| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:28, 1 April 2012 |
| Line 1,227: | Line 1,227: |
| | ::Oh! Your list is more complete than mine. I just removed the "L" section from it, though; all those instances of L were initials. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | ::Oh! Your list is more complete than mine. I just removed the "L" section from it, though; all those instances of L were initials. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | The Web hasn't made abbreviations obsolete. Please think before expansion-botting everything in Wiktionary. And who are these semiliterate readers that we are always mollycoddling? Who exactly is the audience that understands the latinism ''circa 2012'' but not its abbreviation ''c. 2012?'' | + | The Web hasn't made abbreviations obsolete. Please think before expansion-botting everything in Wiktionary. And who are these semiliterate readers that we are always mollycoddling? Who exactly is the audience that understands the latinism ''circa 2012'' but not its abbreviation ''c. 2012?'' |
| | | | |
| | Which of the following is easier for you to read? Let's show our readers some respect with good writing, in favour of baby-talk. | | Which of the following is easier for you to read? Let's show our readers some respect with good writing, in favour of baby-talk. |
| Line 1,240: | Line 1,240: |
| | :: Don't you mean German.Wiktionary and English.Wikipedia? :) —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | | :: Don't you mean German.Wiktionary and English.Wikipedia? :) —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | ::: touché! :-P [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | | ::: touché! :-P [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | * FWIW, I think the ''attested'' would be a good addition. Without it, a bald ''c.'' or ''circa'' would suggest to me that the term was *coined* then, not that it was first attested then. Perhaps a fine point, but one that feels important to me. :) So for my money, it looks like a comparison between these two: |
| | + | : <blockquote>C. 1895, {{suffix|gang|ster}}.</blockquote> |
| | + | : <blockquote>Attested circa 1895, {{suffix|gang|ster}}.</blockquote> |
| | + | :: Now, if folks are worried about the on-screen presentation, I can sympathize to some extent -- tighter certainly looks cleaner. However, *discoverability* is an important aspect of good usability. If a user indeed doesn't know what ''c.'' means, we should make it as easy as possible for them to find out. Perhaps there's some way of keeping the shorter on-screen look while still providing useful discoverability, maybe some variation on the following: |
| | + | : <blockquote><abbr title="Attested circa">C.</abbr> 1895, {{suffix|gang|ster}}.</blockquote> |
| | + | :: -- Cheers, [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr Útlendi]] │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala við mig]]''</small> 19:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | == add script to {{template|hyphenation}} == | | == add script to {{template|hyphenation}} == |
