Talk:List of classical abbreviations

Untitled

D·M·S
H·S·E·S·T·T·L

I wonder about the use of periods on this page, as I understood that classical Latin did not use punctuation. --Malirath 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a period in the Britannica. The Romans would have used interpuncts. — LlywelynII 05:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Translations

Why aren't English translations given? Isn't it recommended to translate non-English words? --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the Encyclopaedia Britannica didn't include them, so the people who copy/pasted this article didn't either.

Yes, there should be English translations for all of these and explanatory glosses for some of them. Check out the EB9 link I just added. — LlywelynII 03:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Order and repetition

Is there a reason for the lack of alphabetical order and the repetitions? 99.255.178.130 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge

There is absolutely no reason to have separate pages for "List of classical abbreviations" all in Latin and "List of Latin abbreviations". Right now the scope of the articles is somewhat distinct, with List of Latin abbreviations mostly glossing abbreviations that still appear in English and List of classical abbreviations remaining a crib from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose "classical abbreviations" list describes the abbreviations which appear in Latin inscriptions.

One solution is to move the pages around: Rename the current LOCA page List of abbreviations in Latin inscriptions, rename the current LOLA page List of Latin abbreviations in English, or both.

My preferred solution would be to merge the pages at LOLA, include the already-needful translations for the LOCA content, and just have some color, column, or note to separate which Latin abbreviations are ancient and which still current. — LlywelynII 05:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

The merge sounds like a reasonable move. Only other viable solution is to get this page is cleaned from all but actual classical abbreviations (I'm having pretty hard time believing that any ancient source would use L.H.D to mean "Litterarum Humaniorum Doctor"). At the moment it's full of neo-latin clutter.

However, I think that it might be of some use to have two pages, one for classical and another for other abbreviations. But this would obviously require much more effort in terms of keeping both lists clean from redundancy, and I can not stretch my imagination to produce a vision where eager volunteers aren't adding neo-latin right back where it was removed etc.

So, with those thoughts, I'd vote for merging the two pages. Unless volunteers for housekeeping for two-page solution pop up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleb713 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing, with the removal of templates, given that the discussion has been stale for more than a year and there is no consensus for any particular action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of classical abbreviations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608083654/http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/CSC.html to http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/CSC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging (again)

On the offchance that anyone sees this, I would recommend against merging. Having looked at both pages, they appear to me to have a distinct purpose - the other lists all latin abbreviations, this one specifically deals with abbreviations found on inscriptions. Obviously there's unavoidable overlap between those two, but for people interesting specifically in inscriptions, this page would be far easier to use than the other.

Here's my suggestion: shift this to 'List of Latin Inscription Abbreviations', tidy up the page, and add an explanation at the top pointing to the other page for other abbreviations. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am absolutely against merging. There are at least three other related articles (List of Latin abbreviations, List of ecclesiastical abbreviations, List of medieval abbreviations), as indicated in the section "See also", which cannot be merged. A repulisti of intruding terms will always be needed. --Frognall (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)