Talk:Alfonsine tables

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parisian versus Castilian origin for the Alfonsine tables[edit]

My understanding of the Alfonsine tables is that their having a Parisian origin is not a majority view. The standard position seems to be that the Latin copies of these tables are translations of the Castilian tables, rather than being freshly calculated in Paris. Emmanuel Poulle is, as I understand it, the main proponent of a French origin. I don't have the references for this to hand right now but I'll check this next week if I get the chance.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich on Epicycles[edit]

The section on methodology implies that the Alfonsine Tables were constrcuted using 'epicycles on epicycles'. However, in the source cited Gingrich he actually makes the opposite argument, calling it a historical myth.

While some models such as those of al-Shatir did use 'epicycles on epicycles', there is no evidence these were used to construct the alfonsine tables. Gethin sci hist (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Revision Needed[edit]

I just tagged as “Failed Verification” a reference to an article, from an edit that was done in 2011—almost 13 years ago. I’m surprised nobody caught that before. And looking at the history of revisions (trying to find the origin of the citation), I realize this article needs a thorough revision. I do not have the time for that, at least right now—can someone please take that in charge?

CielProfond (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]