut the "additive powers of 4" - these are no longer "conventional" in any real sense - only persisting (and then only in the form of IIII) on clocks and a few old coins (which we cover later anyway). Makes it just a little bit simpler. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was always in two minds about the alternative 4s. They are seen (clocks, Admiralty Arch) but maybe are best handled under "Variant forms". I can see why you might prefer "arithmetic order", personally I think "complexity order" is easier to understand, but these are fine distinctions that a bit of concensus can decide. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are "variant forms" and belong there. Point is that Excalibur or Bigdan or whatever he calls himself has (rightly) underlined the importance of a simple, straightforward account of "current practice" - so we really don't want any "except when it isn't" stuff, at least not at this juncture. Off to my sandbox to work out a rewritten "description" section incorporating the table! I'd love to put this one to bed for good...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've got currently. the LURNC (Lee K Seitz) source has been particularly helpful, and I just added a new rule to fill in a gap (I'm surprised no one pointed it out). Now, I'm almost certain my ruleset is complete.

admittedly, the intro is a bit redundant, but the text can always be reworked. the extended rules would be a nice addition, but I don't insist on their inclusion -- the now 7 basic rules are enough. I could add the legal/illegal examples for each rule if that is preferred. for the latest rule, the example would be: 1400 is MCD, not DCM. Xcalibur (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the intro, and now on subpage: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules Xcalibur (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still vastly vastly redundant. You have described "sorted from largest to smallest" several times. And all the stuff about subtractive could be replaced by "the digit for 4 is IV, ..." as no other subtractives are allowed. And almost everything else is covered by "use the shortest pattern". Furthermore any claim that this has something to do with programming is bogus, a program could correctly encode a number by repeatedly choosing the largest "digit" less or equal to the number, writing it down, and subtracting it, as long as "IV" is considered a "digit" with value 4. In any case again I strongly object to these "rules" unless you actually replace the existing description. There should never be "the same information shown twice" in any Wikipedia article, because all that happens is the poor user wastes a lot of time comparing them and trying to figure out what the hell the difference is so that it had to be described twice. Don't do that.Spitzak (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there are redundancies, especially because the 'powers of ten' rule overlaps with others, but it's not to the extent you claim. how else would you define the system by rules, while making it explicit and understood, and while disallowing all illegal combinations? Your 3 rules are logical enough, but don't spell things out as mine do, and don't follow the RS. I reiterate, my content is directly compiled from the sources, which also use the dual approach of prescriptive/descriptive. I don't see a problem with this, and I don't think it would confuse readers so much as provide greater illumination. In fact, I just rewrote the intro to take that into account. Lastly, my objective here is to provide quality, well-sourced content to WP. Why must that be difficult? Xcalibur (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the rules "overlap" any of the others then the rules are obviously "redundant:", which implies they need to clipped - what's very much worse, they are contradictory, and some, even with your "examples" are so unclear that even you can not offer an intelligible explanation. Your whole "intro" duplicates the first paragraph of the "description section - so that there is no need for it at all. Your stubborn inclusion of matter (Roman fractions and "barred" large numbers) even after you seem to admit they have nothing to do with the case is also intensle irritating. These things have been pointed out, repeatedly, by at least three other editors, and your response has been just to restate your case in more or less the same words, and lay down an identical or almost identical "alternative" set of rules that fails to address any of these problems. It is this behaviour that is "difficult". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there are redundancies, but that's ok, as long as it's not excessive. the only rule I could really do away with is the first (powers of ten), but I keep it because it provides clarity. the rules are not contradictory, and not difficult for anyone familiar with the subject matter; on the contrary, their logic is impervious and their style refined (thanks to multiple revisions and constructive criticism), and I can explain each one if you want me to. I can always edit the intro further if you'd like. as for fractions/vinculums, again I'm willing to compromise and leave that stuff out if you'd like. I've made significant fixes and improvements so that it's essentially a finished product. overall, the 'problems' you object to don't really exist, or are minor and can be easily remedied. I think the rules would make a constructive addition, and it's unfortunate that you continue to blockade my efforts. Xcalibur (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To each "point" made above - yes they are, or in other words saying over and over that something is not so doesn't make it not so! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that repeating something doesn't make it true. there seems to be a fundamental disagreement or misunderstanding, or maybe a philosophical objection to a prescriptive approach. to answer one of your earlier criticisms, the subtract>add rule makes perfect sense, it's the reason why strings like IXV or IXI are not legal. IC and IIX are not permitted by the subtraction rule, neither is IXIX (because you can only subtract once per power). this stuff really is self-explanatory, and based on Reliable Sources; I don't think the average reader would have trouble with it, as I don't underestimate their ability. you seem intelligent enough, even making useful constructive criticisms, so I'm not sure what the obstacle is? Xcalibur (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have had more than ample opportunity to share your point of view on this one, and nobody agrees with you. This has happened to all of us at some time or other - usually (on sober reflection) because we are wrong. In any case this discussion really has moved to what version of the table we are going to use, and how it should be incorporated into the "description" section. Watch this space! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, maybe I'm right, and you (& other editors) are wrong. at least, you can't rule out the possibility (no pun intended). I could potentially go through other channels, although I'm not sure if that would be viable. I'll let you know if/when I do. In any case, you have some sort of deep-seated objection to this, and in spite of my valiant efforts, I haven't been able to get through to you, and there it stands. Xcalibur (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and rewritten our description section - formatting it as a set of rules! (this is what we were trying to goad Xcalibur into doing with his, i.e. the point of our "constructive criticism"). As I also repeatedly requested, it replaces, rather than duplicating, our previous "descriptive" text. As more than one of us has pointed out - no reason on earth to boil our cabbages twice. I have incorporating a version of Martin of Sheffield's table, which is neater than what we had before. I have reduced some of the redundancies that were bothering Spitzak - and finally I hope that Johnuniq will forgive any tendency towards undue didacticism, although a certain amount of this is inevitable with a topic like this one.

In fact one might describe this edit as a "reconciliation version". At least I hope it doesn't tread on any toes - and that the article (which is a frequently consulted, quoted, and even cited one) remains a good introduction to the subject. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of mutation have you done here? there's no reason to apply a 'rules' format without the actual rules. combining the structure of rules with the 'pattern description' is rather odd and pointless. the whole purpose of my rules section was to offer a second approach to understanding the system, using logical rules which, in character and substance, are quite different from the 'basic description' while leading to the same place. We should either have just the basic description, or that + a ruleset. and on this particular topic, I do think two approaches side-by-side is what's needed, and readers would understand just fine. I went in and fixed it, btw. Xcalibur (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xcalibur Consensus (in this case plain "commonsensus" :)) says we need to keep our approach as plain and simple, and yes as "logical" as ever we can. The new "description" has been changed in light of the very rules you have been advocating for so long, and deliberately and systematically subsumes their "logic". I was, in fact concerned that you might have felt that after being so critical of your work for so long I had unfairly "stolen" your ideas!

Clearly, a "logical" system of rules must be based on the shape and form of the "pattern" and a definition of the pattern implies rules, whether these are formatted as such or not. Otherwise they would not "lead to the same place".

If Roman numerals were as complicated as many websites (and even printed material) imply, then they would never have survived as long as they did as the normal way people (most of them not otherwise literate) wrote numbers. If they were so fundamentally different to our present system then we might very well still be using them! As it was the changeover took centuries.

They are in fact a simple system - the difference between them and the system that replaced them (for normal purposes, anyway) boils down to the use of multiple (as opposed to single) symbols to represent a decimal digit, and the absence of a symbol representing a "place-keeping zero". Thus (for instance) the "Arabic" number "8" is represented by a set of 4 symbols - either "VIII", "LXXX", or "DCCC", depending on whether we are referring to 8, 80, or 800. I think we have probably hit on the simplest, most comprehensive way of expressing this notion by using the new table proposed by Martin of Sheffield.

The only other rule we need to be able to read any "conventional" Roman numeral, or express any integer between 1 and 3,999 in "ordinary" Roman numerals, is the one you define as:

Powers of ten are dealt with separately, ordered from greatest to smallest and from left to right.

This then is our other basic rule. Between them these two cover ALL the bases. Anything else will be supplementary - or a "correction of a common error".

For instance we do need to have a rule defining "subtractive" notation, if only so the term is not new to a reader of our "Variant forms" section. Really, a simple statement about "IV" and "IX" and their cognates in the tens and hundreds should be plenty. The "subtractive problem" is not caused by inadequate rules, but the false impression given by many writers that "modern orthography" (as opposed to the sometimes somewhat chaotic historical practice outlined under "Variant forms") allows ANY smaller number to precede (and be subtracted from) ANY larger number. I am a little uncertain about this rule - I have actually reworded it a little.

The new rule 6 brings the process of reading and composing a standard Roman numeral into focus - defining the operation of the table and including the old set of examples.

I have taken the liberty of restoring the numbers of the rules - this is something you might have done for your set: makes it much easier to refer to a particular rule - and I have also selected another section heading. I do hope you can (eventually?) become reconciled to this version. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all you said about RNs. normally, it's reasonable to seek a compromise, but it doesn't work in this context. there's no reason to format a basic description as rules, it should be straightforward prose. in fact, rules were never the point of this, the point is to describe Roman Numerals in a rigorous, mathematical way, it just happens that rules are the best way to do so. a basic intro to the pattern and a logical analysis are two different methods of describing the system, they really can't be combined effectively, and work best as complements. if my ruleset is added, it should only be after a basic decimal description, such as we already have. to reiterate, I don't want rules, I want a mathematical treatment, which needs to be formatted as rules. this is only making a mess of things and misrepresenting my entire concept. with that said, I appreciate the suggestion to use numbers, that can be another improvement. Xcalibur (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what specific way are any of the rules you propose actually more "rigourous" or "mathematical" (or in any other way more useful) than the section as rewritten? What new information do they actually add? Remember that the section is about what you have called "modern standard orthography" - i.e. what is in current use.

This is basically the very first question I asked when you first brought this up (quite q while ago now).

