Talk:Floruit

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floruit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wikitionary

I would like to see this remain here as a gloss for "fl." in aricles. It can of course be copied to Wikitionary. Rich Farmbrough. 18:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would very useful to link to this page from other pages - I am not sure that fl. is that well-known to the common reader - good to have an explanation handy. Pcb21 Pete 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the article as it now stands fails to conform to Wikipedia standards. For now, I think it should go to Wikitionary until it can be fixed up into a real article. Newport 63 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With over 50 articles pointing here, it is important to keep the page here. Deleting it would create 50+ redlinks, and someone would re-start the article sooner or later. - MPF 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid reasons for keeping a page: (i) the effects of the error have propagated; (ii) if corrected now, eventually somebody else might repeat the error in future.

—DIV (120.17.40.5 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that altho a similarly named article was removed, with a notation

... should not be re-added there...

being placed in the immediately preceding box, the Keep decision of 2010 (documented in a box in the lead section of this talk page) -- whether it explicitly superceded the 2007 decision or not -- at least a creates a strong presumption that

the accompanying article is a new article outside the scope of the previous removal decision, and/or
the later Keep decision reflects a consensus that conditions current in 2010 differed sufficiently that the 2007 decision should no longer constrain the existence of an article on the topic.

--Jerzy•t 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noun sense

I am disappointed that we have

In English, the word is occasionally used as a noun indicating the time frame in which someone 'flourished'.

I hope the colleague wanted the word "indicating" for the sake of a bigger word, not just a more ambiguous one than "meaning", so that we can analyze, with equal validity and less effort, the clauses

the word may be used as a noun, meaning the approximate time in which someone lived and/or was prominent.

On that assumption, this article -- on the use of fl. or flourished to identify a point or chunk of time as the best info we have to substitute for DoB and DoD -- is being needlessly burdened by explanation of a rare variant usage that will be self-evident when (and if) it is encountered: analogously, i don't like the expression "I have to caveat that.", but i get the meaning when i hear it, and would resent wasting any entry at Caveat (disambiguation), or a sentence at any of its targets (except, possibly, Patent caveat), intended to explain, excuse, or deprecate that (far more common and thus more worthy-of-mention) usage: WP:NOT a dictionary, nor (except in very special cases) a usage guide. (BTW, i do not consider the accompanying article a usage article, even tho it highlights the specific word rather than the important scholarly practice of having a compact mechanism for dealing with uncertainties in the temporal relation among events.)
Perhaps the composition is so obtuse, or my comprehension so dim, that there is something useful in that sentence, which i do not detect. For now, i'm killing the sentence, while i stand ready to listen to any arguments for restoring it with something that offers a benefit that is discernible, and more commensurate to the clutter and ambiguity i've eliminated.
--Jerzy•t 04:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]