Discussion:Rosier grimpant
- Admissibilité
- Neutralité
- Droit d'auteur
- Article de qualité
- Bon article
- Lumière sur
- À faire
- Archives
- Commons
Cet article est indexé par les projets Botanique et Roses et rosiers.
Les projets ont pour but d’enrichir le contenu de Wikipédia en aidant à la coordination du travail des contributeurs. Vous pouvez modifier directement cet article ou visiter les pages de projets pour prendre conseil ou consulter la liste des tâches et des objectifs.
| Avancement | Importance | pour le projet | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bon début | Élevée |  | Botanique (discussion • critères • liste • stats • hist. • comité • stats vues) |
| Moyenne |  | Roses et rosiers (discussion • critères • liste • stats • hist. • comité • stats vues) | |
Cet article comporte une liste de tâches suggérées :
Votre aide est la bienvenue pour corriger les liens, présents dans l'article, vers les pages d'homonymie Ventouse ⇒ Quelques explications pour effectuer ces corrections. -- 11 mai 2022 à 15:17 (CEST)
Photos que j'aimerais placer[modifier le code]
Bibliographie[modifier le code]
Je tiens à signaler que si j'ai placé en bibliographie divers catalogues d'obtenteurs et de rosiéristes ayant statut de conservatoire de la rose, c'est que ce sont les seuls documents complets avec photo que j'ai trouvé et que c'est d'eux que je me suis servi comme bibliographie. Il ne suffit pas de dire que c'est commercial, David Austin et les autres ont aussi fonction de conservatoire.--Rosier (d) 5 novembre 2009 à 16:00 (CET)
Regarding spamming Wikipedia with delbard-direct.fr and possible other Buy Now websites[modifier le code]
Please consider the following: 1.what information does it bring to the subject. Price of each product and where to buy them has no interest for Wikipedia. 2.why a 'Buy now' website that provides only product and price should have repeated links to the same page (a list of products and prices) inside a Wikipedia article? 3.the links should be verified regularly so there has no relevance that a website changed its content lately becoming commercial and not providing the initial information anymore (for which it was probably included). 4.why some contributors re-add these links in seconds but do not consider improving the article with links to valuable research works, royalty-free or own pictures uploaded to Wikipedia etc. or even by correcting minor mistakes.
Re-adding this kind of websites without taking this into account and without answering to this should be considered spam.
- Because coming here to impose your point of view in a language you're not even familiar with should be considered kindness of heart ? Your blatant disregard for those who opposed you does not incline them to listen to your arguments. Rosier explained just above her point of view. What don't you try to convince her ? She's the main contributor to articles on roses. If she says those links have to go, you'll get no argument from anyone. But she put them here in the first place for a reason, I presume. Esprit Fugace (d) 9 novembre 2009 à 18:20 (CET)
For Esprit Fugace[modifier le code]
Esprit Fugace, there was never argued when these links were added. Adding a link to Wikipedia is an important act so they have to have strong argumentation. Adding or re-adding links without arguing such as you do in the hope that they will not be noticed as spam is not a fair practice. The article is not the ownership of a single person. Why are you substituting Rosier?