Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Calibration date of the device

The second last paragraph of the introduction includes a sentence “In 2022 researchers determined the first date the machine could show was 23 December 178 BC.” This is referenced to an article in Ars Technica on arXiv published (so not peer reviewed) research (ref 22) and the primary arXiv article (ref 23). Both references refer to the “initial calibration date”, not “the first date the machine could show”. The Ars Technica article also mentions that other researchers disagree with this proposed calibration date, “summer 204 BC” being mentioned as an alternate date. This research isn’t explained in more detail in the main article. I am going to change the reference in the introduction to more clearly reflect the nature of the proposed date and the fact that not all researchers agree with it. The reason for the selection of either of the dates should be discussed in more detail in the body of the article. My expertise is not sufficient to explain in the detail required, so I’ll leave this to someone who is better versed in the subject. Ayenaee (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's prominent feature of the mechanism

Should we mention Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's inclusion of the mechanism, and if so, how? Brayman30 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

it's already there, see last sentence of Popular culture and museum replicas section. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)