User talk:TarichaRivularis/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TarichaRivularis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

These are newbie questions relevant to edits on the article Citânia de Briteiros.

There were many edits to the article after I started it, 95% of which I understand and which certainly help the article; I can see that this wiki process really works! I am embarrassed about some of the errors I made, which should help drive me to improve. :^) But I am still uncertain or confused about a small number of the edits, and would appreciate help to understand them and the spirit of the manual of style:

Capitalization of headings: I now understand that only the first letter of headings should be capitalized, except under special circumstances. Then, should the first heading also be edited ('Environment' to 'environment')?
Yes, it should be lower case. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made the edit, and have re-set the helpme flag in hopes of getting answers to the remaining three questions TarichaRivularis (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand the MoS on numbering of centuries and millenniums. I put everything in figures; now the article has everything spelled out. It seems the MoS wants centuries in figures (1st century) and milleniums spelled out (first millennium). Is that correct, i.e. is the article due another edit?

I slightly enlarged the width from the default image size for two of the five images in the start version: the lead image (because there was a lot of white space in the lead section, thanks to the TOC) and the panorama (because its aspect ratio is wide, so the default image width makes a rather small image that's a little hard to make out). All the images are now at the default width, following the MoS recommendation. But the MoS suggests larger/wider images for the cases I had can be acceptable under some circumstances; how to decide when that is appropriate?

The MoS advises against sandwiching text between images, and my start version had text sandwiched between images in the 'Research history' section; that's now fixed. But as a result, the two images now break thru section headings, and the second image is now mostly outside the research section where it belongs; these are also layout issues the MoS advises against, I think. Any suggestions how best to balance the competing layout advice, or have I misunderstood something about image layout?

Thanks for any help/advice; I do plan to work slowly so I (hopefully) don't wreck too much....

TarichaRivularis (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are issues you should pose on a talk page. In respect to your subject, if there is a WikiProject related to your topic, you may ask them for how they dealt with similar articles. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]