Revision as of 02:14, 4 September 2006 editTriviaa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,960 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:32, 5 April 2007 edit undoKingbotk (talk | contribs)447,274 editsm Bot (FAQ) (Plugin) Tag Category:9th century deaths. living=no.Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPBiography |
{{WPBiography | ||
|living=no | |||
|class= | |||
|priority= | |||
}} | |||
"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) | :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 11:32, 5 April 2007
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
"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)
- I'd drop the pic myself - we have lots of pics already, people can cope without having one here. The imaginary pic is also misleading in that he certainly didn't wear a spiky crown, or a tunic of a type that wouldn't be developed until hundreds of years later, etc. Don't we have any of Egbert's coins to use instead? Even one with just a name would be better. What about charters? Stan 13:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)