Talk:Corsiaceae

Sections[edit]

There's no check #7 on the page you linked to. Please either link directly to your reason or don't revert. This is not a separate section, it's merely a listing of the genera. When it is a separate topic, as it often is, the higher level heading is used. --KP Botany (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's #7 in the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia#Project_description_in_English (Headlines start with three "="). The sections below get removed once they are done.

The reason for the change is that the header should be a <h2> (or "==") header and not at a <h3> (or "==="). -- User:Docu

Why? Where does it say that it should be a level 2 header? I only use these for separate sections, which this is not, it's merely a list within a section, which is specifically why it's done like that to make it clear it's not a separate section of the article, which it isn't. --KP Botany (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full details are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia&oldid=281926028#Headlines_start_with_three_.22.3D.22 . It also includes a link to the relevant MoS section and general HTML issue. -- User:Docu

Here, let me link to my misunderstanding of the issue here. Now, can you explain to me why a subsection is forced to be a section when it's clearly not a section? I can't find that part in the dozens and reams of unrelated information you've linked to.

It's not a section, it's just a list of species without any discussion. It's a subsection. It appears that h2 headers are for sections. So, can we answer my question? Or is this just task automation and to hell with article creation? I'd like to write the article, not reformat it to write it every time I go there. --KP Botany (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Corsiaceae, which would be the name for this missing h2 section? On the main page, "Today's featured article" is a h2 header. -- User:Docu

What? I'm just going to revert you, since you're not explaining it. Don't revert it again, unless you're willing to discuss it on the article talk page. And, by discuss, I mean discuss. --KP Botany (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is the following: you are saying that #Genera and species is a subsection. If it's a subsection of another section, which would be a title for this other section? -- User:Docu

It's a subsection of the introduction, which is all this article has. It's a stub, and should be marked as such, but is not. Plant stub sorting is beyond my abilities.

See, it has no introduction to the genera outside of what it says about them in the lead. If it was its own section, it would have an introduction to the genera. I don't want the species list cut off of the introduction section, put into its own section, when there is no lead into the genera and species, that's all. --KP Botany (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the second paragraph could be cut off to be the lead to that sections. --KP Botany (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corsiaceae. 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/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]