Template talk:Circa

Rationale needed

I imagine there is a rationale for typing {{circa}} rather than c. It would be helpful if some of the editors involved in producing this template provided such a rationale on the template main page to assist the non-cognoscenti.

On another matter, I would personally prefer having no underline as the default; the dotted underline is certainly not a familiar typographic convention. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the dotted underline, or why this template is needed at all. OK, the "parameters" section does give some possible reasons. It would be useful to summarise those under "Usage". 86.160.211.58 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the dotted underline is a standard way to indicate to the user that there's a popup available; the same method is used at {{H:title}} and {{Abbr}}, for example e.g. or abbr.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Beware overuse

Instead of Template:Circa, users should often just put "c. 1850" or such, because there are too many templates in use, forstering more wp:template creep. When a feature is changed in Template:Circa, then it triggers reformatting of all related pages, which can span over 3 days when more than 1,000 pages are affected (used in over 5,000 pages by 2013). Try to limit use where needed most, such as in sorted tables where "sortable=yes" is crucial to be used. -Wikid77 13:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So what? Is this a problem in any way? Pburka (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Have sortable=dts to match Template:Dts

Because Template:Dts puts lead digits "00" or "0" before each year, then {circa} must also prepend "0" or else all circa-formatted years would sort to the bottom of dts-formatted dates. For example: {{dts|789|12|13}} has generated the following sort key:

• <span style="display:none; speak:none" class="sortkey">00789-12-13</span>

An option "sortable=dts" would match the sort-key format of {dts}, and the leading zeroes would be added by {padleft:789|5|0} = 00789. -Wikid77 13:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixing sort key for screenreaders

Per wp:ACCESS, {circa} should handle accessibility issues. The option "speak:none" and an extra space are needed, after the sort-key year, to separate from the "c." as previously formatted in run-together style: {circa|1850} had generated "1850c. 1850". -Wikid77 13:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

c. and space or no-break one?

I was going to propose that the template adds a non-break space.. The MOS recommends uses that as an example. The first use could it however add a space? Would it display two if either a regular space or a non-break one (or other) followed? Then I saw the second use here. Is a thin-space better than the MOS example? comp.arch (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary

It is completely unnecessary to have a template to generate the abbreviation "c.". The dotted underline is also unnecessary visual clutter. In the event that someone does not know what "c." means, they can look it up. It is not necessary for Wikipedia to provide an inline explanation of every common word or abbreviation. This template should be deprecated or even deleted. 109.152.147.133 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, this template makes sorting tables with circa-year dates much easier for users who do not know the sort-key details, by using option "sortable=yes". However, the use of {circa|_} should be kept limited where not needed. Instead there are numerous other templates which should be deleted, to reduce clutter. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you propose they look it up? The single letter abbreviation is quite ambiguous, and cryptic abbreviations present an undesirable barrier-to-entry for non-expert editors. The underline provides an effective and unobtrusive way for an inexperienced reader to discover the meaning of the abbreviation. To suggest that c. is a common word or abbreviation reflects, I think, a certain professional arrogance which Wikipedia should avoid. While we need not restrict ourselves to simple English, we shouldn't assume that all of our readers are college educated native English speakers. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

They look it up by typing "c." into the Wikipedia search box, whereupon, lo and behold, "Circa" is the first entry in the page that comes up. To suggest that "c." is a "cryptic" abbreviation is simply ridiculous, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.185.210 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I just removed one on a dab page, and dabs, like most usages of this, are not sortable tables. Typing 15 characters to get the letter c is a ridiculous overuse of templates. SpinningSpark 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I completely agree with the (generally) unnecessary usage. I think if consensus is gathered, we might be able to remove all instances of this (and, potentially, {{born}}) that aren't being used in sortable tables. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What people don't seem to have considered is that this template adds a non-breaking space (well, it should anyway), which is required by MOS:DATE. {{c.|2017}} is one character shorter than c. 2017 and easier to read and understand in the editing screen. I think it was a big mistake though to merge {{Circa}} and {{c.}}; the tooltip is clutter if the template is used multiple times on the same page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

