Talk:Diogo Ribeiro

Using structured footnotes

26-Nov-09: This article was one of the first to use structured footnotes in the "Notes" section, so that almost all footnotes are defined inside the Notes section rather than in the top text. (See essay: WP:Advanced footnote formatting.) Because the footnote details are contained in one section (Notes), they have been quickly copied into other articles, thereby providing the detailed footnotes 10x to 100x times faster than typical interleaved footnotes. Rather than interweaving the definition of each footnote in the upper text, all the tedious details are contained within one section (Notes), avoiding the typical interwoven "spaghetti footnotes" that clutter the upper text of many articles. As a result, the internal text is more like a scholarly format, in a WYSIWYG presentation of the document, instead of a confusing mass of large blobs of footnote expansions blocking the view of the surrounding sentences. Although not a true WYSIWYG interface, the structured footnotes provide a similar benefit, and so, editors can more readily access the text in the same order that it appears on the formatted article page.

The use of structured footnotes is intended to improve the quality of scholarly writing, while simplifying the reasons and sources that support the statements in the upper text. The structured footnotes do not clutter the upper text, and hence, there is more space available to explain detailed reasons within each footnote. Also, related groups of footnotes can be listed within the Notes section, thereby providing the multi-level structure to the entire set of footnotes, rather than being a flat list of numbered entries. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cartografo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why renamed?

Why was this article moved without any discussion? It should be considered the primary topic on the disambiguation page based on the criteria: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Glendoremus (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Glendoremus: If you want to get discussion you have to ping people like @Tassedethe: this so they know to stop by and provide feedback, although in this case I assume it was just that they like sports more than history and—I agree—were completely mistaken. It's hard to pick a best spelling for this guy's name but wherever he ends up he'll still be the PRIMARYTOPIC for Diogo Ribeiro. — LlywelynII 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Per comments I will restore this to its original location. Tassedethe (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

This may not be a RELIABLESOURCE on its own but could be used as a starting point for discussion about this guy's influential maps and pulling in more authoritative sources so his importance is clear. — LlywelynII 06:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)