Talk:Artognou stone

message: Why does Thomas translate it as saying "father of a descendant of Coll"?  "Avus" in Latin means "grandfather" or "ancestor" (Lewis and Short), which ought to make it "great-grandfather of Coll" or "ancestor of Coll".  It is true that there may not have been a lot of people around in the sixth century at the time when their great-grandsons were named, but it could have been a commemorative inscription not implying that the person responsible for whatever building was being recorded was actually still alive at the time.   Deipnosophista (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a very active imagination.Cagwinn (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Avus

message: Is this stone's appearance REALLY subject to copyright?  There is a purported image on the web, which casts doubt on that.  (The copyright on its content obviously expired some centuries ago. ;-)  It would be helpful to see highlighting for the important graphical elements, such as Arthnou's and Paterni's names. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The stone's appearance (and inscription) are not in themselves copyrightable, but any photograph will be the copyright either of the photographer (or whoever he/she might assign the copyright to), or of the organisation employing the photographer if that situation pertained. Moreover, whoever has custody of the stone may have the right to prevent "unauthorised" photographs being taken of it. Thus there may be no pictures available for use by Wikipedia on the necessary terms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  Thanks for the explanation. Jmacwiki (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who takes their own picture of the stone has the option of releasing it under a liscence; if anyone did that we could use it. Such an image may exist. I'll add a photo request tag here.--Cúchullain t/c 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just done a sketch of the inscription (see above right) - I traced over a high-res image of the slate using Photoshop. If others think it's OK to use this re-purposed image, I will move this to the article's main page. Cagwinn (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, Cagwinn.  The issue, I believe, is whether anyone (esp. the stone's custodian) must authorize all such images, and might therefore control the copyright to the underlying picture, even if the photographer has put the photo in the public domain.  (See 87.81.230.195's points, above.) Jmacwiki (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Cagwinn, I think that unless you yourself took the particular photo that you traced over, or know that the photo is in the public domain, then your image is technically a copyright violation. We can't dance around copyrights by merely fiddling with colours/gradients/textures in photoshop. Does anyone know it's located today? Is it on exhibit where people can take photos of it? If we could pin down if it is in a certain museum, then maybe a Wikipedian might be able to snap a pic of it sometime in the future.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, some a**hole busybodies with nothing better to do have flagged and deleted the sketch of the inscription that I created, even though it was totally legal and license-free. Yet another reason why I hate Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not up on the technicalities of your creation, but why not just revert the deletion? Jmacwiki (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no picture? 

message: How does one re-title this article? It is totally improper to call this inscription the "Arthur stone" (this name was only bandied about in the popular press for a short while after the inscriptions discovery was announced). It is now commonly called the "Artognou stone". Cagwinn (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can move the article with the "move" button, to the right of the "history" and "Watchlist" tabs.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article mis-titled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Artognou stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gla.ac.uk/archaeology/projects/tintagel/ttg4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per MOS:LEAD, "... significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."   There is no mention of the name "Arthur stone" in the article text.  If reliable sources can be found giving "Arthur stone" as an alternative term, they should be added to the text.  We can then consider whether those mentions are notable enough to be also reported in the lead.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct sources are now in the article, but it still leaves the issue of the lead covering material not in the article body (which extends beyond the "Arthur Stone" bit). I'll do a little work today.--Cúchullain t/c 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've repeated "Arthur stone" in the relevant section and moved the refs for that name to there, but one is dubious and overall, the article seems under-referenced. Maybe all that's missing in that respect is a representative media article from what was reportedly quite a lot of coverage, and then the Blogspot-derived page can go. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arthur stone"