Talk:Cast Courts

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616103155/http://www.museociviltaromana.it/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/sezioni_tematiche/sala_li_la_colonna_traiana to http://www.museociviltaromana.it/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/sezioni_tematiche/sala_li_la_colonna_traiana
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519091556/http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/resources/reports/artistcommissions/bbc_broadcasting_house.php to http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/resources/reports/artistcommissions/bbc_broadcasting_house.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@14GTR: The V&A uses uppercase in some instances, while in others, they use lowercase (e.g., 46A^[1] vs. 46b^[2]). This is true not only on their Digital Map, but also in various other places on their website.^[3] Do you have any insight as to which is correct? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The article makes the claim that the original Lübeck relief of Christ washing the Apostles' feet" has been destroyed (which is also supported by the V&A reference source), yet we have a number of photographs on Commons of what appears to be the same work in Lübeck, and our article on the church lists the piece amongst mediaeval artefacts that remain (see interiors section). Presumably the version in the church is a recreation? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)