Talk:Codex Borgia

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)

OCLC number 783173291
OCLC number 783173291 was added to the Notes section.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Codex_Borgia&diff=540182502&oldid=511211864
 * http://www.worldcat.org/title/heaven-and-earth-in-ancient-mexico-astronomy-and-seasonal-cycles-in-the-codex-borgia/oclc/783173291

&mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)