Talk:Roman dodecahedron

Stone?

Somebody claimed there were stone versions, but I removed it as it had no source. None of Guggenberger 2013, Thompson 1970, or Chistopher 1994 mention stone versions.(on the contrary, they mention casting, which is nearly impossible with stone) If you have a reliable source, feel free to re-add. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No more proposed solutions here please

I've archived more than a dozen threads where people offered possible explanations without reliable sources. It's interesting to speculate and discuss new proposals, but Wikipedia is not the right place for that discussion. New possible uses can be added to the article, but only if the proposal has already been made in reliable sources. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 21:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Two proposals are based on arxiv preprint by Sparavigna and the Wageman website which are both self-published sources. Are either of these people subject matter experts? They have footnotes and figures sort of like academic papers, but statements like "I based my works [1] and [2] mainly on Wikipedia and references therein" is a pretty big red flag. I suggest we should remove these. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sparavigna is apparently an assistant professor at Politecnico di Torino, so plausibly a WP:SPS. Citing Wikipedia is a cause for concern but it's not the primary basis for the paper so probably not a disqualifying factor in this case, I'd say. On the other hand I can't find anything out about Wageman, so in the absence of any indication of expertise I think we can drop that citation and the associated claim. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(By which I mean, of course, plausibly a WP:EXPERTSPS.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This object is a connector for wooden poles in temporary constructions, such as watch towers, bridges and stages. Louis10000 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The nobs serve as holders for ropes to tighten the connection between the dodehecadron and the poles.

The fact that this is not stated in other sources does not make the above less true. If Wikipedia is not the place to share this information, where should it be shared instead? Louis10000 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for what you think is true; its purpose is to summarise what reliable sources (which in an archaeology article like this means almost exclusively academic/scholarly sources) say about a topic. In the archives for this page you will find a bunch of people who all have The One True Explanation for what these dodecahedra were used for: you will notice that none of them agree, however. Wikipedia cannot judge which of these competing theories is actually correct and we do not try to.

As for where you should share your theory: the easiest way would be to make your own blog. If you want to publish in a way which Wikipedia would consider reliable, you will need to submit an article to a scholarly journal but this will be much more difficult to achieve. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Similar objects / See also

Would this Carved stone balls qualify for either a mention in the "Similar objects" section, or a "See also" link? Nø (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

under possible uses the function surveying is mentioned twice

it is a redundancy to mention it at the beginning of the chapter and the end of the chapter 2603:6010:A5F0:AE80:CD7B:D35B:7A81:844F (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Were Roman dodecahedrons ordinary ground holders of a different type of Roman amphora?

The roman amphora has designed as it must be hold on the ground in some way and its look like roman dodecahedron can be used for such purpose. The different sized amphora can be placed as dodecahedron be simply rotate. Emil Enchev BG (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Emil Enchev BG, this is an interesting theory, though I confess I am not sure it would be practical. I will caution you that Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages are meant to be used to improve the article using reliable sources. In the grand scheme of things, this is a venial sin, so no worries. But be aware that contributions like this--while being in obvious good faith--may be summarily undone. Cheers, and thanks for the interesting thought. Dumuzid (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Roman dodecahedron was probably used as a rangefinder for aiming a weapon

Roman dodecahedron was probably used as a rangefinder for aiming a weapon such as a Bow and Arrow, or a Roman Siege Engine.

2601:444:300:B070:F8FC:776F:48EC:78C7 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but a pinterest post is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and even the comments on the post itself strike me as raising serious doubts about the hypothesis. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The allegedly circular reference in Roman dodecahedron

• Sparavigna, A. (2012). "Roman dodecahedron as dioptron: Analysis of freely available data". arXiv:1206.0946.

The source I supposedly known as the circular reference explicitly states the fact that is from Wikipedia itself. Previously, I asked to @Cynwolfe and he said the source do not mee the criteria of WP:RS. I would like to hear more opinions from other users. Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

She (I) did not say that Sparavigna did not meet criteria of WP:RS; possibly not, if the article is self-published. I personally am not entirely opposed to using some forms of self-published sources in WP, but it does require deft vetting. But Sparavigna is not a circular reference. A circular reference is when a WP article cites a WP article. See WP:CIRCULAR. Sometimes this happens because the WP article has been lifted and republished elsewhere in some form, with or without attribution to WP. I don't see that happening as much as it used to.

Sparavigna is reviewing theories that can be found online (which is why I could go either way on reliability – it's a bit like a review article, and at first glance she appears to be a qualified scholar[1][2][3]) to see whether they have any validity. The one citation to WP is for a theory of use that she cites in order to dismiss, so she is not using WP as a source to support a claim. The opposite, in fact. Also, she takes one of her graphics from WP. As the quality, usefulness, and range of images at Commons has increased over the years, I've seen impeccable scholars use an image from Commons. This is not circularity. Someone who knows more about physics and engineering than I do would have to vet the article for reliability. I'm just saying that it isn't disqualified on the basis of circularity. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)