Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I went round this museum and there is a clear injunction not to photograph anything. This raises a question of whether Wikipedia should be using photographs that have been wrongfully obtained. Also it shouldn't take much explaining why these photographs shouldn't have been taken. I may list this as a possible copyright issue too , because the 'work' is not that of the photographer but of the monks who created the designs . There's clearly an ethical problem with these photos if nothing else Hmcst1 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Hmcst1: Hello — I couldn't agree more. But the question should be solved on Wikicommons, first (and I've seen much more recent works whose copyrights were dubious treated in a very casual way there) and even then, plenty of photographs of the crypt are available under the same license elsewhere on the internet, so I am afraid that wouldn't lead us very far (or would lead us too far without a chance to win the case). Unless you'd like to decide here not to put any picture on this page. In which case, like I said, I absolutely agree but would we get consensus on erasing the pictures? Unfortunately I doubt it...Cheers,---TP's TP (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