Nonetheless I admit the word "rule" is perhaps not what is required in this context - so I have eliminated it from the section altogether. I have restored the numbers, however, as they make it easier to reference an individual subsection without adding a series of fiddly headings. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of my content is to describe the logic underpinning how RNs are expressed, in addition to the basic pattern. I've compiled this from RS, which have the dual approach of rules and basic pattern (notably Shaw and Seitz). these are two different ways of understanding the system, which complement each other and provide greater insight. I only chose a rules format because that's the best way to express the inner logic; this does not apply to the basic pattern, which should be prose + examples. for you to give the basic description a rules-based structure, with numbered paragraphs, is almost a cargo-cultist parody of what I'm doing here, no offense. to reiterate, the 'basic description' and 'inner logic' approaches are different in substance and work best as complements, as shown by RS. I hope that clears this up. Xcalibur (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to summarize even further: I want to add content currently missing from the article, namely the logic behind the standard form of RN. this is based on RS, and should be added in addition to the basic description already there. You'll see the 'dual approach' of basic pattern and rules-based logic in the sources I've compiled. Xcalibur (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I "removed from a talk page" was not anything anyone said, but a list of "sources" not linked to anything specific - at least some, if not all of them are actually cited in the article. I suppose their removal was not actually "necessary" - but it cleaned up the mess a little and did no harm whatever. Never mind - let them stay if you think they do any good. Incidentally I have had a good old read of the talk page guidelines - might be a salutary exercise for you, too. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the content I'm trying to add to the article is directly compiled from those sources. in any case, it's better not to make edits to previous discussion unless needed, since it can be confusing for anyone reading the backlog. the times I've done so, I added strikethroughs without deleting, and added notes (because I linked to a newer rendition below). or if I alter my text just after posting, I'll usually re-sign. Xcalibur (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating a paragraph break between two paragraphs I remarked that 'if the paragraphs were the tiniest bit more distinct we'd need a new sentence'. Of course I meant a new section. In fact it would be better to 'break the section' here than reunite these paragraphs - although each paragraph is brief, there is a quite distinct change of topic, and each reads much more clearly for the line br[e]ak. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [corrected typo in (own) post][reply]

Is that all, Soundofmusicals? has our discussion on my proposed content run its course? Xcalibur (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am concerned - long ago! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q "has been used" - apparently for several different numbers! As noted elsewhere in the article it was apparently sometimes "redundant with D - abbreviating quingenti, Latin for 500". Confusingly, the Latin words for 5,000, 50,000, 500,000 etc. also begin with a "Q", although how relevant this is - if we discount M as "abbreviating" mille and C as "abbreviating" centum - may be questionable! Usefulness and notability are not the same thing, but...

• The "use" of Q as a redundant alternative for D is definitely, well, redundant. It is (just) notable that it was used in this way in Medieval times.
• As a numeral for 5,000 Q could be "used" (although rather less than usefully) to extend the current numeral system to allow an extended (if not complete) "thousands" place - M, MM, MMM, MQ, QM, QMM, QMMM (for a numeral for 9,000 we need one for 10,000). A suggestion to this effect might bring out the people who suppose we actual NEED a way to express large numbers in RNs, and would in any case be uncited speculation, not to mention OR.
• As a numeral for 50,000 or 500,000 etc. - I would like to read the text of the citation that has been offered to "verify" this one (alas, it is not available as on-line text so someone needs to track down a print copy) - but any actual USE of Q in this way seems awfully speculative. It wouldn't fit into any known "systematic" use of RNs.
  

Perhaps a new section called "Q as a Roman numeral"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Cappelli, Lexicon Abbreviaturarum, available online here. Page 417 shows the use of a Q with an elongated tail for 500,000. SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two entries of interest are at the bottom of the page. Q is given as 500 but Q with a bar over it is 500,000. A Q with a horizontally elongated tail is shown as an alternative to Q-bar, it looks like a lazy scribal variant. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently used to display Roman numerals in a slightly enlarged Roman font. It is up for deletion (so that in this article, for instance, the default display for roman numerals would be standard sized non-serif. (IMHO a retrograde step, but that is not the point here). The point is that this article becomes illegible with the template itself modified to indicate that it is under discussion. I have taken the liberty of restoring the template to its former (operative) form. Please forgive me if this step was unnecessary, and the "messed-up" form of the article did not display that way to casual users or something like that! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - the discussion in question is here--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There can be some opposition to the template, I used it on William II of England and was immediately reverted. The discussion seems to be against it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing from what I wrote at the TfD, when discussing Roman numerals, characters like I and X pop up frequently and are confusing without specific styling (((rn)) is used 387 times at Roman numerals). However, at Pope Stephen II (and many similar articles), it's pretty obvious that II is an id, and most of those fluent in English would know it's Roman numerals. Special styling in that case is not needed and may be distracting. That is, I agree that ((rn)) is only desirable in an article such as Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose to replace the words "arabian numbers" with the more accurate "indo-arabian numbers". It has long been established that the modern western numbers used with the decimal number system are in fact Indian numbers, brought to the west from India (see links below). I believe, the indo-arabian numbers came via islamic Spain (caliphate) to Europe. The messenger (Arabic) is not the creator (Indian).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindu-Arabic-numerals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustdownunder (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Those are ARABIC DIGITS. They look like this: 0123456789, not like other glyphs. "Hindu-Arabic Numeral System" means base 10 which is written in a large variety of digits, and was in fact invented long before the digits being talked about. Trying to change Arabic numerals to "Hindu Arabic" or whatever is insulting to Hindus as it makes it sound like they did not invent the system long long before the digits were developed. Just please stop you are not serving your "cause".Spitzak (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a section analyzing the conventional structure of Roman Numerals, using a logical set of rules & examples, based on the RS. The section in question can be seen here: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules should this content be added to the article? Xcalibur (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've raised an RfC the correct thing is to preserve the status quo ante until such time as the RfC is decided differently. For this reason I have reversed your edit. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. Xcalibur (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, a few other editors have raised various objections to my addition, which can be seen in the lengthy discussion above. Xcalibur (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put *'''Yes''' or *'''No''' with a brief reason and signature.

• Yes the content is compiled from RS, including a scholarly journal, and fills a gap in the article's coverage. the 'dual approach' of descriptive & prescriptive is also seen in the sources. in addition, I've provided examples/explanations to clarify. my proposed expansion is consistent with numerous Reliable Sources, which is my strongest argument in favor. Xcalibur (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed above. You then raised this at the dispute resolution noticeboard where an independent editor closed it with the comment:

Closed. The discussion is being repetitive. The filing editor can either post a Request for Comments or accept that there is a rough consensus against them.

— Robert McClenon

This is actually starting to become disruptive, may I suggest a read of WP:DROP before pursuing this any further. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply took the next step, as advised on the noticeboard. if no progress can be made, I'll accept that, but I'd like to try out the available options first. I can just as easily argue that this is a case of status quo stonewalling. Also, I gave this a decent window of time before using other options, as you mentioned on there. Xcalibur (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bigdan201/Xcalibur (still only one of you - dishonest at best to imply otherwise). This (especially your latest re-reversion) is called disruptive editing. It is destructive of the project of Wikipedia, if only because of the constant "cleaning" work it gives others, and will very probably eventually lead to your being banned. "We" have adhered to the principle of "assumption of good faith" in your case hoping against all hope that you really ARE acting in "good faith" and will eventually see the point. Your alleged "improvements" have not attracted one iota of support - either from the several editors working on the article, or anyone else. There is a reason for this, and it is the obvious one. If you cannot accept that you are conclusively "outvoted" in this instance, and that the clear consensus is absolutely against you, I really am at a loss to know what I can possibly suggest. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm one person. I have no intention of being disruptive, and I don't think I have been. I put up a new version because of substantial changes made (which directly addressed a major point of criticism); I abide by it being reverted in order to follow protocol during RfC. I discussed matters at length and tried to address all points, only for you to stop discussion on June 11. this forced me to seek out other venues, and even then I waited for weeks in order to give a break to all involved. I'm willing to accept consensus of course, but in this case, it's a consensus of just a few editors, led primarily by you. You can't argue from a lack of involvement, see Warnock's_dilemma and WP:SILENCE. for now, we'll see if the RfC makes a difference. Xcalibur (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Your effective use of two user names borders on sockpuppetry, even though there is only one user account involved. Please cease and desist, as this is disruptive.
• You did not "put up a new version" but made a major edit to the article when you had agreed that it was "fair enough" to leave the article itself intact until a consensus to the contrary was reached.
• To call the this version "new", in any real sense of the word is risible. Most, if not all the problems raised with the text you wish to add to the article continue to be ignored.
• Consensus can be (and very often is) reached by just two editors. The number of editors is actually pretty immaterial. I have said this before, but you can't deny the validity of the current consensus until someone agrees with you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's a handle I often use, so I updated my WP account to reflect that awhile back. there's no rule against that, and I haven't acted in a misleading manner (which is the only time it would be an issue).

I was responding to Martin's request to follow protocol. there's nothing wrong with attempting to be BOLD again after I've made such a significant change to content.

but it is new, and it directly resolves one of the main critiques, namely that my content is difficult for a beginner. and so, I added a sub-section of examples and explanations to address this. that was the only valid complaint, and now it should be resolved; the rest have been proven false or irrelevant.

of course, a consensus can be a few or many. however, greater numbers and variety make for a stronger consensus, and this one is a bit lacking. my concern is that there's not enough attention or involvement in this dispute, which is why I seek other views. Xcalibur (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundofmusicals: It's not sockpuppetry. It is a bit irritating when a person's user name (what appears on history pages) and signature are different, but it is an accepted procedure adopted by quite a few editors for various reasons. Let's just focus on the issue and get the RfC over.

@Bigdan201/Xcalibur: An RfC should post a precise question without waffle. Obviously other editors object, otherwise the RfC would not be happening. An RfC does not consider whether content is "permitted". I assume the question is "Should the content at Talk:Roman numerals/Rules be added to the article in a "Standard orthography" section?". If so, that's what the question should state. If really needed you can comment about other editors in the comments section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Received and understood. I've made the appropriate changes. Xcalibur (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigdan201 An even better question for others' comments might centre around whether a valid consensus has been established. This goes past the opinion of a single dissenting voice. And I did say borders on sockpuppetry. In particular, for people coming fresh to this "discussion", it is likely to create the impression that there are at least two people on "your side". It really would be less confusing if you picked one "wiki name". Statements like "that was the only valid complaint, and now it should be resolved; the rest have been proven false or irrelevant" go well past being "irritating". Quite apart from anything else, you have acknowledged the justice of a good many "constructive criticisms" without attempting to remedy them. The rules (after all these years!) still take more or less the same form and suffer from the same drawbacks. And, even more to the point, they remain every bit as redundant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no pretense of being anyone other than Bigdan201, so that's not an issue.

but I have taken constructive criticism into account, and made many fixes and adjustments, including the addition of a new section to provide examples and explanation, which should address the 'difficulty' complaint. As for the rest, I'll cover them briefly:

"there is no modern convention" yes there is, and the RS prove it. "the sources are vague and contradictory" false, the RS define a rules-based logic with total consistency. "fractions/vinculums are not conventional" also false, every source I've consulted defines vinculums, and many discuss fractions as well. "descriptive and proscriptive shouldn't go together" they complement each other just fine, as seen in my RS. "we don't need two different explanations side-by-side" yes we do, because this provides more comprehensive coverage and greater insight into the topic; a basic description of the pattern combined with logical analysis derived from the RS is just what we need. That should answer most of the points you've raised, Soundofmusicals. as for Spitzak: his highly condensed approach is interesting, but not supported by the RS as mine is, which makes it Original Research; it also lacks the detail and comprehensiveness of my ruleset. as for inefficiency, describing a decimal system in 7 rules certainly qualifies as efficient.

that should provide a useful summary of our (admittedly long-winded) discussions. finally, this is about making a constructive, well-sourced contribution in good faith, which you don't seem to appreciate. Xcalibur (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still refusing to address complaints, just claiming they don't count. Number one is: if this is a better description as you claim, IT MUST REPLACE THE CURRENT ONE. No edit that produces two descriptions of how to write Roman Numerals is acceptable. Furthermore you keep claiming your "rules" are backed by references, but I read your references and they all have about 3 rules. They also don't describe fractions or the bars and if you think those should be discussed, PUT THEM IN THE SECTIONS THAT ALREADY EXIST!!!Spitzak (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, it shouldn't replace the basic overview, it should be added alongside; there should be two sections (descriptive & prescriptive) because they provide different insights into the topic, and more importantly, the dual approach of descriptive/prescriptive is used by my sources. in fact, my sources each have 5-7 rules, even if they're bundled together into a few sections, so 7 rules is an accurate summary. and yes, they do cover fractions & vinculums (perhaps you skimmed over the content) so there's nothing wrong with mentioning them (in addition to the in-depth sections). Xcalibur (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

btw, added another source: [1] eta: I now have 7 sources, which should be plenty (any more is venturing into OVERCITE territory) Xcalibur (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debating here will not achieve anything. Anyone interested should add their brief view in the Survey section above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the rather rude edit summary we do have a real attempt at a resolution of these sections. Which is basically what we have been waiting for for years! To outline my the structure of the two section as edited - and I might suggest that any improvements keep to the point by leaving this structure intact

The first paragraph of the description section compares the basic structure of Roman numerals with the system that largely replaced them in everyday use.

