Talk:List of florilegia and botanical codices

List of florilegia and botanical codices is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 25, 2008	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Headings and TOC

...Just wondering what's going on with the funky headings and TOC in this list (specifically here)? Need help sorting it out? --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, Rotational. And I'm glad you finally decided on using the headings. I still insist on using the h2 headings instead of h4. But a more pressing issue is that all the images at the top of the article force the [edit] links farther down. Consider spacing them out so the edit links aren't interrupted. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned that mess out, but I still don't know where old source 007 belongs. It doesn't seem to be there. Here is the addition of the listing in the references section, but only 008 was added to the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links in-text

Paul, regarding your edit, indeed exceptions are rare. Did you check out WP:ELPOINTS? There is a note attached to the first sentence of point 2 that clarifies what is meant by normally: Wikipedia:ELPOINTS#cite note-body-1: "Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." External links within the body of an article are so routinely removed that I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it to you before. You can also find guidance on this matter in the MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External links: "Do not use external links in the body of an article." Can't get much clearer than that. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is normal with the MOS, guidelines are given in Commandment style with little or no rationale to explain why and how the decision was arrived at. I can see no reason why inline links should be unacceptable, and a number of reasons why they should. However I'm sure that your response will be to tell me that the MOS requires my obedience and that if I'm unhappy I should take up the matter in the proper forum. Comforting somehow to know that your bullying ways have not changed. Paul venter (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me an example of a manual of style that does explain the rationale behind each style guideline? While I could see how that might be useful, you already know that what's present in the guidelines and policies reflects consensus of prior discussions. Indeed, if you want to challenge that consensus, you can bring your argument to the proper forum. I'm also sorry you perceive a simple revert and discussion with supporting arguments from guidelines (a WP:BRD cycle) to be an act of a bully. My only intention was to make you aware of the consensus on this guideline.. Having achieved that, I hope you will apply the guideline appropriately in the future. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of florilegia and botanical codices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of florilegia and botanical codices. 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:

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) 14:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of florilegia and botanical codices. 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:

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) 10:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]