This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King George VI Memorial Chapel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
King George VI Memorial Chapel has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 19, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from King George VI Memorial Chapel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Thank you and well done No Swan So Fine for this timely and efficient creation.
Just to note, I don't love the photo very much though of course it is much much better than nothing and is absolutely of value to the article because we can see how the thing looks! But it is old and small and not great generally (hello Geograph from 2003!) and I imagine that if we keep looking we might with luck find something better, eventually, or an editor with a camera will find themselves there, or whatever. For now I have cropped it a bit to diminish the foreground tarmac area which was a bit much, and I hope that has helped.
Well done again for getting this done!
Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
RoySmith (
talk) 17:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Created by No Swan So Fine ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC).
Are the coffins just placed in the soil below the slab and then piled over with soil like a standard graveyard,or is there a crypt down there with shelves? Romomusicfan ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone dropped in the new photo of the replacement ledger stone, someone else removed it on the grounds that it had no licence, I replaced on the grounds that I thought it looked like it did, and now I'm worried that I was wrong and the remover was right. Crisis of faith, an ting. I think I am going to re-remove it, on the grounds that it is sometimes better to err on the side of caution, and then hope that someone with more clue than I have (this is not a high barrier to overcome) will say or do something that looks or sounds authoritative. Best to all DBaK ( talk) 07:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Whilst there are multiple journalistic sources that attest to the ledger stone being replaced by a new one in 2022, and many are usually reliable, all of the sources are very similar in wording.
This implies that all are simply regurgitating a single common piece
I cannot yet find the press release that accompanied the photograph that was released to see what was actually said.
Clearly we can’t allow original research, but viewing the image shows a marked difference in the colour of the lettering, which very much suggests that this is the original stone with additional inscriptions 2A02:C7C:5E6B:D600:3036:98F0:3AF1:5955 ( talk) 04:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King George VI Memorial Chapel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
King George VI Memorial Chapel has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 19, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from King George VI Memorial Chapel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Thank you and well done No Swan So Fine for this timely and efficient creation.
Just to note, I don't love the photo very much though of course it is much much better than nothing and is absolutely of value to the article because we can see how the thing looks! But it is old and small and not great generally (hello Geograph from 2003!) and I imagine that if we keep looking we might with luck find something better, eventually, or an editor with a camera will find themselves there, or whatever. For now I have cropped it a bit to diminish the foreground tarmac area which was a bit much, and I hope that has helped.
Well done again for getting this done!
Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
RoySmith (
talk) 17:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Created by No Swan So Fine ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC).
Are the coffins just placed in the soil below the slab and then piled over with soil like a standard graveyard,or is there a crypt down there with shelves? Romomusicfan ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone dropped in the new photo of the replacement ledger stone, someone else removed it on the grounds that it had no licence, I replaced on the grounds that I thought it looked like it did, and now I'm worried that I was wrong and the remover was right. Crisis of faith, an ting. I think I am going to re-remove it, on the grounds that it is sometimes better to err on the side of caution, and then hope that someone with more clue than I have (this is not a high barrier to overcome) will say or do something that looks or sounds authoritative. Best to all DBaK ( talk) 07:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Whilst there are multiple journalistic sources that attest to the ledger stone being replaced by a new one in 2022, and many are usually reliable, all of the sources are very similar in wording.
This implies that all are simply regurgitating a single common piece
I cannot yet find the press release that accompanied the photograph that was released to see what was actually said.
Clearly we can’t allow original research, but viewing the image shows a marked difference in the colour of the lettering, which very much suggests that this is the original stone with additional inscriptions 2A02:C7C:5E6B:D600:3036:98F0:3AF1:5955 ( talk) 04:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)