The second paragraph points out that Roam numerals - even in modern use, are not altogether consistent.

The third paragraph points that the use of a consistent notation is not just desirable but actually necessary in some cases.

The following section describes the Standard form (although since we have said that there strictly ISN'T a "standard" I would really have rather kept the quotes. The intoduction to the table is kept to a minimum - basically just a statement that the table is a substitute for a set of rules.

The examples that follow the table might still be a bit "bloated" - if no one else does I may trim it a little. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of being rude, just honest. until now, my focus has been on adding the rules, which are completely neglected by the article. since that proposal is stalled, I turned my attention to the existing content, and found it lacking. it starts with a sentence (borrowed from my content) which doesn't apply -- the rules narrow it down to a single permutation per value, a basic overview doesn't do that. then the next line essentially contradicts this: is there a single set of permutations, or does it not attempt to endorse or refute various combinations? further on, it claims that Roman Numerals have digits, which they don't at all. RN are an additive/subtractive system using a set of fixed values, a more rudimentary design which pre-dates the invention of place value notation in early medieval India. of course, we can overlay digits onto RN (as the table does), but this is a modern contrivance which doesn't describe the system as it really functions. it's essentially imposing an alien structure onto RN to make it easier for us to follow (since we're native to the alien structure). the rules I've documented are actually much more relevant to how RN operate. the table, while useful, is no replacement.

Reducing this convention to a set of 'rules" that is at once comprehensive, unambiguous and easily understood is highly problematic no it isn't, because I've already done this. btw, I checked the Reddy/Khan source already used in the article, and it has a set of rules for RN overlapping my own! yet you still won't let me make a constructive addition. Xcalibur (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The letters IVXLCDM certainly are "digits", in that they are single symbols that represent numerical values. And I think we have pretty good proof right here in the talk page that "rules" are highly problematic.Spitzak (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no they aren't. they function more like building blocks, which are combined in different ways to generate values via addition/subtraction. it's a fundamentally different, more rudimentary system as opposed to place value notation. for example, RN 1-9 are as follows:

1, 1+1, 1+1+1, 5-1, 5, 5+1, 5+1+1, 5+1+1+1, 10-1.

while we can line these up with digits 1-9, that's a modern contrivance, and not the original design.

The word "digits" does not mean place-value notation. It means a symbol that has a numeric value.Spitzak (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT and misunderstandings are not proof. the rules I compiled are supported by many RS, while the arguments made against them are just opinion and conjecture. that's especially the case now that I've incorporated many constructive criticisms and refined the content. Xcalibur (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, we have got past all that, I hope. Your rules never "worked", and no one ever agreed with you that they did. When "sources" come up with all kinds of rubbish and contradict each other like mad then invoking a particular one is not enough - we are forced to use our own common sense to a degree that would not be appropriate elsewhere. There were never a set of rules that shaped the system - the rules - just like the table - are a way of describing "the system". The table is obviously better in every way at doing just this and we don't (and never did) need both! In any case, what impressed me no end about your latest edits (and why I kept as much as I could) is the apparent acceptance of consensus on one point - and moving on to a general effort to improve the article. Do hope I wasn't wrong there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of re-reverting to my "new version" although I am still working on it in an attempt to get to something you might find less objectionable. The first paragrah of the "Standard" section (or something else conveying the same message) is essential - to define exactly what we are doing here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it! One thing you seem to be missing, by the way, is that it is important that any description of the system doesn't attempt to "refute' or "endorse" (i.e. lay down the law). Roman numerals as they are actually used is far more complicated (one reason why "rulesets" are doomed to failure! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes they do, and they're better than ever. a couple of editors disagreeing doesn't change that fact. you can't pull up one RS refuting my ruleset, which is now backed by 8 RS (+1 already in the article); nor can you find any gaps in its logic. the sources do not fundamentally contradict, they may use different structures, they may vary in comprehensiveness, but all are in agreement and converge on the same rules. in other words, my ruleset is compiled from the RS, and I used common sense in pulling it all together, just as you said. your denial of the rules has no source except conjecture. and yes, we do need both. the table and rules complement one another. there's no reason to leave out relevant content, especially when RS already used refer to rules!

as I said, those first two sentences essentially contradict. claiming that rules are 'problematic' is baseless personal opinion. RNs don't really correspond except by a convenient, contrived method. but more importantly, there's no need to keep emphasizing that the rules and/or chart are not set in stone, because the description already says so, and we have an entire section on variant forms. Xcalibur (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Matching", rather than "sorting" is really closer to what the table does, for instance we "match" 3,000 with MMM. The aim here is not what any one editor thinks, but hammering out a version we can all agree to (this is what consensus means). No need to mention "rules" at all if we're not including them. (We're also not including "my" original power by power description of the "pattern", which would still be my first choice. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my point was that, if you apply place-value to RN, you're looking at it through a foreign lens. it may be natural and convenient to us, but it's unrelated to the original additive/subtractive design. however, you could put it either way, so I made a slight adjustment to the other wording.

No need to mention "rules" at all if we're not including them. the rules are referred to in RS already used. moreover, their exclusion is temporary.

(We're also not including "my" original power by power description of the "pattern", which would still be my first choice. I thought that was fine actually, and could probably coexist with the table, although that would be redundant. Xcalibur (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have a point if you mean that the table (or for that matter any of the various sets of "rules") wouldn't have meant very much to the Romans (or the Etruscans) - they didn't use place keeping zeros because they were indeed a totally alien concept. On the other hand in this section we're talking about the current convention - for much of the history of RNs they have co-existed with Arabic numbers - gradually losing their status as the usual way of writing numbers, and in the meantime becoming standardised. Incidentally - the proper section for stuff about the "original design" would be in a new section under "Origins of the system" - I'm serious - you could probably even slap in something like your rules there. For a meaningful description, however you really need to relate everything to the numbers that our readers (we hope) already use and understand. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the rules took shape in the modern era. historical usage was full of variants: for example, one source mentioned IXCS for 89 1/2, which would be considerably out of bounds today. thus, rules can't be categorized under an 'origins' section, rather they should be separate but adjacent to the existing description. I agree that superimposing digits is one effective way to describe RNs, and we should do that, but that's not the only way by any means. my rules are much more consistent with the inherent additive/subtractive structure which, for all their standardization, is still retained by Roman Numerals. Xcalibur (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually READ the section I referred to as a suitable home for (among other stuff) the "inherent additive/subtractive structure" (it actually may need renaming, I am talking about the content of the section rather than its heading). There is now a gap between "Earky Roman numerals" and "Use in Middle ages and Renaissance" where a really good section about "inherent additive/subtractive structure" could fit very well indeed. It would have to be really good though. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

additive/subtractive applies to RN at all stages, and I've already covered it in the new description. there is a gap between those sections, but it should be filled by a discussion of classical/imperial usage, which is mentioned a few times under variant forms. Xcalibur (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "official rules". The fact that you (or somebody you reference) can write a set of statements that if all obeyed will restrict the possible patterns to the subset shown by the table does not mean it "is governed by a set of rules". At best you can say "it CAN BE governed by a set of rules". Please just stop this it is getting annoying.Spitzak (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rules can be broken by variant forms, but they are in fact governed by a set of rules. this is according to numerous RS, including the Reddy/Khan source already used in the article under Standard Form, and a scholarly journal on mathematics. the sources don't say, you can use rules if you like, they say there ARE rules. we're supposed to follow RS, or so I thought. also, Roman Numerals don't have digits, and they're not designed as a parallel to place-value notation. they have a different, more rudimentary system, which may be compared to place-value notation for convenience, but that's not inherent in them. and I don't want to annoy you at all, I'm trying to improve the article. Xcalibur (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps, there's no contradiction between RNs being decimal and not using place-value. they are in fact base-ten, since the fixed symbols scale up by powers of ten, rather than some other quantity. but it's base-ten in a different structure. Xcalibur (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals are not base 10, but bi-quinary. The symbols do not "scale up by powers of ten" but alternatively by fives and twos. They are a tally derived system and as with many tally systems tend to use simple marks for 1-4 and then distinguish 5 before repeating the sequence. If you are counting up a flock of goats the easiest way in the world is to raise one finger (digitus) for each of the first four goats. For the fifth, raise your thumb and close the fingers. 6-9 are likewise done by raising fingers. For ten, close the fist and raise one finger on the other hand. That way you can count 99 goats, actually a superior system to the Arabic numbers. I doubt that any wandering herdsman cared a brass farthing for a ruleset, they just did the accounting as part of everyday life. You keep banging on about the rules governing Roman Numerals but there aren't any. You are pushing an analysis of one variant of an existing system, not a definition. When a Roman mason or medieval scribe used a variant they were not breaking rules, there weren't any.

Consensus has been against including this, you are not improving the article merely annoying other editors, so please WP:JUSTDROPIT. B/X – if you are really interested in rules have a read of Letter case#Case styles, it will make your text easier to understand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Numerals are base ten, and also bi-quinary. that is to say, they use ten as the main base, with 2 and 5 as the sub-radices. as for the rest, of course RNs were flexible in history, that's well established, with many variant forms from the ancient/medieval eras. but a standard did emerge in the modern era, and it can be described with rules or a table, that's why there's one variant given in the table. rules governing Roman Numerals but there aren't any. all the RS say there are rules. why do you keep denying well-established facts? Xcalibur (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

btw, it occurred to me that you may have assumed that this is about the 'rules' section, but it's not. leaving aside that my substantial, well-sourced work was blockaded, this is about my more recent edits to the existing content. under 'standard form', I mentioned that RNs are governed by rules, but can also be described as a decimal pattern for convenience. this is true, and the RS already used in that passage (Reddy/Khan) lists rules. even if you're opposed to covering the rules, there's no need to balk at a brief mention. Xcalibur (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@B/X, given that the section heading is "More rules bs" and that the first two posts are about rules, then it's pretty clear your rules obsession is being discussed yet again. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but this time it's about a brief mention of rules under 'standard form', not the section. that's an important distinction. Xcalibur (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem with the "rules" described is that they are making modern assumptions that are not supported by evidence and directly contradict the "decimal pattern" in the very first paragraph. In particular claiming that "a lower symbol before a higher one subtracts". This allows "IC" for 99 which is no longer decimal because it does not have an 'XC' in it that is used for other numbers with 90 in the second digit. Of course you can add more "rules" to exclude the resulting patterns but that is where your "rules" quickly become unreadable verses the "these 6 arrangements are allowed" used by the current text.

