Jump to content

Template talk:Circa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Circa/doc)

Unaddressed questions on usage

[edit]

MOS:CIRCA recommends that we use this template, and that raises questions that the template's page does not address.

MOS:CIRCA includes an example using a year BC. Yet every example on the template's page involves years AD.

Additionally, what are we supposed to do when there is an approximate date that involves a month and year, such as "c. May 1906"?

Does the template support either type of argument?

Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moreover, what about BC vs. BCE, AD vs. CE? And then there are AH (year of the Hegira) and AM (anno mundi). TomS TDotO (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template allows any text to be added in place of a year, e.g. c. 1000 BCE, c. May 1906, c. Antidisestablishmentarianism. It doesn't ensure that the text entered is formatted correctly in any way. It also prevents text wrapping, so c. 1000 BCE would always stay together on one line. Mclay1 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why a hair space instead of a regular space?

[edit]

Re: Template talk:Circa/Archive 1#Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Greetings and felicitations. My question got lost in the rest of the discussion. Why does this template use a hair space instead of a regular space? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this, as I am still curious (and would prefer a regular space, please). —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And respectfully still do. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it per WP:SILENCE. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: please change it back. There's no reason to use a regular space. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The season is that that is what is usually used everywhere else with abbreviations. Why was (and should be) "c." an exception? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only documentation for {{hairsp}} I can find in the Manual of Style is at MOS:#Other uses for em dashes. Would be good to make sure this use reflects other style guide recommendations and common use. --YodinT 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't use {{hairsp}}. It uses a {{thin space}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, but that's a quibble. DocWatson42 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important distinction. A hairspace is much narrower. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{thin space}} is also only mentioned a couple of times in the MOS and other Wikipedia/Help pages: MOS:NBSP just says it is sometimes used to correct too-close placement of adjacent characters (which does not apply in this case, as there should be a space between c. and the following content). WP:MATHS says In rare circumstances, such as where one character overlaps another due to one being in italics, a thin space can be added. The last instance warns what not to do, with MOS:DIGITS saying use of any space character as a separator in numbers, including non-breaking space, is problematic for screen readers [...] (e.g. 30{{thin space}}000 is read as "thirty zero zero zero"), which shows Template:Thin space/doc doesn't reflect best practice. @Neveselbert you still haven't provided any reasons why it should be used here. Is there any reason, or is it just personal preference? --YodinT 08:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A regular space can appear too wide, disrupting the flow of text and making it harder to associate the abbreviation with the following content. The thinspace provides a balanced visual separation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I've never had that experience. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove dotted underline

[edit]

It seems the small dotted underline under the "c." (c.) is unnecessary and an eyesore. Could someone remove it? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of this template is to provide an abbreviation for c. which not everyone knows about; this is the only way to do it. On a related note, your signature is rather difficult to read. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: If you need a hyperlink to explain c., then the normal way to do it on Wikipedia is to give a dark blue color to the lettering as in "c.", which would be more than enough in this case and unobtrusive at the same time. I don't think it is usual to use a dotted underline for this purpose, not to mention the strangeness of having a dotted underline for a single letter: graphically, it is also quite problemetic for inline text (usernames are another, less constrained, issue where much more graphical freedom is permitted...). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pataliputra, you are not alone. I assume you've seen the above discussions. It appears the dreaded consensus would have us employ cumbersome countermeasures against the ghastly contingency of a 21st-century novice reader having to look something up in a dictionary one single time at the outset of his or her reading life. PS, I also find the shadow effect makes your signature challenging to read. Eric talk 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the shadow from my signature, no problem... Just one last eyesore to go now: c.... or do we have to launch an RfC to resolve this eye-damaging convention once and for all? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any move to discontinue this markup will get my vote. Eric talk 18:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about how this template renders circa as "c."

[edit]

