Talk:Pilosella caespitosa

{{Imageframe|width=600|content=[[Image:Be not a part.svg|600px]]|align=center}}

Placement of Zhou and Holleran quote

The Zhou and Holleran quote provides good information. I'm not sure exactly where/how to best work it in (for example, whether a direct quotation or a summary of its contents is the way to go), but I agree with Rkitko (talk · contribs) that the start of the article isn't a good solution (per WP:LEAD). Therefore I have restored Rkitko's placement of the quote, unless/until we can find a better place. Kingdon (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very fond of the quote. It is approximately the total amount of information which was in the article that was being managed by the Wikipedia:PLANTS project and to the best of my understanding still is. I am going to attempt to make this article and the articles about the other species of this genus consistent with each other before requesting that they be accepted as part of the PLANTS PROJECT and put into categories of needing photographs and other things that the botanists within that group do. I do not want to be wasting anyones time and in this way, I won't be. -- Carol 10:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Carol, the quote on this page is nice, but a couple editors have pointed you to relevant guidelines regarding why it should not be placed at the top. Returning it to your preferred version is what is called edit warring and may represent a violation of WP:OWN. As the bottom of every edit page states, your writing will be edited mercilessly. Please do read through the guidelines and policies we link for you instead of edit warring, tell us why you disagree. Please also don't remove the {{WikiProject Plants}} templates from the talk pages. If the articles are within the scope of the plants project, the tags will be added, just like any other WikiProject out there. I'll reply further on your talk page in response to the message you left me yesterday. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hieracium caespitosum. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId&61%3B7700575&PTRefFk&61%3B7000000
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bgbm3.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iopi/gpc/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId&61%3B105080773&PTRefFk&61%3B128127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819064650/http://www.utah-idahocwma.org/id_meadowhawk.htm to http://www.utah-idahocwma.org/id_meadowhawk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517093547/http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/loeb_library/information_systems/projects/E_vue/plants/hieracium_pratense.htm to http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/loeb_library/information_systems/projects/E_vue/plants/hieracium_pratense.htm

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: 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) 02:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)