As for the current mention of "rules": it is a mathematical fact that any finite set of patterns (and any countable infinite set) can be described by a grammar or "rules". So the sentence saying this "can be described by a set of rules" actually conveys zero information.Spitzak (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

they don't contradict. of course you use multiple rules in tandem, that's what all my sources do, which tend to list 5-7 rules each. there's nothing 'unreadable' about a short prescriptive list. I can describe the RN standard just as unambiguously as the chart using 7 rules. it's true that any pattern can be defined with rules, but it's still worth mentioning, especially since the rules are straightforward and numerous RS are consistent on the matter. my rules aren't made up, they're all derived from sources which are being blithely ignored. Xcalibur (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a right-hand regular grammar for the described Roman numerals, if you want "rules". This is nice because it is regular, most breakdowns are not (or they assume "IV" is a terminal). This is some kind of compressed notation, showing all the options as individual rules and making it not match the empty string will greatly expand the number of expressions. I believe each rule can be assigned a numeric value so that when summed they give the value of the number (though some of them will have unexpected values like -2):

   NOEMPTY(
       ['M'['M'['M']]]
       ['C'['D'|'M'|'C'['C']] | 'D'['C'['C'['C']]]]
       ['X'['L'|'C'|'X'['X']] | 'L'['X'['X'['X']]]]
       ['I'['V'|'X'|'I'['I']] | 'V'['I'['I'['I']]]]
   )

Spitzak (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

once again, an interesting approach, but not one I've seen in the sources. I didn't just make up those rules (that would be Original Research), I compiled them from various RS. yet for some reason, you won't let me make a constructive addition. also, RN are both decimal/base ten and non place-value, and there's no contradiction there either. Xcalibur (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint about "decimal", which I have tried to fix again, is that it says "it is basically a decimal system" (which I agree) and then in the same sentence after a comma says a bunch of reasons why this is *different* from decimal. It makes no sense, that should be a different sentence, and it would be nice to add at least one statement in support of it being decimal.

As for the rules, any edit that ends up describing how to write Roman numerals twice is unacceptable. It you think your rules are so great you MUST replace the current description. I also don't like the rules after doing further research, as they state things that there is no proof that the Romans thought of, and then add more rules to exclude these from the resulting pattern set. There are FAR too many "rules" trying to restrict subtractive notation to 6 patterns.Spitzak (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see re-writing it a bit, but there's no need for an overhaul. there's really no conflict: RNs are decimal, and they function quite differently from place-value, both of these are true. in theory, you could use RNs for a different base, so that if they were octal, you'd have V for 4, X for 8, L for 32, C for 64, etc. claiming that RNs use combinations for 'digits' is superimposing place-value onto a different system. it's a convenient way to sort it, but it's not inherent; RNs are inherently about adding/subtracting set values.

I see no problem with describing Roman Numerals twice in different ways, in fact that's what some of my RS do. and the rules are not excessive -- it's possible to reduce RNs to a single pattern using just 7 rules, as I've already done. Xcalibur (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored my description to the article, with an alteration to the first sentence which will hopefully clear up the issue. it should be emphasized that RNs don't have digits, that they're built on a different (more rudimentary) principle, and applying digits is a mere contrivance. btw, I approve of the change to 'translated' under standard form, although 'converted' would also work. Xcalibur (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, digits are not numbers 0-9, they are places within place-value notation. and place-value is closely tied to the concept of zero, so it follows that number systems that don't use place-value don't use a zero. Xcalibur (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for quite awhile, I've been trying to add a rules-based analysis to the article, based on RS, only for a few other editors to reject this. my concern here is that 'consensus' is just a few regulars, with a lack of wider input. while I could try relisting the RfC and advertising further, I have another idea. how about I add the content, on the condition that no one who has participated in discussion so far (Soundofmusicals, Spitzak, et al) reverts it? then we'll see how stable it is. surely, if my content is the dumpster fire you claim it is, there's no way it could stay up, especially when it's a very visible change to a well-trafficked article such as this. I realize this is unorthodox, but I think it's a worthwhile experiment. what do you say? Xcalibur (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For "quite a while" read "several years". If Spitzak, yours truly, or any one of the many other editors who have NOT approved this quite unnecessary, totally useless, and plain confusing nonsense fail to step straight in and revert anything of the kind I suspect there is always someone else who will. Try to accept that not every idea any one of has has is a good one, and this is a real stinker. Reverting any such edit you make will in fact be a very much more useful change than any of the myriad (if repeated) edits you have made to this article. This is extremely sad, as there is a lot I'm sure you are capable of doing that WOULD be an improvement to this articles (and mo doubt others). There - can't say you are not forewarned that no one is buying the latest permutation of the old story. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full force of the above applies - at least as far as I am concerned - but after all this time I persist in giving you the credit for being in good faith, and sincerely I do want to avoid hurting you (or anyone). No article I have ever edited (and I suspect this is pretty typical for other Wikipedia editors) has the precise contents, form, and wording that I would personally consider the "optimum". No article in Wikipedia is the property of one editor - every article is in fact more or less of a compromise between differing points of view (hopefully producing better articles than any of us could have written on our own). The only way of "pushing through" a drastic and universally unpopular change to an article, especially a "well-thumbed" one, is to convince your peers. No sneaky tricks, no repeated re-reverts, just changing the consensus. Lots of very good guideline articles to read if you think I'm making this up! You have had a very good trot on this one - no one has formally called you out for disruptive editing (or even edit-warring) as they very well might have. Reams of kindly (kindly-meant, anyway) advice has been spent - greatly wasting the time of other sincere, well-meant editors whose only apparent fault is disagreeing with your goodself. With the kindest will in the world it is high time you simply gave up (we have all had to do this, in similar case). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response. this began 2 years ago, and I picked it up again after a wikibreak. yes, content disputes are decided by consensus (with no way of appealing to experts, unfortunately). I don't want to waste anyone's time & energy, or my own for that matter; I've put a fair amount of effort into developing the rules section, incorporating many of your constructive criticisms (eg folding rules together, clarifying rule 4, moving 'powers of ten' to the top, adding examples, etc). perhaps there's nothing to be done, but I'd like to try first. If Spitzak, yours truly, or any one of the many other editors who have NOT approved this quite unnecessary, totally useless, and plain confusing nonsense fail to step straight in and revert anything of the kind I suspect there is always someone else who will. that's what I want to find out! if I leave this up, will the article be stable? will there be someone else to oppose the change? I think it's a worthwhile, if unorthodox experiment. keep in mind, it may not work out in my favor, perhaps the consensus against me will only strengthen, then I'd have no choice but to concede. Xcalibur (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that I have understood your proposal correctly? You are proposing making a change, and asking all those who have contributed to the article to do nothing and see if some random bystander disagrees with the great B/X, and just to put us in our place every other editor (apparently bar yourself) is by your definition not an expert. Unorthodox would be a very mild way of putting this. Frankly I'm amazed at the forbearance of Soundofmusicals who has remained calm and polite throughout and who certainly has expertise, even if disagreeing with you disqualifies him from being an expert in your personal eyes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. my mention of expertise was a comment on WP as a whole, where arbitration is only for behavior, and content disputes are decided by simple consensus (with a few avenues to assist in this). consensus is often good enough, but sometimes it goes astray, and it would be helpful if there were (hypothetically) a panel of experts I could appeal to. of course, too much reliance on expertise and credentialism invites its own problems, so I'm not in Larry Sanger's camp. still, a balanced element of expertise would be helpful, but all this is going off on a tangent.

my concern is that there hasn't been enough attention brought to my content. what better way to solve this than to plunk it down in the article and see what other, uninvolved parties have to say? admittedly this is an innovation of mine, but I think it's worthwhile, and certainly wouldn't do any harm. and as I said, there's no guarantee it would turn out in my favor. Xcalibur (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• an update to all concerned: I've done an experimental restoration of the content. it occurred to me that this lack of cooperation may be because you haven't checked the latest version, and are judging it by past iterations. the section is quite different now, and resolves the most relevant complaints (ie that it's cryptic and hard to follow, so I added examples to illustrate). I've reinstated it to make the new & improved version easily visible. I humbly ask that you read through to see all the differences before taking action. hopefully you'll see that it's much more viable now. Xcalibur (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to REPLACE the description with your new one. Will you just stop wasting everybody's time when even you seem to acknowledge that your description is not usable and that another one is required.Spitzak (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "modest proposal" was that if your "humble" reinstatement of your "rules" wasn't reverted by an editor not not part of the current consensus then it should be allowed to stand - well, now it seems to have been more or less instantly reverted by by a "new" editor - so all your "experiment" has done is confirm the consensus. Is this just one more person who is obviously wrong for disagreeing with you, or will you accept the result of your "experiment"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily wanted to bring attention to the latest version, which differs markedly from past iterations (changes to the rules, extra sources, a new section of examples to help explain). in fact this was productive, because the latest objection is that my sources are insufficient. a fair criticism, and one that can hopefully be remedied. Xcalibur (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, @Spitzak: I have no idea why you insist upon replacing existing content with the rules. each section serves a particular purpose, they are not redundant. we need a basic description that covers decimal, fixed symbols, additive/subtractive instead of place-value, etc., then there's the table that shows the set of legal numerals, and then there's rules-based analysis of why that set is legal. each one represents a different sort of content. I shouldn't replace the description with the rules, any more than I should replace the description with the table. there's room for all of these. Xcalibur (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least the discussion is moving forward. Mathglot stated in an edit summary: I see no support for the assertion "The modern era has seen the emergence of a standardized orthography for roman numerals" in any of your eight sources, seven of which are blogs or equivalents, and one reliable source (Shaw, 1938) which quotes "The Tutor's Assistant" (Walkingame, 1845) thus hardly a modern standard. This appears to be OR with cherry-picked sources. Shaw is the strongest of my RS, but not the only one. as for it referencing an 1845 work, that doesn't disqualify it from being modern -- I see 'modern' in this context as referring to the past 2 centuries (19th and 20th). if the issue is my assertion that a standard emerged in the modern era, I can always rewrite the lede and leave that out.

