From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I see that this image of Cartimandua — who evidently shared her makeup artist with Mariah Carey or Scarlett Johansson — is of questionable provenance. It's under copyright, and fair use is argued; however, I doubt its encyclopedic value, as I see no information on the file page about its artist or period. It's perfectly acceptable to use canonical interpretations of ancient people or scenes in later artwork, as long as these are labeled as such, for instance a Neoclassical painting of a Socratic symposium. Such works and their artists have their own notability. This image has no information that would explain what sort of lens is filtering the subject. It's the work of one William Whitaker, who doesn't have his own article. I can't find any published scholarship on the work, not even a blog review.

Illustrations of this kind are a form of OR because they are interpretations; they differ from diagrams, maps, and so on that straightforwardly present information that can be verified. I cannot, for instance, produce my own artistic vision in acrylics of Vercingetorix surrendering to Julius Caesar and palm it off as an illustration for WIkipedia; that would be OR. But Royer's famous painting of this scene, correctly labeled, has its own historical interest and value. Without a provenance, this image of Cartimandua misleadingly suggests that it is a recreation of how a woman of Cartimandua's time and status might've looked, and as that I find it quite silly (no offense to the artist or the quality of his work!). Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I took this picture out of the Brigantes article because it looks like a modern recreation of a painting by some early 19th Century romantic on a visit to the Ottoman Empire. I'm not even sure that it's the same Cartimandua, or that the artist knew who she was. Paul S (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, if we actually had a painting by a 19th-century Romantic who was feeling Ottomanish, I'd be on board. If we don't hear a defense in a couple of days, I suppose we'd be justified in removing it? I think it should be deleted altogether from WP, as I don't think it meets the criteria for fair use. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cartimandua. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Use BC dating like almost all British History articles of 1st Century[edit]

To put it simply, not using the AD/BC is not attributing our dates to those who invented them. Because without the churchmen who invented our current calendar we would neither have the calendar nor much of the early history from those like Bede and Gildas. (And before anyone cites religion - we don't get the same rubbish about July (after the god Julius), August, Wodens-day, Thors-day).

That I believe is why most sensible recognise their important contribution and use the AD/BC dating system. This article is an oddity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, history would just vanish and without a calendar we wouldn't know what we should be doing when. No, despite your claims elsewhere, there's no rule that says British articles must be AD. I've told you we have a guideline on this. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)