Talk:Codex Borgia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Codex Borgia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mesoamerica (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of codex folio images

I've restored the display of each of the codex's individual folio images. I don't think that WP:IINFO applies here, those images are not there purely for illustration or to give a representative idea on what it looks like. Rather they are there because the text comments and discusses specific interpretations on specific folios. There are quite a few decent resources that can be used to go into details on the interpretations and aspects of all the individual folios, and the article could easily be expanded from this to discuss the elements from the codex in the context of each of these imgs, at some future point. I think it's useful to have 'em here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC number 783173291

OCLC number 783173291 was added to the Notes section.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codex Borgia. 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/20080221195159/http://www2.essex.ac.uk/arthistory/arara/issue_two/paper6.html to http://www2.essex.ac.uk/arthistory/arara/issue_two/paper6.html

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) 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotate the manuscript

"So the reader must rotate the manuscript 90 degrees in order to view the codex correctly." The statement seems to assume that the reader starts with the manuscript incorrectly oriented. Silly reader. Why not start with it correctly oriented, then there's no need to turn it 90 degrees? Maybe I would understand this better if I had it in my hands, but is some part of the explanation missing? Andrew Dalby 13:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. This is about the section on pages 29-46, which is oriented differently. I should have seen that, but to make it even clearer for the next person I'll change the word "codex" to "section" in the sentence I quoted. OK I hope? Andrew Dalby 12:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have the pages 29 - 46 rotated as stated above? Thank you.RaviAmarZupa (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviAmarZupa (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]