...and what you don't seem to understand is that edits like this where the "c. " is in a list or the beginning of the first line of an article (majority of cases) it is never going to line-wrap on the space unless the user has the screen width set so ridiculously small that long words are breaking across lines as well. You are edit warring over a ridiculous piece of useless clutter that is never going to make one iota of difference to the reader's experience. And by the way, the MOS says "ideally", not "required". In fact the MOS almost never says "required" as a matter of policy, meaning the community don't want it enforced by self-appointed style police. SpinningSpark 00:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why underlined?

Why is the “c.” created by this template underlined? (See screencap at right.) It’s completely unnecessary and distracting. Please remove the underlining. Using WP:BOLD, I would have done it myself, but the template is fully protected. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thats not underlined; this is underlined. The template here, {{Circa}}, calls {{Abbr}} which uses the HTML element <abbr>...</abbr> to generate a tooltip. I'm not aware of any interface on touch-devices that allows access to tooltips (how do you hover with a finger?), so it's pointless for browsers on such devices to show the dots. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: You are correct: One cannot hover with an iPad. Therefore, is there a “conditional” that can be added to {{abbr}} so that the dots do not display on touch devices (i.e., a browser-specific display:none sort of thing)? Otherwise, thanks for the explanation! — SpikeToronto 03:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly not possible within templates. It is possible for the Wikimedia software to render pages differently for mobile devices, and I don't know why it displays tooltips; maybe there are mobile devices that cater for them (I've heard of "long press"). Still, I think the simplest solution would be for a browser that doesn't support it on touch devices not to display the dots. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And you can hover with some mobile touch devices; it's a matter of moving the pointer over the text in question, so any touch device that lets you drag a cursor around will do it. So, that's lots of touch-screen laptops and "netbooks" if anyone still uses that term. E.g., I have an HP Envy that works this way, running Windows 8, and it continues to work that way if I take off the physical keyboard and just use it as a tablet.

Anyway, suppressing the element's "decoration" could be done in en.Wikiepdia's mobile stylesheet. I'm not sure this is a good idea unless we're certain that no devices that use the mobile version of the site are capable of a "hover" that bring up the tool tip. I'm quite skeptical about that.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think this particular template should be doing <abbr>...</abbr> markup by default, because "c." is a basic, every abbreviation people are familiar with (though some prefer it as "ca.", a spelling MoS doesn't like). It should only do this when told to. It's a different case for {{Reign}}, because "r. " isn't going to necessarily mean anything to the average reader. Same goes with {{Floruit}}'s "fl.". And {{Sic}} should probably stick with the explicit link: [sic]. In short, these templates don't have a one-size-fits-all default behavior (though {{circa}}, {{floruit}}, and {{reign}} can still mostly be merged into a meta-template, most of the work for which I've already done at Template:Reign; I've opened a merge discussion at Template talk:Reign.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. The dotted underlining is more distracting than helpful for such a widely used abbreviation. Krubo (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see the utility of the template, as c. and circa are widely used in English, and I see the underlining as distracting. Eric ^talk 12:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge for new metatemplate features?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see proposed merger (leaving behind a wrapper at the original template name): Template talk:Reign:Overhauled, and basically a meta-template – maybe merge some stuff?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect SMC meant Template talk:Reign#Overhauled, and basically a meta-template – maybe merge some stuff? (: vs #) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Please remove the line <noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude> - protection templates are automatically handled by the documentation page. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

range dash example

The documentation suggests

{{circa|1000}}–1050 : c. 1000–1050 : For ranges in a more compact form (without spaces and extra "c.")

