Talk:Citânia de Briteiros

Questioning a couple of edits to this article, but unsure of best practice:

• Numbering of centuries and millennia was changed from figures (1st, 19th) to a mix (first, 19th). The MoS says single-digit numbers should be spelled out, but not centuries; it provides no rules on millennia. Examples in the MoS include figures for centuries and spelled-out for millennia. The Century article mixes figures and spelled-out numbers (1st, first, 2nd, third, seventh, 19th, 20th, twenty-first); sometimes the mix is in a single sentence (2nd/third). The millennium article also mixes (1st, first, second, third), and also mixes numbers for centuries. For the article this page discusses, what is best, and how should internal consistency be applied?
• The MoS advises against sandwiching text between images, but also advises that images should be placed inside the section they belong to and not above the heading. This article started with text sandwiched between images, but the edit pushed two images thru section headings and pushed one image mostly outside the section it belongs to (research history). Neither layout follows the MoS advice, but a third alternative is not clear (to me) with the available text and images. How to best lay out the article in this kind of situation?

TarichaRivularis (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citânia de Briteiros. 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/20120317130032/http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/pesquisa/geral/patrimonioimovel/detail/74371/ to http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/pesquisa/geral/patrimonioimovel/detail/74371/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo caption 'swastika-like geometric figures'

Photo caption "A decorated stone with swastika-like geometric figures, at the baths of Citânia de Briteiros." There is nothing in the photo that even remotely resembles a swastika. The photo shows a round shape with three crescents at the top of the stone, whereas the swastika has purely rectangular shapes and can be divided into four quarters. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two figures. Nor are there other rectangular shapes visible on the stone. I can't see any reason to reference a swastika. 2A02:A469:E780:1:D864:908:2A2F:A674 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I see these designs more as a Celtic triskelion 99.137.82.46 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)