here are my sources: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} admittedly LURNC/Seitz is blog-like, but it's excellent and widely duplicated, idk if that counts for anything, but it should. nmsu.edu is an academic resource, which qualifies it as an RS. Paul Lewis is blog-like, factmonster and edugain may be RS (not sure), mytecbits is blog-like. thus, my sources vary in reliability, but are stronger than you admit. they're certainly not cherry-picked, as I didn't leave out any dissenting views -- I searched all sorts of sources, and they all converged on the same ruleset. my content is not OR, because it's entirely drawn from the sources; we're allowed some freedom in structuring and formatting information, as long as it's derived from RS. finally, if what you're asking for is stronger RS, I've come up with two more:^[9][10] an educational resource and a scholarly journal. I could also add the Reddy/Khan RS used in the article,^[11] a pharmacy textbook which begins with rules. surely this should be sufficient? Xcalibur (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is ONE or perhaps two non-blog sources that give a set of rules - preferably identical to yours - or at least broadly similar. A much shorter list than yours obviously would not count. Multiple sources, mostly blogs, some of which list rules but none of which resemble your rules in particular is not "citation" at all - but as I have pointed out more than once an "invocation". Please read WP:RS, WP:CS and even WP:REFB (there are other guidelines etc. you can probably find for yourself which would give you a better idea. Failing this, Mathglot's edit summary is, alas, pretty accurate - all of your "rules" edits are indeed :cherry-picked" (where they are not pure O.R. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

none of this is an issue. I now have 2 scholarly journals, 3 academic sources, and 2 reasonably good sources; thus my sources are mostly RS with a few blogs thrown in. each and every one lists rules which are broadly similar to mine, and every clause of every rule I put up is from a source. they're not "much shorter", only more compounded. keep in mind, we're allowed a bit of freedom in formatting and structuring content, we don't have to copy & paste from sources, in fact paraphrasing is encouraged (as long as it's accurate, which this is). none of this is cherry-picked, as I didn't selectively leave anything out; and none of it is OR, because every bit is sourced. I encourage you to read and analyze the sources I've provided, instead of just skimming, and you'll see my point. Xcalibur (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between "allowing a bit of freedom in formatting and structuring content" and formulating your own own more or less unsupported OR - especially while constantly bleating about how closely you are "following RS" (to be followed with a justification for not following it closely at all). A blunderbus of every source you can lay your hand on - most of which have little or no relevance to the point you are trying to make, is just not how we do references in Wikipedia (or anywhere else that I am aware of). Just one reputable source with something MUCH more like your "set of rules" is necessary - even if "every bit WERE sourced" - far from the case, and anyway it's up to your to specify this, this is in fact a classic description of "cherry picking". And none of this bears on the questions of redundancy, introduction of unnecessary confusion, and above all blatant disregard for consensus (if that isn't "ownership" I don't know what is!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in response to Spitzak's edits: throughout this whole discussion (with Soundofmusicals telling me to get off his lawn), no one suggested splitting up my section and incorporating the content into existing sections. I'd be totally fine with that, if it's done properly. unfortunately, you decided to be innovative and put up your own set of rules, which have two problems: 1. the rule which states 'the shortest pattern must be used' is not to be found in any of the numerous sources I've provided; unlike my rules, it's definitely OR. 2. while your rules cover alot of ground, they're not foolproof as mine are. for example, 14 is XIV. but why are IXV and VIX illegal? after all, they're all 3 characters in length. this is answered by my rules, specifically rules 6 & 7 (subtract>add, at least 10x). there should not be any gaps in logic.

perhaps just adding the ruleset under standard form would work. I still think examples are a good idea however, since they resolve one of the most common critiques, that my content is advanced and tricky to follow. Xcalibur (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VIX would not work because the V would be subtracted.

You are right that IXV would be allowed by the text I wrote. I was thinking of changing it to instead say "only !XC can be subtracted, can only be followed by one larger digit, which must be immediately after it and can only be 5x or 10x the subtracted value". This forces there to only be one (since IIX has an I not followed by a larger digit) and also prevents IXV (because there are two larger digits after the I). In any case, the crazy amount of text being used to restrict the output to six 2-letter patterns is why people are mostly objecting to these "rules". They don't really work.

Your rules are still ridiculous redundant. You don't need to state that the powers are written from highest to lowest, since any other arrangement would cause some of the digits to be subtracted. And I greatly prefer "shortest" as a rule rather than rules describing the results, which get confusing when saying how many times a symbol can be repeated when one of them could also be subtracted. Also I can only repeat 3 times, not 4 as you state.

Spitzak (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, but I still think rule 7 (at least 10x) helps clarify. rule 6 (subtract>add) is indispensable -- in a single stroke it rules out not only combos like IXV or IXX, but also redundant combos like IXI or IXIII. you're correct in stating that rule 1 (powers of ten) is redundant; while I could leave it out, I'd rather keep it simply because it helps clarify and explain the rest. the rest of the rules have to stay to keep the logic complete and consistent. yes, you can repeat up to 3 times sequentially, but subtraction allows 4 non-sequential repetitions, eg XXXIX has 4 Xs but is still legal; I was careful to distinguish between sequential and non-sequential. as I said, 'use the shortest pattern' is an interesting way of summarizing the logic, but I haven't seen this published anywhere.

In any case, the crazy amount of text being used to restrict the output to six 2-letter patterns is why people are mostly objecting to these "rules". They don't really work. naturally, if you don't seal every gap efficiently, you'll run into issues, which is probably why the editors here are wary of rules. however, I think I've finally pulled it off, I've completely subsumed the underlying logic of the standard set of RNs (1-3,999) within 7 rules, with the help of RS of course. this should qualify as efficient. Xcalibur (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If only in the name of peace, and to extract a (necessary) renunciation of further nonsense about "rules" - two of the efforts of the same editor that we have left stet do need to be reconsidered, at least.
The first is the passage in the lead which describes Arabic numerals as being more "efficient" than Roman ones. The original text at this point described them as being more "convenient" (which they are). In fact the "convenience" of Arabic numbers is very much more to the point than their "efficiency", especially as an explanation of why we use them. A small point this - but the change to "efficient" stems from an unexplained and unjustified revert. Perhaps when the dust sets over the "rules" bit?
The other, more pressing, thing we need to fix is the current version of the first paragraph of the "Description" section. The apparent meaning (when one has teased it out) is pretty well spot on, but the wording is obviously very poor from the point of view of clarity and comprehensibility. Not something that a reader coming "fresh" to the subject will get much out of. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but why are hindu-arabic numerals more 'convenient'? they're only convenient because we're thoroughly accustomed to using them, so that they're our 'native tongue' in mathematics. they're actually built on a more complex concept than Roman Numerals -- place-value notation as opposed to additive/subtractive. for those used to RNs, they did not lack convenience, which is why they were used by Medieval Europe centuries after the fall of Rome. while convenience is debatable, efficiency is a matter of fact. it can be proven that hindu-arabic numerals and their place-value are a more effective, powerful, and efficient system for processing numbers. thus, the change to the wording.

and there's nothing wrong with the first paragraph under Description. it describes how Roman Numerals really work, with each statement linked to the next, and a segue into the next paragraph. maybe it could be elaborated, but otherwise there's no issue there. Xcalibur (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are perfectly right that the "convenience" of Arabic numerals has a lot to do with how familiar we are with them, but as you hint yourself, for centuries the situation was reversed and Roman numbers were the more familiar, so that if that were all there was to it we'd never have adopted Arabic ones. The point, is what is the very best word in this context? Given that Arabic numbers are indeed more "effective", "powerful", and "efficient" - why are these things important? Might it just be because they are in the last analysis more "convenient"? That word sort of sums up the others, doesn't it? At least in this context. So it does seem a shame to have changed it, for no good reason. Not that it's such a major thing we couldn't bear it at a pinch. Worth a lot more than that to get you off our backs about so-called "rules".
Much more to the point, I never said that the first paragraph doesn't cover most of the bases so far as the meaning we want to convey. Point is it conveys it rather badly "from the point of view of clarity and comprehensibility". It may even need simplification rather than elaboration but it DOES need to be clear and comprehensible. It IS clear and comprehensible, I hear you say. The very intelligent person I tried it out on couldn't understand a word. The "only numbers she has ever used" are Arabic ones, mind you (until I pointed out the case of Henry VIII) - but I have a feeling it would stop the average reader in their tracks, with an impression that RNs are very much more difficult than they really are. Not what we want, at least in an encyclopedia article... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the word 'efficient' sums up the qualities of hindu-arabic numerals. there's nothing inconvenient about RNs, for centuries they were good enough for most common uses. however, they lack the sophistication and capability of hindu-arabic, place-value numbers. our number system is mathematically stronger, a sense which I capture with 'efficient'.

it seems clear and concise enough to me, especially since it follows after the lede, which does its own part in explaining the topic. the description should cover the following: RNs use fixed symbols, these are added/subtracted, this is different from place-value notation, the fixed symbols scale up by powers of ten instead of using place value, they form various additive/subtractive combinations, and this allows flexibility. if there's a better way of capturing those points, I'd be interested. Xcalibur (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Efficient" in this context is actually very vague indeed - certainly far from the best word available - but as I have said a number of times, all of can't have all our own way - so I'll leave this for someone else to fix.
Unfortunately "concise" and "clear" are two quite different things. While we want to be concise, especially in a long article like this one, clarity is much more important again. Anyway, that paragraph definitely needs fixing, so that it not only means something, but what it means is crystal clear. Just so I can't be accused of "owning" this one I'll reinstate a better version (one of Spitzak's perhaps) when I get around to it. Or, better still, someone else will do it for us. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'efficient' isn't vague, it's accurate. of course, the word could just as easily be 'sophisticated' or 'advanced'. 'convenient' on the other hand doesn't cover the difference.

if you or someone else would like to rewrite it, then by all means, go ahead. the main thing is to describe the difference between additive/subtractive and place-value notation, and not conflate the two. Xcalibur (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "efficient" is a pretty poor choice. It would be easy to claim that Roman Numerals are 3x as "efficient" at representing 100 (as "C" which is 1 character, not 3). I would certainly revert that back to "convenient".Spitzak (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Spitzak. Roman numerals are more efficient for finger counting and tallying, which is what they were developed from. Qualitative judgements like "better" or "more efficient" are not universally applicable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more - why I find the term "vague" (and for that matter, in this context, unencyclopedic) is that there are two different basic senses of the word - the mathematical/scientific - with quite a precise meaning - and the "common" which is actually very ambiguous and vague indeed. I think we have a very good case here for changing (either back to "convenient" or to another word that fits the meaning here) if only on the grounds of long standing and overwhelming consensus. Just don't ask me to do the changing, since I am on the block here for being stubborn! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of cases like 3,888, which is certainly more efficient than MMMDCCCLXXXVIII. but you're right, while hindu-arabic are more efficient in some ways, RNs have the advantage in other contexts (as mentioned above). in light of this, I've changed it to 'sophisticated', which is far less debatable than other qualities. hindu-arabic numerals and place-value are in fact a more sophisticated, advanced system than RNs, hopefully we can agree on that. Xcalibur (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sophisticated" is at least an apparently sincere attempt to find an other term - but unfortunately it is even more ambiguous (just look it up in a good dictionary) and even more NPOS! While I am wilting under accusations of "owning" the article (talk about pot calling kettle black!!) I will not be the one to make this relatively minor change, but what the [VERY naughty word expunged to protect my image as a nice old man] is wrong with "convenient"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this above. 'convenient' is debatable, and if RNs are more efficient for tallying or writing 100 or 1000, it follows that they're more convenient for those uses as well. we want a word that captures the consistent advantage of using hindu-arabic, and 'sophisticated' is a good candidate, as place-value is undeniably a more advanced system than additive/subtractive. Xcalibur (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why you feel constrained to start so many o your talk posts with a direct terminological inexactitude. You quite specifically avoid answering either of my objections to "sophisticated" - firstly that it is ambiguous (viz. the dictionary) and secondly - assuming you take the meaning of "advanced" - it is very NPOV! Not up to us to make value judgements about RNs, however universal or obvious they might seem. "Convenient" at least states a single more or less value free fact. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