This is wrong and abusive to the reader. It is abusive because the lack of spacing around the dash implies that the "c." applies to the entire range, which it shouldn't, because MOS:CIRCA says "Where both endpoints of a range are approximate, c. should appear before each date." It is wrong because, per MOS:CIRCA, the single "c." applies only to the starting date, which means that the starting date includes a space, which means that the en dash must be spaced per MOS:DASH, which states, "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." This usage should not be promoted. It is wrong. Throughout Wikipedia, every "c." followed by a range of years with an unspaced en dash needs to be corrected. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This was added on 7 January 2019 by User:Mwtoews. Maybe that editor can shed some light why this was done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted for now. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Displaying strangely

For some reason, this template results in strange appearances on my Windows 10 machine. It looks a bit like ".c," but not quite - something funny is going on. This is the same on Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge. On Internet Explorer, it's a bit different - it seems that it's "c." with three dots just underneath it. Is this something other people see? If so, is anyone able to fix it, please? - The Parson's Cat (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The default (e.g. c. 2020) uses {{abbr}}, which "underlines" the text with a dotted line. My guess is that your browser is unable to render that properly. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - posted a query at Template talk:Abbr#Displaying strangely - The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Late comment (Sep 30). I came here because my laptop display showed a complete mess at the Circa "c". Only when I change the display zoom to 400% could I work out that for reasons I didn't understand then, it was dotted underlined. Those dots have got to go - they are completely counter-productive. Having got here on my desktop where I can see the dots at "only" 200% zoom, I understand that it is some form of hover help. It doesn't work (Win 7 MSEdge) for me. I know c. is circa. But I that messy splodge could be anything. Horrid. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's your browser that's making it look so "horrid", not us. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 184#"{{circa}}" for an explanation. Nardog (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite likely - it is microsoft and thus naff. But I can't see the point of the dots for anybody. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As explained above, this template uses {{abbr}} which produces this dotted underlined text which is normally helpful. It's just that for a very short abbreviation, as here, it might look confusing in some environments. Editors have the choice to omit the underline (|lk=no) or not to use this template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Add 'circa' and 'ca.'

Options are needed for the template to also write out 'circa' and 'ca', because not all people use 'c.', and some might confuse this for 'century'. -Mardus /talk 10:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no point in adding support for 'circa'. If you hover over the 'c.' then "circa" is displayed so there would be no point in adding support to display "circa" as the interpretation of 'circa'. Generally (well IME) 'C' is used for century so there's no problem with 'c' – consider C19 or 18thC for example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Another reason not to add "circa" as an output is because it is the epitome of pointless, i.e. typing {{circa}} to display circa. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What, then, about ca.? -Mardus /talk 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on that, will defer to others. Might be worth cross-posting at MOS, they really dig this sort of stuff. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

The documentation mentions

If the parameter "cap=yes" is specified, the result starts with a capital letter.

However, it is not working in the Edith Roosevelt article (see the caption for the image in the infobox). Was the pearameter deleted, never implemented, or something else? I'd like to have it for cases such as the Roosevelt image, in which it is the beginning of a sentence. —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the history, I can't see any evidence that this support was ever implemented. I think it's a documentation error, unfortunately. pburka (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The Caps "option" was added to the documentation in 2014, but the template at that time period did not contain such a parameter, and doesn't appear to have been added since. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please be so kind as to add that option? Also, why a hair space instead of a regular space? (I'd prefer the latter.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I feel like from a MOS perspective that it shouldn't be capitalised, ever, but I would want to get some more MOS-savvy folks in here to discuss. I mean, I suspect there's a reason no one ever asked for it before now... Primefac (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NB: I've commented out the mention of the never-implemented parameter, with a pointer to this talk section, so as to avoid confusion.

