| Revision as of 10:58, 14 February 2005 editAshley Pomeroy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,661 edits Imaginary and unknown | Revision as of 11:18, 14 February 2005 edit undoEveryking (talk | contribs)155,603 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| "The image of Egbert is an imaginary portrait drawn by an unknown artist" - that's pretty poor, and whoever wrote the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was clearly out of his depth. Is there any case for retaining the image, given that (a) we don't know whose likeness it presents and (b) we don't know who carved it? Granted, the chances of an alternative image arising are very small. -] 10:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) | "The image of Egbert is an imaginary portrait drawn by an unknown artist" - that's pretty poor, and whoever wrote the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was clearly out of his depth. Is there any case for retaining the image, given that (a) we don't know whose likeness it presents and (b) we don't know who carved it? Granted, the chances of an alternative image arising are very small. -] 10:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Keep it; it's virtually worthless in practical terms, but people like illustrations. I don't know if we could find anything better to use. ] 11:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:18, 14 February 2005
"The image of Egbert is an imaginary portrait drawn by an unknown artist" - that's pretty poor, and whoever wrote the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was clearly out of his depth. Is there any case for retaining the image, given that (a) we don't know whose likeness it presents and (b) we don't know who carved it? Granted, the chances of an alternative image arising are very small. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it; it's virtually worthless in practical terms, but people like illustrations. I don't know if we could find anything better to use. Everyking 11:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)