Regarding the display of the {{circa}} template (designed to express an approximate date as in "c. 1325"): should the current default "abbreviation tooltip" style ("c.") be replaced by the currently optional Wiktionary link instead ("c.") as the new default, so that a date would rather display as "c. 1325" by default? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes (nominator). The small dotted underline under the "c." (c.) seems rather unnecessary and is an eyesore. When a hyperlink is needed to explain "c.", then a regular hyperlink in dark blue color to the lettering as in "c.", should be more than enough and less unobtrusive at the same time. This unobtrusive "option" should ideally become the new "default", so that a "circa" date usually appears as "c. 1325". पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I think use of this template should be discouraged, and that the term circa (sans italics) or its abbreviation should appear as normal text. It is a common term in the English lexicon. See the above discussions. For my longer opinion on this topic, see above, under "...resuming discussion..." Eric talk 12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eric: I'm afraid it might be difficult to obtain the pure and simple discontinuation of a template that is used in 66,000 articles, however cumbersome, pointless and inelegant it might be. However, we can probably obtain that it appears in the least obtrusive way possible (such as "c. 1325"), which is the object of this RfC... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pataliputra, I take your point, what you suggest would be preferable to the template. That said, I err on the side of MOS:OVERLINK. Eric talk 14:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That the dotted underline is an eyesore is just a personal opinion: I find it subtle and unobtrusive. Whether or not we should use this template at all is a different discussion. pburka (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Like Pburka, the dotted underline doesn't seem distracting to me. I'd also strongly disagree with deprecating the template entirely: from recent discussions above there seems to be no consensus to do so, with the vast majority of people who want to seeming to be well educated native/advanced English speakers, who already know what the term means. As for the argument that readers who don't should just look it up: try searching for "c" or "what does c mean" – it's not easily Googleable. ‑‑YodinT 13:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yodin, a reference work written in English should not be expected to explain common vocabulary terms to its users. Readers who are still working towards fluency in a language would ideally be using a dictionary, not Google, to look up unfamiliar terms. If people are averse to flipping pages, there are several good online English dictionaries, two of which I linked above in January. Far better than "googling" a vocabulary word. Eric talk 14:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two dictionary examples you gave above (AHD and Cambridge) demonstrate exactly how difficult it is to look up: both dictionaries list circa as the seventh possible meaning for "c.", and neither defines what it circa means: how would anyone unfamiliar with this term (especially non-native English readers) know that that was the way this letter was being used? The userpage of the editor you gave those examples to says they are a PhD educated non-native English speaker, and they were confused by it to the extent that they seem to have looked up the template used, and went to this talk page to discuss it – surely for each person who does this, there are likely to be many, many more who just don't understand it, and give up? I have a lot of respect for you and your work, but I do think your assumption of how well known the term is might be a blindspot! Surely we should be trying to make Wikipedia as easy to understand as possible, especially for people without high levels of education? ‑‑YodinT 15:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that we come from different perspectives on this. I have always been more a proponent of allowing people to learn on their own (to a certain extent) rather than imposing an obligation on the entire community to spare a handful of people the minor inconvenience of stumbling on a term.
    Re searching on the abbreviation: As I mention in the discussion from last winter, I would tend to spell out the term at the first instance (or, in a long article, maybe the first instance in each section), then maybe go with the abbreviation. Circa comes to English from Latin, and is common vocabulary in many other languages as well. Eric talk 16:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might support guidance that we should avoid abbreviations like c. and fl. in prose, just like we use born and died rather than b. and d. However that would require a change to MOS:MISCSHORT, so this talk page isn't the place to propose it. pburka (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The abbreviation tooltip is the most simple way to communicate that "c." means "circa". Concurring with pburka and Yodin. Wracking talk! 16:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per statements above: a tooltip is an quikcer and simpler to communicate the necessary information than a link to wiktionary. Personally, I find that a brightly coloured link is more obtrusive than a bit if subtle underlining. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After the Wiktionary page has been clicked on, the link turns to a shade of purple which is barely noticeable. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Visually, I think this change is preferable; after looking at the difference between the dotted underline and the Wiktionary link in articles where circa is used numerous times, the link seems less conspicuous. As to the usefulness for the reader, the current tooltip displays "circa", while the link displays "wikt:circa" (so we aren't losing any information there), with the Wiktionary page also providing an explanation of what circa means. However, it might be preferable to link to wikt:circa#English instead, rather than the top of the page, to save the reader from needing to scroll past the long table of contents (this is what {{circa|1325|lk=yes}} already does). – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not think any changes should be made. I support the status quo. 1980fast (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I just created an account today to throw my two cents in! Anything besides the dotted underline is preferable. I don’t understand most of the jargon in this thread, but I just spent 15 minutes needlessly googling what variations of “dating method c. dotted underline” meant, getting relationship advice or something about personality type C, when I just wanted to know: does it stand for Common Era? Or Calibrated, as in calibrated radiocarbon dates before present? This could mean the difference of circa 2,000 years, depending on the year. Really important when I need to know to the decade!
From what I gathered above, something should happen when you hover a mouse over the dotted underline? I’m using Chrome version 123.0.6312.52 or Safari on iOS 17.3.1 on an iPhone 11, I don’t have a mouse and nothing happened when I tapped on it in either browser. No idea this existed until I googled “c dotted underline.” I don’t edit Wikipedia or understand your conventions, but this made for a very confusing rabbit hole on mobile… Imosmundsen (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imosmundsen For what it’s worth, the tooltip appears when you tap it on a mobile, but only when viewing the desktop version of the site. You can find the desktop link at the very bottom of the page; which is not to say that this is the correct or desirable behaviour, or that you were wrong for not knowing that. — HTGS (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Circa&oldid=1245234687"