Talk:Floruit

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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))

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * --Jerzy•t 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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)