|WikiProject Time||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This article makes some awfully specific recommendations. Where did they come from? Melchoir 09:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Seperate Circa Article?
Perhaps the latin word "circa" should be seperate page?
I made this into a disambiguation page, linked the latin bit to wiktionary, and deleted the overly specific (and likely false) dating recommendations. Elcocinero 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
|This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the redirect to the DAB page. I think that this article should stay because among other things it is linked to by 682 other articles. If consensus is to make it a redirect, I will obviously go with that, but I will insist that whoever does the redirect also cleans up all the double redirects per standard protocol instead of leaving them all broken. --After Midnight 0001 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, you have a point there. I redirected it, but I shall leave it in place now. --Xyzzyplugh 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is nicely written, since it details the historical use, and not just the word's origins and definition. Circa literally means "around" in American English; I remember vaguely that in British English "about" carries the same concept of following a curve or circle. I added "around" since "about" isn't often used in this sense by Americans. Also, there could be links to circumference, circumvention, and other cognates. --188.8.131.52 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what part of the U.S. you're from, but that is an amazingly wrong generalization. In New England, at least, we say "about" frequently, probably more often, but use both. (I suspect the British use both as well, knowing several). Keep your crazy generalizations about language to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I also take issue with connecting this term exclusively with historical dates. Is it really the case that this term is used only in this context? I know that in other languages (e.g. German) the term is used interchangeably with other words that mean approximately. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Relevance of picture?
It doesn't mean "in approximately". It means "approximately". One wouldn't say "born in approximately 1350" (would one?), but "born approximately 1350" (or "born around 1350"). The "in" is wrong, in my opinion.
My Collins Concise (1982) defines it as "approximately at the time of"; my Websters (1994) as "about" and my Oxforx Concise (2002) as "approximately". None says "in". Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In English speaking countries, there is plenty of examples of published papers in which "about" is used instead of "circa". I am wondering why you Americans in recent years (almost only on the web), tend to use (likely abuse and misuse) words that are "lent" from Latin language, is this perhaps a sympthom of an inferiority complex or of a subtly hidden fascist ideology? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)