convenience is not a fact. RNs are not inconvenient, in fact (as others pointed out) for certain uses such as tallying, they're more convenient. 'convenience' is the ambiguous concept here, since much of it is subjective. sophistication/advancement is the value-free fact, since it's based on the respective mathematical structures of the two systems. Xcalibur (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again - your remarks are not exactly logical - if "sephistication" IS a fact - how is "convenience' not? This is an encyclopedia, and value judgements are something we do (rightly) try very hard to avoid, or at least mitigate, even in milder cases than this one. As I have said several times - not the biggest deal in the world - but all other things being equal it is a shame, at least, to go against consensus, especially such long standing consensus, even on a minor point like this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RNs are convenient enough, if they weren't, they would not have persisted in common use for centuries after antiquity. if anything, the switching cost of using a new number system would've been inconvenient. the reason why we switched over, and why hindu-arabic numerals dominate worldwide, is because they're objectively superior to traditional systems. that's what I'm referencing with my word choice. Xcalibur (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"objectively superior to traditional systems" – no unless you qualify this with "generally" or similar phrasing. Remember that one exception breaks a generalisation. Let's do a quick gedankenexperiment. Hold up the fingers for 47 sheep counted into the fold. Tally five more (one at a time), then write down the result. No cheating, do it all on your fingers. It's a lot easier to use (LH: four fingers up, RH: thumb and two fingers) = XXXXVII count then (LH:thumb, RH two fingers) = LII. Note I used the original (additive only) technique. It's an "objectively superior" system in this instance, ergo you cannot make the generalisations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I should've clarified that hindu-arabic numerals are superior in most contexts. there are exceptions such as tallying, but for the most part, place-value is more effective and versatile. Xcalibur (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation seems to have gotten a bit heated, hope it's okay I chip in with some thoughts: this question of whether Roman numerals were "less efficient" or "less sophisticated" than Arabic numerals is very characteristic of how moderns have historically approached ancient numeracy, an in fact it's incredibly common to see this claim in some older scholarship. I'd say that it is fair to say that Roman numerals are "less sophisticated" than Arabic numerals, if we hold them to the same standards, and expect that both systems are supposed to perform same functions. We use Arabic numerals as calculation tools, for which they are very efficient, but it is maybe a bit misguided to compare Roman numerals against this standard. Currently, I think, the article does not adequately reflect the fact that the Roman numerals were NEVER intended as calculation tools. Although some moderns have tried to develop inventive methods for calculating with Roman numerals (e.g. Detlefsen, Erlandson et al. (1976) 'Computation with Roman numerals', in Archive for History of Exact Sciences 15.2: 141-148), we have absolutely no evidence that any Roman ever tried to calculate (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division...) with Roman numerals. Romans calculated with abaci and counting pebbles, or simple addition/subtraction with fingers and tally marks. Roman numerals were developed only to be mnemonic and communicative tools. For this, they are at least just as efficient and good as Arabic numerals? Somebody might even say that the (standard) Roman numerals have some advances, since they are fairly "visual" representations of numbers and take advantage of the fact that human and animal cognition has the innate ability to apprehend small numbers up to four (even pigeons have this ability: BrysBaert, 2005, Number Recognition in Different Formats in Handbook of Mathematical Cognition, p. 24). So, reading and using at least smallish Roman numerals might have required less education and arcane knowledge than Arabic numerals. In summary: I'm okay with saying that Arabic numerals are more "sophisticated" than Roman numerals for the purposes of calculation, but there should be some comment to make clear that Roman numerals weren't ever used for calculation. Mythoplokos (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to this discussion! Our current use of the far from ideal "sophisticated" here is an attempt at a compromise on this relatively trivial matter, to which the users concerned can at least be reconciled. BUT what do you think of our original word, which was "convenient"? Perhaps something like "oonvenient, at least for the purposes of calculation"? "Efficient" is of course plain wrong (as a word to convey our precise meaning here) - "sophisticated" is very little better - in many respects Arabic numerals are not a "sophisticated" form of Roman numerals (albeit they share a common "decimal" base, but a fundamentally new system, based on a feature (the place-keeping zero) essentially alien to Roman-era Europe, and originating in the mathematical insights of South Asia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, glad to be here! I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please everyone be patient :D I know the word-choice might be a bit of a trivial question, but I think this issue addresses the wider (and interesting!) questions of social contexts and cognition re: numeracy. Traditionally, Roman numerals have been much 'derided' for the supposed lack of sophistication in modern scholarship, scholars used to even hold that the failure to develop a positional system somehow stopped Romans from advancing further in sciences (even when they clearly did make huge leaps in e.g. engineering). Current scholarship is basically in the process of abandoning this efficiency/sophistication approach. The move to Arabic numerals was very slow - people were aware of them in Europe already during the 10th c., but the movement towards them intensified between the 12th and 17th cs. - and is directly related to how people took their time to embrace a completely new way of calculating and conceptualising numbers, and replace the abacus. There were actually multiple attempts during the Medieval period to develop ciphered-positional systems for Latin numerals, so that they could be used to calculate with the same rationale as Arabic numerals, but none of them took hold. So, IDK how to efficiently reflect this in the introduction. Don't know if 'convenient' alone quite captures it (although it is better than "sophisticated"!), I really do think that this is non-calculating element is quite an important element in the history and use of Roman numerals. Maybe I would rewrite the paragraph slightly in the lines of: "The use of Roman numerals continued long after the decline of the Roman Empire. From the 14th century [?] on, Roman numerals began to be replaced in most contexts by Arabic numerals, which had better potential for calculation: Roman numerals were originally developed and used only for communication. However, this process was gradual, and the use of Roman numerals persists in some minor applications to this day." Mythoplokos (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of good ideas there - but I think we probably shouldn't get bogged down with too much of this sort of thing in the "lede" - which is supposed to be a purely introductory section. I have actually cut the Gordian Knot here - hope everyone will at least agree that no adjective at all here is better than an inappropriate one. This by no means bars us from inserting some of the detail suggested by Mythoplokos at an appropriate juncture in the body of the article! -Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is fine, I have no objection to removing the adjective. Xcalibur (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This first paragraph needs to cover these points:

1. Arabic numbers

That is what they are called in English - this may well be unfair on the Indian mathematicians who actually invented place value notation - but it refers to the actual symbols we use in the west - in fact it is the title of the Wikipedia article!

2. Decimal or "base 10" number system

Reinstating long standing consensus that this is essentially so. The "contention" is really over the definition of "decimal". The comparison with Arabic numbers really doesn't make sense unless this is mentioned.

3. Place-keeping' zeros enable a digit to represent different powers of ten

It won't be self-evident to every reader that this is the essential defining feature of place value notation. In any case doesn't hurt to remind people, and make the comparison clearer.

4. Omit value judgements about RNs being more "rudimentary"

NPOV (even if almost everyone would agree). It IS a value judgement, and adds nothing to clarity of information we want to convey.

5. Set of symbols representing fixed values

Clearer if we state this in its own sentence rather than portmanteau it into the next?

6. Correspondence or equivalence of combinations of symbols with digits

Unless this is clear nothing makes sense!

___Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are theoretically dozens of ways we could demonstrate the standard RN notation. My own preference was a 'place by place' illustration of the common pattern - another editor arranged this as an even simpler and clearer table which makes essentially the same point. Attempts to list "rules" have proved highly problematic - at best they are less than comprehensive, and have caused misunderstandings. This is the current consensus, accepted by everyone except one editor. Please accept it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to add my content, I'm only adding a brief reference to rules under the Standard Form section. this is sensible, especially since the Reddy/Khan source used there lists rules in the first two pages! this aversion to any mention of the fact that there are rules/logic given in RS, as if it's some sort of taboo, really is strange. a brief mention is not much to ask, and shouldn't cause issues. Xcalibur (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All patterns can be described by a set of "rules" so your statement is meaningless. If we want "rules" we should at least use standard notations, such as LALR parser grammar, or something.Spitzak (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, patterns can be described by rules, that doesn't make this meaningless at all. using LALR parsing or similar, aside from probably being OR, is too technical for the layman reader. my content, on the other hand, contains rules that are straightforward and derived from numerous RS. but this isn't about my comprehensive, foolproof ruleset that was wrongfully excluded. rather, you're balking at a single passing reference, which is supported by the Reddy/Khan source already used, from which I quote: In the usage of Roman Numerals, the following set of rules applies:. we're supposed to follow the RS, or so I thought. Xcalibur (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

again, it's a single passing reference, directly supported by the RS already used there. I don't see what the problem could possibly be, unless it's sheer spite. Xcalibur (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But RNs are very simply NOT governed by rules - in fact they're not actually "governed" at all. The problem is that if you want a change in this VERY long standing consensus you'll have to have it formally changed. Constant and repeated disruptive editing is not the way. We STILL assume good faith in your case - why I am starting to wonder.
Even if they were "based on RS", which yours never have been - and incidentally quite rightly so (!) - since the sets of rules in the sources are much more limited than yours in several respects, rules are very simply not the way to go here. The very purpose of rules is to proscribe rather than describe. We do not, especially at this point, and under the heading "description", want a list of what you are not "allowed" to do - but a concise and comprehensive description of what is (usually) done.
This needs to be followed (as it is in the current text) by a further description of the many other things that are sometimes done (or used to be done) instead of what is usually done - under the heading "variant forms". Between them, these two sections cover everything meaningful that a set of rules could possibly convey. The answer to anyone who wants our permission to do something else again is NOT "you're not allowed to do that" but "go ahead and do that if you like, but it's not the way it's usually done".
So basically, however good our rules were they are not required. (Nor, just quietly, is a mention of them - although no one, I fear, is naive enough to fall for that one).
But, if that were not enough, your rules don't even adequately describe everything that IS done, nor do they adequately proscribe everything that (usually) isn't. In other words, they don't work. Nor, perhaps, do anyone else's, but that's not a lot of help. Over the years several people (NOT just me) have raised various difficulties with certain of your rules - and you, to be fair have at times made valiant attempts to resolve the various difficulties. At one stage, for instance, you went so far as to invent a unique jargon ("ones" and "fives") for two classes of RN symbol, (I,X,C and M) and (V,L and D). Fair enough, although to properly explain this to a complete tyro is only marginally less fiddly than a full "descriptive" explanation of the whole system. But jargon only works when it is widely known, and has an agreed meaning.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a single brief reference (supported by an RS) qualifies as disruptive. my rules are in fact based on RS. some are more comprehensive, some less so, but they converge on the ruleset I put up. every clause is based on a source, and Seitz in particular had lots of coverage and was a major influence on my work. the RS are stronger than ever, with scholarly journals, .edu sites, the pharmacy textbook, and so on. take another look, you'll see this is no issue. I agree that we should have a basic intro, a description, and a section on variants. however, I think there's also room for documenting rules/analysis which is commonly seen in the RS, especially because they directly answer common questions about RNs. there's no need for rules to replace another section, just as there's no need for the table of RNs to replace the description either -- they serve different purposes. I agree that the rules are not hard and fast, rather they analyze the common convention as seen in Constitutional Amendments, Superbowls, prefaces of books, and so on. you CAN use variant forms, but it's discouraged.

