Talk:Francesca da Rimini

message: If this is not a stub, as the initial author suggests, then it should not stand alone and should be incorporated into other text.  It is too short, in my opinion, and too disconnected from related information to stand as an encyclopedia article on its own.  I don't advocate deletion, but appropriate merger and re-direction.
Also, before persons speak up with "how dare you try to dictate how long an article should be", I'll say that I'm expressing a sentiment from experience in composing documents and interfaces for impatient and hasty people to find and devour on-line ... something that is part of my job as a scientist in corporate America.
Courtland 23:15, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
I think that it is important to distinguish between a stub, which acts as placeholder but is a wholly inadequate encyclopedia article, and a short but adequate article to which future contributors may well want to add. Stubs demand early attention so should be flagged. Adequate articles that can be expanded (beyond the usual encyclopedia article because Wikipedia is not paper) can be worked on at leisure and are distracting if listed as stubs. I imagine that there is much more to come on such an important literary inspriation but the reader already gets as much as they would in the Britannica. For me stub=priority not stub=short. In any case, I think that redirects to anchors within articles make life harder for reader and editor than do discrete articles. Cutler 23:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
If people ... and it is many 100's or 1000's of people ... are using the stub tag as an indicator of priority then that tag's usefulness for that purpose is now moving asymptotically to zero.  I have a different opinion of the purpose for the existence of the stub tag, that being an indicator to the reader that we as a community recognize that this is a dollop of information that can and should be expanded upon, but that the application of finite effort has led to the deposition of a seed.
I'll take your comment about anchors to indicate that you're opposed to merging this snack-sized article into something of the size of a complete meal.  So be it; the Wikipedia-world is wide enough to accomodate many styles of presentation and the most important matter is content and its accessibility, not the specifics of it's organization or presentation (just another way of saying "Content is King").
Regards, Courtland 03:14, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
There is no mention of Giovanni Boccaccio's account of Francesca. I do not have a reference on hand, but this account is wildly divergent from Dante's. If I had the time, I'd write a section immediately following the "In Inferno" section
Regards, 199.17.172.108 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francesca da Rimini. 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/20050908144545/http://www.wisdomportal.com/Romance/Paolo-Francesca.html to http://www.wisdomportal.com/Romance/Paolo-Francesca.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an amazing fountain depicting Francesca da Rimini and other figures such as Charon and Kerberos from Dante Alighieri's Inferno in one of the five squares in Mendoza.
I have just added a note on the talk page for Mendoza to suggest that these five squares be treated there more fully. 46.33.143.125 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaza Italia, Mendoza, Argentina