Disputatio Formulae:Praenomina Romana

Abbreviationes

Is there a need to keep separate pages for the abbreviations, or should they be redirects? Lesgles (disputatio) 15:59, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

They could be redirects (or discretiva pages if appropriate). This formula could be adjusted so that the abbreviations point directly to the main page, e.g. [[Marcus|M.]]. I'd have no objection to that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of the current format? I copied the list from en:Praenomen#Latin praenomina. If you think the two row format is better, I can also try making that. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:30, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

I think that for a foot-of-page navbox the row format is convenient and it's probably better not to vary it. We perhaps achieve a more professional look that way. I think, too, that navboxes should aim to give quick links to the source of information (the page) and in that context it makes sense to have (1) a list of abbreviations plus (2) a list of full spellings, both rapid-access. Go to the page to find out more. But you may well disagree!

I just checked, though, that the four-column layout works with mobile view. Yes, it does. This is important, because in mobile view navboxes are currently the only category-type navigation available. Poor old en:wiki has neither categories nor navboxes in mobile view.

The number of very rare names (= names that I had never heard of :=) is a surprise! The hard work seems to have been done by P Aculeius on en:wiki, and it looks solidly based. The handiest source that I can see is the article by Chase, which he often cites. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

OK, I redid the row format with the new names; I do agree that the compact look is better. I did point the abbreviations to the main page, as you suggested (since I think few people are really interested in the abbreviations per se). I also changed "abbreviationes" to the classical "notae."

This version of the navbox also works in mobile view, for me at least, although it does get hidden under the last section, whether Bibliographia or Nexus externi.

Chase does seem like a pretty good source; it would probably be good to include him in all the pages. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:48, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

"Notae" is the proper term, as you say. Looks good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)