- 2A02:560:424B:4100:E5DA:F02E:6B55:F735 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Circa is no longer an article - it is a disambiguation page. When the link is on in this template, it should no longer link to Circa. The link should either be removed, or link to wikt:circa, I have no preference as to which. -Niceguyedc (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 09:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

can i use on short description template?

i am wondering whether this template can be used in Short description? --28au21 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to ask the general question at the shortdesc talk page: I would guess that templates (in general) do not work inside of a shortdesc. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 March 2022

MOS:CIRCA says not to italicize the "c." abbreviation, and in fact I've removed all instances of {{circa|.*|i= from the main namespace. So, I think the i= option should be removed from {{circa}}. I suggest this edit:

Extended content

{{circa}} is currently: {{#if:{{{sortable|}}} |<span style="display:none; speak:none;">{{padleft:{{{1|}}}|4|0}} </span> }}{{#if:{{{i|}}} |<nowiki/>'' }}{{#switch:{{{lk|}}} |no|off = <span title="circa">c.</span> |yes|on = [[wikt:circa#English|c.]] |abbr |#default = <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> }}{{#if:{{{i|}}} |''<nowiki/> }}{{#if:{{{1|}}} |<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> {{{1}}}</span> }}{{#if:{{{2|}}} | – c.<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> {{{2}}}</span> }}<noinclude> {{Documentation}} </noinclude> {{#if:{{{sortable|}}} |<span style="display:none; speak:none;">{{padleft:{{{1|}}}|4|0}} </span> }}{{#switch:{{{lk|}}} |no|off = <span title="circa">c.</span> |yes|on = [[wikt:circa#English|c.]] |abbr |#default = <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> }}{{#if:{{{1|}}} |<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> {{{1}}}</span> }}{{#if:{{{2|}}} | – c.<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> {{{2}}}</span> }}<noinclude> {{Documentation}} </noinclude>

--Quuxplusone (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Please make your proposed changes to Template:Circa/sandbox. Some spaces changed when I copied your code below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed the |i= parameter; other stuff was kept. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of circa in tooltip

As the rationale behind having this template is to help people know who aren't familiar with the concept, wouldn't it be better to have an explanation in the tooltip rather than just saying "circa". For example, {{floruit}} says "floruit ('flourished' – known to have been active at a particular time or during a particular period)". Would anyone object to changing the tooltip to say something like "circa ('about' or 'around')"? ‑‑Yodin^T 17:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd use 'approximately', since 'about' and 'around' are a bit ambiguous (e.g. they can also mean 'related to' or 'surrounding' in other contexts). pburka (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I agree; I've added that as the wording to the sandbox version and will put in an edit request if noone else objects. ‑‑Yodin^T 19:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added {{Edit template-protected}} above; all changes are in the template sandbox, and working as expected on the testcases page. ‑‑Yodin^T 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally would like to see more substantial consensus before this change is implemented. To me "approximately" implies the precise number is known but not used because it's not important, and "circa" implies it is not known. And I'm not so sure if a gloss is needed at all—"circa" doesn't strike me as such an obscure term or concept that it requires an explanation. Nardog (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the edit request until a consensus emerges. Circa may be obvious to well educated readers, but it's a Latin loan-word, and there are readers who won't be very familiar with it (that seems to be the purpose of this template, which would be redundant if everyone was familiar with it). I can't see any significant downside to adding the meaning of the word, in the same way as {{fl}}. As for the precise meaning, Mirriam-Webster, Cambridge, Google, and Wiktionary all use 'approximately' as the primary word in their definitions; others (such as OED and our disambiguation page circa) use 'about' and 'around', which are often given as subsequent words in other definitions. Some combination of these words should be able to remove any ambiguity; maybe others will be able to come up with a better wording, if there's a consensus in favour! ‑‑Yodin^T 19:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

...resuming discussion...