I did indeed make many revisions to my work, some of which were in direct response to your constructive criticisms. it took awhile for me to create a finished product, to seal all gaps and iron out inefficiencies, but I've finally done so (with your help, in fact). the 'jargon' isn't really a problem, the sources refer to 'powers of five' and 'powers of ten', and I simply shortened this to 'fives' and 'tens'. I also rewrote the rules and created a new section of examples to illustrate, all to resolve the common complaint that my work was too difficult for the layman. But, if that were not enough, your rules don't even adequately describe everything that IS done, nor do they adequately proscribe everything that (usually) isn't. In other words, they don't work. this is simply incorrect. the current form of my ruleset does work, it describes all that is done, and proscribes all that typically isn't. earlier on, there were gaps (eg I had to expand rule 4) but now it's complete and polished. for reference, here's the section as it currently stands: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules. I invite you, or anyone else reading this, to find a single weakness in its logic or style, because I don't think that's possible. Xcalibur (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion has stalled out for the time being, with no apparent way forward, I've decided to document the relevant content in this section. this way, it's convenient and accessible for any interested parties, with no need to go spelunking through the talk page.

here's my finished rules section, which analyzes the conventional style of Roman Numerals by collating numerous RS. it also provides examples to illustrate the rules, and extends coverage to fractions & vinculums. [2]

additionally, I tried to insert a passing reference to rules under the 'Standard form' section (since the Reddy/Khan RS used there documents rules in its first 2 pages), only to trigger the dispute again. [3] To resolve ambiguities, Roman numerals have a conventional orthography which is widely recognized and adhered to. This convention is governed by a set of rules, and may be represented by the following table:^[12] Xcalibur (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next thread was getting very off topic - I have taken the liberty of moving the posts in question here, in an attempt to get back to its purpose - which is not to please everyone but to establish a consensus. First post here is duplicated from next thread for continuity.

• "How to write Roman Numerals" must not be duplicated. If you think you have a better method of showing how to write them, it must replace the currrent description. This also means that your talk about fractions and viculums must be merged or replace the existing sections on these.
• IMHO your "rules" are unreadable and require considerable mental effort to figure out what patterns are allowed. "Write the shortest sequence that adds up to the correct value" would work far better, and if you insist about 4 of your "rules" could be listed as side-effects of following this. And you go into far too much unreadable convolutions trying to restrict the subtractive patterns, rather than just list the six allowed.
• Lots of references are not very convincing when it is obvious they are all cut & pasted from each other

Spitzak (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

must not be duplicated/must replace -- wrong. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this, there's no reason we can't have both, this isn't a zero-sum game. the basic description & rules describe the system in different ways and are not interchangeable. would you say that the chart of RNs must replace the description, or that it "can't stand on its own"? of course not, we have both because they serve different purposes. my rules cover analysis/logic, the basic description covers other points (outlined by Soundofmusicals above: Talk:Roman_numerals#First_paragraph_of_"description"). fractions/vinculums -- I'd be fine with merging that content into the respective section, I included it alongside the basic rules simply for convenience.

difficulty -- I think they're fairly straightforward, but since this is a common critique, I added a subsection full of examples to illustrate how the rules work, which should resolve the issue. shortest sequence -- that's not as comprehensive or detailed as my version, moreover, it's not reflected in the RS, which makes it OR (as I've mentioned earlier). every clause of my rules is derived from the RS. restrict subtractive patterns/list them instead -- that's missing the point. I could just say that only 4s and 9s (to a power of ten) are permitted, but that's not explaining *why* that's the case. among the most common questions about Roman Numerals are why combinations like IIX, VL, or IC are not legal; my rule 5 answers this explicitly.

Lots of references are not very convincing when it is obvious they are all cut & pasted from each other -- Wrong, that's obviously not the case. I explicitly avoided using any duplicate sources (a number of sites copied the excellent LURNC/Seitz source which was a significant influence, but I only used the one ref for that). the reason my RS/sources are independent yet similar is due to convergence, as they're all describing the same system in a similar manner. Xcalibur (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Bigdan - nothing you haven't been asserting for years here, and nothing anyone else has ever agreed with you on. Remember, we're trying to establish a consensus so this is very important. At the risk of protracting the unedifying series of "is so / is not" exchanges between you and me - a very brief answer to your main point: even you seem to admit that the "rules", as you list them, are "difficult". The last thing we want to add to this section (as the one those of our readers who are not already au fait with Roman numerals will likely rely on to give them a first general impression) is anything that will cause far more confusion than elucidation, producing the (quite false) impression that this essentially very simple and basically very logical number system is "harder" than it really is. So no, even if Spitzak and I come to the question from rather different points of view, it is not HE who is "wrong" on this one. Again, this is very plainly the overwhelming consensus, so it is YOUR insistence that is disruptive and no one else's. And I must say again, as many times as you deny it, that YOUR rules are absolutely O.R., in that they are not directly supported by ANY source (reliable or otherwise, properly cited or not) although quite different (among other things, much shorter) sets of rules have been proposed elsewhere. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if points are made, then I'm obligated to address them.

consensus -- the real problem is that there's a lack of involvement with this article, which allows a few editors to become gatekeepers. the consensus here has been rather flimsy as a result. even you seem to admit that the "rules", as you list them, are "difficult". -- I didn't say this. I believe the rules are coherent and straightforward, but I also acknowledge the criticism that it may be tricky for a beginner. thus, I created the 'examples' subsection to make it even easier, which should resolve the issue. in any case, I must follow the RS and keep the logic airtight; dumbing it down to the point of sacrificing integrity is not an option. YOUR rules are absolutely O.R., in that they are not directly supported by ANY source -- False. they're not OR, and (as I said) every clause of every rule is directly derived from the RS I've provided.

I can explain and provide references, but it's up to you to read the relevant content in good faith; if you're unwilling to do so, then naturally these discussions will stall out. as an aside, my purpose here is to share my knowledge with the world, which is the purpose of wiki as a whole; I'm not sure why you're vociferously opposed to this. Xcalibur (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this - (including my own last post) is in this context most unhelpful - being a mere repetition of assertions you have been making all along, and (strictly) off-topic - I probably should not have responded, as I could only do so in similar terms to the ones I have "been making all along". Certainly not the way to get "further participation" - although arguably we already have had quite enough to establish a consensus. I have in fact asked our administrator / moderator to examine, and possibly remove, anything from our recent posts that tends to distract from the point at issue. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be constructive. however, there is some sort of philosophical disagreement which prevents progress. if I'm questioned/challenged, I'll respond for the benefit of anyone reading, otherwise I'll avoid rehashing. Xcalibur (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add one more statement. the criticisms offered so far would be valid concerns, if there was a single grain of truth to them, which there isn't. if I didn't have the RS, or if the rules didn't cover every combination coherently, or if they were redundant with the existing description, then in any of those cases it shouldn't be published. but I do have the RS, they do clearly address every possible question on orthography, and their scope is quite different than the basic description. if you can prove me wrong on any of these points, and if I can't address or resolve the issue, then I'll concede, but that can't be done. Xcalibur (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated and ever more emphatic assertions do not an argument make. Everyone here accepts (I hope) that you sincerely believe you are right. Alas - this does not mean you are right - or, even if you were, that "what you want to share" is what wikipedia is about. Philosophical unity is unattainable, and (fortunately) unnecessary. Progress towards an ideal on-line encyclopedia is impeded rather than advanced by stubborn opposition to consensus. If you are a musical theatre fan you may notice that "we" call the stage works of Gilbert and Sullivan "operas". This (still, years after the question was settled) irritates me intensely. I wanted to call them what they are, which is "operettas". I had to bow to consensus, as you do here. Nobody else agrees with you that a set of rules would be an improvement here. Nobody. Accept it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made arguments, addressing every point, only to be ignored and stonewalled. I want to expand and improve the article, and consensus won't let me do so. this is made worse by the fact that there's not enough involvement with this article (as proven by my RfC being ignored and the relative lack of participation throughout), which allows a few editors to establish consensus on the grounds of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. unfortunately, there's no panel of experts on WP to appeal to. so it doesn't matter how good or well-sourced my content is, or if I prove all my points and refute all opposing points, it doesn't matter that you can't come up with a single combination of RNs not covered by the rules, or a flaw anywhere for that matter. all that matters is that WP is in favor of obstructionism and deletionism, which allows you to gatekeep the article against high-quality, relevant, good-faith contributions, because they intrude on your 'territory'. I intend no disrespect, this is my honest perception of the matter. Xcalibur (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your continued insistence that for some reason your rules do not duplicate the information in the current section, that your viculum and fraction stuff does not duplicate information in existing sections, and that your examples do not duplicate information in the existing examples, is showing an unbelievable stubborness. Just because "I say so" and you use words like "perscriptive" or whatever does not make anything you say true. Just shut up. Or if you really really think "rules" are better, REPLACE THE EXISTING TEXT!!! Or go awaylSpitzak (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there's no need for hostility. to the best of my ability, I've participated in these discussions in good faith, and I'm willing to acknowledge any valid criticism. for example, I'm fine with moving the fractions/vinculum content down to that section and merging it; that's never been a problem, I only included it next to the rules out of convenience.

your primary critique seems to be that my rules are redundant, i.e. stating the same information as the intro in a different format; if that were true, then certainly it shouldn't go up, but it's demonstrably false. to elaborate, the basic intro covers: fixed symbols, the use of addition/subtraction instead of place-value, decimal base, etc. which are not covered by my rules. likewise, the rules logically dictate how the symbols may be added/subtracted, which is not covered by the intro. therefore, they each have a different scope and are not redundant or interchangeable.

as for the examples, there again is a difference, since I show how particular combinations are correct or incorrect, which the current examples don't do (correct me if I'm wrong).

if you can prove me wrong, or find a flaw in my work, I'll listen, and if I can't address it or correct it, then I'll concede. I'm trying to share my knowledge and make an improvement, but unfortunately, I'm locked out by gate-keeping. Xcalibur (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this has no relevance to the thread in which it was posted so I have moved it here. Please let us keep all "off-topic" things (especially bleats about hard-done by we are and how we wish the other(s) would go away) HERE in future. If we must keep telling each other to shut up, at least keep it out of a thread started by an administrator for a specific purpose (getting a consensus).

One apposite remark, I have done a bit of work on our existing "viculum and fraction stuff" [sic] that, while it is not a straight "merge" of any proposed addition does attempt to work these up into a more comprehensive form that might render their (duplicated) placement elsewhere redundant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put effort into creating, sourcing, editing, and revising my content, as well as participating faithfully in lengthy talk page discussion. yet my only reward is being barricaded. Xcalibur (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what can I say, I tried to contribute and work with others, but I've gotten nothing but obstructionism and disingenuous arguments in return. with that said, I'd like to offer my thanks to Soundofmusicals for the constructive criticism you offered, it was quite helpful in revising/polishing my content into a finished product. at least something constructive came of this. Xcalibur (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one more note: this thread began with Spitzak leveling criticism towards my content, to which I responded. before that, the last change I attempted was to insert a passing reference to rules in the description; I thought that would be a very reasonable compromise, and wasn't expecting more backlash. from there, I've only responded to others. to address a major point by Spitzak, the current article doesn't actually explain how to write RNs, even the table just shows correct combinations without explaining why they're correct. finally, I'm usually not one to complain, but I do find this absurd. Xcalibur (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post to this thread anything not of strict relevance to this topic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are ongoing disagreements regarding (1) Roman numerals#Standard form; and (2) whether additional rules should be added. I propose that we handle these by dealing with (1), then considering (2) soon after. For (1), a discussion might be sufficient but if a clear consensus does not emerge, I intend starting an RfC to settle the matter for now. For (2), I'm unsure whether a discussion would be conclusive so it is likely that I would start an RfC after a discussion drafted a precise question for an RfC to settle (2).

