Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20180717074641/@comment-18014300-20180719010350: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus Created page with "<div class="quote">The Crimson Eagle wrote:<br />I'm not very original, but I agree with all of the points Sima made. I'd rather "floruit" not be used at all. "Active" (while ..." |
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
As I recall, no one ever actually proposed "active" being used as a notation for dates, for example: Shao Jun (active 1505–1567) which is why it's not listed as an option. If this is an option that you guys wish to pursue, feel free to add it! Instead, we discussed whether to have an "Active" parameter in the infobox which is a different topic. | As I recall, no one ever actually proposed "active" being used as a notation for dates, for example: Shao Jun (active 1505–1567) which is why it's not listed as an option. If this is an option that you guys wish to pursue, feel free to add it! Instead, we discussed whether to have an "Active" parameter in the infobox which is a different topic. | ||
In regards to this idea though, I think it only raises the exact same complications as ''floruit'' such as defining what "active" means (i.e. actively existing aka alive or active in a career?) and whether it should only be used when both dates are unknown. Unlike ''floruit'', however, this notation is never used in | In regards to this idea though, I think it only raises the exact same complications as ''floruit'' such as defining what "active" means (i.e. actively existing aka alive or active in a career?) and whether it should only be used when both dates are unknown. Unlike ''floruit'', however, this notation is never used in formal writing as far as I know and even more ill-defined. Because of this, I figure that anyone opposed to using ''floruit'' entirely would probably prefer ''unknown'' anyways. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:07, 19 July 2018
I'm not very original, but I agree with all of the points Sima made. I'd rather "floruit" not be used at all. "Active" (while not an option, bizarrely) is a lot more easily-understood. However, if we must have it, then I reckon it should be restricted to infobox-usage.
As I recall, no one ever actually proposed "active" being used as a notation for dates, for example: Shao Jun (active 1505–1567) which is why it's not listed as an option. If this is an option that you guys wish to pursue, feel free to add it! Instead, we discussed whether to have an "Active" parameter in the infobox which is a different topic.
In regards to this idea though, I think it only raises the exact same complications as floruit such as defining what "active" means (i.e. actively existing aka alive or active in a career?) and whether it should only be used when both dates are unknown. Unlike floruit, however, this notation is never used in formal writing as far as I know and even more ill-defined. Because of this, I figure that anyone opposed to using floruit entirely would probably prefer unknown anyways.