I'd like to revive this discussion. The set of readers who know what circa means, but don't know that "c." means circa, is tiny. A tooltip allows us a bit more room than a single word; why not use it? Ovinus (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? I think that most people will know what circa means (unlike floruit, which is obscure), but not everyone will have seen it abbreviated as c. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me quite a bit like the curse of knowledge, assuming that everyone (or an overwhelming majority) knows what it means regardless of age, education level, English language ability, etc. Even if most people (let's say 99%) understand what it means, surely this template is specifically for the remaining people who don't? Is there any downside to adding this to the tooltip? ‑‑Yodin^T 12:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, my reply was specifically to Ovinus' comment about who knows what as far as a "tiny number" of people goes. You are correct that this template is not for the people who already know what c. stands for (or to a lesser extent know what circa means), so it probably causes no harm, but Nardog expressed some concerns and I think there might still be some room for discussion here. I am happy to implement whatever the consensus happens to come out to. It might also be worth dropping a note at WT:WPMOS to see if any of the MOS-savvy folk have opinions on this template. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My 2¢: I think any template used on this common English vocabulary term should strive for minimal distraction (as discussed above circa 2015). I don't mean to be contentious when I state that I find it a bit silly and convoluted to type out the word circa and then wrap it in template syntax in order to produce an abbreviation, which in turn has to be coded to explain itself via gadgets (and to have a distracting underline). This may be more an observation for the MOS, but in writing a piece, I would tend to simply use the full word circa (not italicized) for the first instance of the term, then maybe switch to manually abbreviating it later in the text, especially if there are many instances of the term. At the risk of exposing myself yet further as a grumpy old curmudgeon: In my day, when you ran across a word that was unfamiliar in a text, you looked it up in a dictionary and thereby added it to your vocabulary. Eric ^talk 15:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but our esteemed MoS doesn't, requiring {{circa}} or c. instead of circa even in prose where space is not at a premium. Perhaps a quick survey of how often books use circa over c. would help, and I can poll some high schoolers this week. (Edit: 15 knew circa, 10 knew c., 4 knew circa but not c., 1 knew c. but not circa. Small sample, but Primefac seems right.) But I sense a broader inconsistency here, that fairly common usages like c. are given tooltips, while words that are far less known are strongly discouraged from any clarification beyond a Wiktionary link. (Tangentially, to fight the exceptional reading difficulty of many Wikipedia articles—people forget too often about the average reader—I would love what EB and others do: a tooltip for unfamiliar abbreviations and unfamiliar words—"His new pal is oh so pulchritudinous"—but there's no chance the community will accept that.) Ovinus (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus I came here after seeing "c." on a page just to argue against that. Frankly, when it happened, I had to stop for a second to figure out what "c." means. It was especially hard to understand because it was used before a number of troops, not a year. That abbreviation is not at all commonly used in my language, and I'm sure it's not in many other Romance languages because we don't use such Latin abbreviations. I'm also sure that many other people who speak English as a second language but are not as experienced as I am would have no idea what that is, or how to find that out. Googling "c" is not going to help.

I simply don't see what's to be gained by this. If a single person struggles to understand it, it was already not worth the couple of bytes of storage that were saved. The template says that some browsers use smaller spaces or whatever, but the Wikipedia app itself uses _bigger_ spaces both before and after the "c.".

The way I see it, that makes Wikipedia more technical with no pros at all. If my cousin who's in middle school is reading a page on history and asks my aunt was "circa" was, my aunt will know. If she asks what "c." is, my aunt will neither know, nor have recourse to find out. ~victorsouza (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Victor. I understand that the c. might be a head-scratcher the first time you encounter it, but I can assure you that it (and ca) are quite common in English. Good dictionaries will have entries for them, e.g. AHD, Cambridge. Eric ^talk 14:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Unaddressed questions on usage

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)

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)

Why a hair space instead of a regular space?

Re: Template talk:Circa#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)

Bumping this, as I am still curious (and would prefer a regular space, please). —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please remove dotted underline

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Any move to discontinue this markup will get my vote. Eric ^talk 18:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  @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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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. ‑‑Yodin^T 13:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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? ‑‑Yodin^T 15:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• Oppose. I do not think any changes should be made. I support the status quo. 1980fast (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• 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)