Re (1): I had some minor reservations about the wording and propose the changes shown in diff (these were drafted by Soundofmusicals and myself). The changes are:

• Simplify the first sentence.
• Remove "nowadays" as contrary to style and "mainly" as unnecessary and hard to reference.
• Simplify the last sentence to remove points that are unnecessary and hard to reference.

@Soundofmusicals: I made some changes in the diff above. Are you happy with them? Views from others would be greatly appreciated—are the changes in the above diff ok? Should anything else be changed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this is definitely the best version yet suggested for this section, succinct and comprehensive - IMO any further changes would at best be unnecessary nit-picking. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The suggestion still mentions "ambiguities inherent in Roman numerals". I can't see any: an ambiguity means there is a putative expression in RN whose value is not clear. The closest I could come would be a MS fantasy in which SIX could be either 8-1/2 or 9-1/2. It does seem to me that the currently argued about "ruleset" is absurdly long-winded, but also that the claim that there "are no rules" displays an ignorance of the (mathematical rather than legal) meaning of "rules". Imaginatorium (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attempt to say, for example, that 4 is IV, not IIII. The ambiguity is about how to write a particular number so that (with design exceptions such as clock faces) numbers are written the same way by different people. Let's leave discussing rules for the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the current text is fine. however, the Reddy/Khan source used there documents rules on the first 2 pages, so I thought it would make sense to add a clause mentioning rules, something like "the convention is governed by rules, and is illustrated by the following table". ultimately it's not necessary, but really, I wasn't expecting you to balk at a brief mention supported by an RS.

to the new arrival who described my ruleset as "absurdly long-winded", it really isn't. it consists of 7 statements, which is fairly succinct; I doubt it could be much reduced while still retaining comprehensiveness and clarity. keep in mind, much of the section's length is from extra content: fractions/vinculums are there because I wanted to develop the concept further; the examples are there to explain and illustrate, because a common criticism was that my content is too advanced for a beginner. Xcalibur (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole section ("Variant forms") on variant and ambiguous Roman numerals. They are not specifically treated in this section (and neither are fractions) because these are simply not part of the "standard" - nor, for that matter, are any of the systems by which RNs were historically extended to cover large numbers. Like a number of other topics they do have their own sections. Nothing to stop us discussing the content, and even the placement, of these sections in their turn - but for the moment we need to stay on topic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to go off-topic, I was only trying to address the comment above, by pointing out that the length of my section is mostly due to optional content. to respond to your edit summary: there's no conflict between my rules and the rules in any given source. Xcalibur (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect everyone knows by now (or can easily discover by looking up old posts of yours) exactly what you think about this - more or less same goes for me of course. Nothing to be gained by contined exchanges between you and me. The topic of this thread is quite clear (just read Johnuniq's first post) - If you have something genuinely new to say that is on topic then by all means say it - otherwise you and I really need to back off for a week or two to give anyone else who might be interested a chance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being we can accept the absence of the "ambiguity" bit - but I would personally have preferred something that makes it clear that the table links "Arabic" digits with RN equivalents on a one-to-one basis. Or is this nit-picking? The editor who could not find any ambiguities apparently missed the whole of the "Variant forms" section, which lists a number of "ambiguities" - not only Arabic digits that have two (or more) possible Roman numeral equivalents, ('IIII' and 'IV' of course, but also many others) but also Roman numerals that can be "interpreted" as the equivalents of different Arabic numbers! (e.g. "IIXX" (just one "variant" form with at least two possible meanings, 18, and 22). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is desirable of course, but it often leads to opaque text because it tries to make a statement that is 100% correct under all conditions. I'm not wedded to the idea of removing ambiguities but I doubt that it is helpful at the start of that section. If ambiguity needs a mention, it might be later with the examples you mention. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was coming round something to that opinion myself. I think the "Variant forms" section is fine in itself - was just a little concerned that anyone could have missed it so entirely and wondered if we needed to call some attention to it. On the other hand - if "ambiguities" was not the way we used to describe variants (and I have a feeling it wasn't...) then perhaps it is no loss. Oh well. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things that must be addressed if this is ever to be considered:

• "How to write Roman Numerals" must not be duplicated. If you think you have a better method of showing how to write them, it must replace the currrent description. This also means that your talk about fractions and viculums must be merged or replace the existing sections on these.
• IMHO your "rules" are unreadable and require considerable mental effort to figure out what patterns are allowed. "Write the shortest sequence that adds up to the correct value" would work far better, and if you insist about 4 of your "rules" could be listed as side-effects of following this. And you go into far too much unreadable convolutions trying to restrict the subtractive patterns, rather than just list the six allowed.
• Lots of references are not very convincing when it is obvious they are all cut & pasted from each other

Spitzak (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Spitzak's post in the section above. Xcalibur (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdan201 has changed the article yet again! I don't like to be the one to revert this, at least not right away. One would really like to assume "good faith" and accept that Bigdan is genuine about a "compromise" in the sense of letting a mention of hypothetical "rules" stand for the rules themselves, rather than an attempt to wedge them right back in! If this is really the case, then by all means let's test that this meets a consensus of concerned editors. I do feel, however, that if we mention "rules" at all we need to include a meaningful comment indicating why we don't include them. Something on the lines of:

• Some sources suggest more or less elaborate "rules" which attempt to define Roman numeral notation in terms of what is (or is not) "permitted" - the following table, on the other hand, shows the simple pattern behind the usual, or "standard" form, and is a simpler and clearer way of conveying this information.

If any of this is basically objected to by Bigdan - then I find it very hard to accept that a "compromise" is actually intended. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section 1.5.2 for "Vinculum" currently implies that there is some debate over whether the vinculum was used already in ancient Roman times, when there absolutely isn't: the vinculum to mark thousands was very common way to indicate thousands in Latin inscriptions of at least the Imperial era. I would completely delete the David Smith reference for this confusion - this is an outdated general overview to the history of mathematics from the 1950's from someone who isn't a specialist in Roman numerals, and not the best source to use in this article and of no relevance to current specialist scholarship. I would edit the paragraph to make clear that the vinculum was standard imperial practice, and reference some epigraphic examples. I would also add a comment that the practice might cause some confusion, because Romans (and Greeks) also often used bars over numbers in inscriptions and papyri to highlight letters that were numbers, without any numerical significance.

The *vinculum* continued to be used in the Medieval times, but there is currently no reference specifically for this claim - from the excellent book by S. Chrisomalis, he notes that it was in Medieval period called *titulus*.

So, change:

• "Another system was the vinculum, in which conventional Roman numerals were multiplied by 1,000 by adding a "bar" or "overline".[45] Although mathematical historian David Eugene Smith disputes that this was part of ancient Roman usage,[46] the notation was certainly in use in the Middle Ages. Although modern usage is largely hypothetical it is certainly easier for a modern user to decode than the Apostrophus [...]"

to

• "Another system was the vinculum, in which conventional Roman numerals were multiplied by 1,000 by adding a "bar" or "overline".[45] It was a common alternative to the apostrophic ↀ during the Imperial era: both systems were in simultaneous use around the Roman world (M for '1000' was not in use until the Medieval period).[REFERENCES1] The use of vinculum for multiples of 1,000 can be observed, for example, on the milestones erected by Roman soldiers along the Antonine Wall in the mid-2nd century AD.[REFERENCES2]. There is some scope for confusion when an overline is meant to denote multiples of 1,000, and when not. The Greeks and Romans often overlined letters acting as numerals to highlight them from the general body of the text, without any numerical significance. This stylistic convention was, for example, also in use in the inscriptions of the Antonine Wall,[REFERENCES3] and the reader is required to decipher the intended meaning of the overline from the context. The vinculum for marking 1,000s continued to be in use in the Middle Ages, though it became to be known more commonly as titulus.[REFERENCES4] Although modern usage is largely hypothetical it is certainly easier for a modern user to decode than the Apostrophus [...]"

Where [REFERENCES1] S. Chrisomalis, 2010, Numerical Notation: A Comparative History, p. 109-112.; A. E. Gordon, 1988, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy, pp. 122-123.

[REFERECES2] e.g.: https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/2196, https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/2208

[REFERENCES3]: https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/2193, https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/2171

[REFERENCES4]: S. Chrisomalis, 2010, Numerical Notation: A Comparative History, p. 119. Mythoplokos (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This sounds quite unencyclopedic, especially the use of multiple examples. Certain words such as it is certainly easier may be considered as an opinion, where encyclopaedias should not exhibit opinions. I suggest rewriting this in a more encyclopaedic tone — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Berrely; I can try to edit the section to be more "encyclopedic", my first attempts at trying to contribute. I thought of presenting some specific examples as reference, since this is just something anyone worked with Roman numeral practices KNOWS since this is really such an obviously common way to denote multiples of thousands - but maybe I'll use some pages from epigraphy handbooks or something to back up instead. As it stands the section for vinculum is just plain incorrect and misleading, and on a second look the lower part in the same section seems to imply that "boxing" numerals for multiples of 100,000 was a Medieval practice, when, again, this was already widely in use during Roman times. Before I try to rewrite, would you (or someone else) mind elaborating where I used "certain words" that make this section sound too much like an opinion, so I can avoid them? I didn't use the phrase it is certainly easier in the text anywhere! Mythoplokos (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DONE!!I hope that my reworking of your edit (basically excellent - it fills the section out nicely!) meets full satisfaction! I have regularised your references into standard "wiki" format and added a few parameters - but otherwise left things pretty much "as was" (any mistakes that I missed will still be there!) so you may want to go back to it when you have been granted full privileges.

The "unencyclopedic" text another editor objected to was already there - I have recast the passage in question.

And welcome to the Wikipedia editing team! From the look of this one we can expect some very useful edits from you in the future. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Melmann 22:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove

The use of a final "j" is still used in medical prescriptions to prevent tampering with or misinterpretation of a number after it is written.

and add

Into the early twentieth century, a final "j" was still used in medical prescriptions to prevent tampering with or misinterpretation of a number after it was written.

This sentence has two sources, one dating from 1906 and the other from 1918. Sources more than 100 years old aren't good for "is still used" statements. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2C8A:AB39:C6BE:2DEB (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I've added sources for the occasional modern use of j. Danski454 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's even better. But Danski454 (talk), could you remove the old sources, leaving the sentence referenced with your new source only? The two old sources still aren't good references here. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2C8A:AB39:C6BE:2DEB (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually changed the text as requested - I've left just one source here - although its well "dated" so is the information, so the old source is fine (in this context). What we don't need is four sources in a block! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]