Talk:Madame Tussauds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled: Birthdate of Tussaud

Was she born on December 1 or December 7? If you do search you'll see some web sites one way some another. Some even list both dates for her birth. --User:TMillerCA 1 Dec 2003

Hmm. Good question. The autobiografie is not availlable in a library near me, so I can't look it up in there. The data for this article was gleaned from many internet sites. I tried to judge the quality of each, but it would be nice to check the dates and places with something authoritive --User:Sander123 2 Dec 2003

The encyclopedia Britanica list 1 december. I've changed the date --User:Sander123 12 Dec 2003

Untitled: Topic coverage/split

This article is almost entirely about the person and not the places. Shouldn't it be changed to Marie Tussaud? RickK 22:39, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Rick, how about copying the page (minus the image) into a new page 'Marie Tuassaud', and writing a new page for the waxwork museums? Grunners 04:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I have made an initial effort at the separation. Jay 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

list of wax figures

the list of wax figures seems a bit incomplete... :/ --68.222.22.68 04:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I know that there is a Billy Idol wax figure in the Las Vegas Madame Tussauds... --Nikkicontraband (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

about the wax figures

• Are there still any Madame Tussaud's original wax figures especially the death masks?
• Do they rebuild a popular figure's wax figure after he/she becomes older?
• How often do they recreate a historical figure's wax figure from an old mold? I think very important persons such as George Washington will be on display for years to come.

I think this article should talk more about the museum. -- Toytoy 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

This picture of the Lama is not a waxwork but the real thing! Who put it in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.79.30 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

does somebody know?

Could somebody tell how many figures are there altogether? and what is the area of Madame Tussauds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.239.125 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well first off, it's hard to measure that at one time because the group is constantly coming out with new figures and trading them among one another — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.175.164 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

World Leaders

Princess Diana and the Queen Mum were world leaders? Eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.182.97 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion about how sculptures are made?

I'm very interested in knowing the process one has to go through when a sculpture is made of them? How accurate are the sculptures? Do they reflect the exact size and shape of every aspect of a person's body. If so are exact measurements taken? Needshape 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I think this is notable by its absence. I believe that for figures of living people, they generally make an appointment (or several) to get some basic measurements done - see news coverage of Obama's waxwork being done, I believe there is a picture of someone measuring his face with calipers. However, I'm afraid I don't know enough about how its done to write this up for Wikipedia. --78.86.244.182 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc?

isn't she one of the figures at Madame Tussaud Wax? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.162.14 (talk) 11:44, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

In London, I doubt there would be Jackie Kennedy Onassis without JFK

This list says Jackie was a figure in the London Madame Tussauds, but not JFK. I highly doubt they would have it that way. --RandomOrca2 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Free images?

Are photos of the wax statues free? It's a photo of a piece of copyrighted artwork, so even if you take a photo, can you release it under a free license? James086^{Talk | Email} 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As a saying goes: "A picture speaks a thousand words" but I recently observed that u have nominated 11 images taken of the wax figurines to be deleted as per [1] (dated 16 Oct 2007) under the blanket justification of "It is a derivative work of a copyrighted statue", even though the photos were taken personally by the contributors on-site. If one is to follow strictly on such rationale, does that mean if anyone takes a pix of one own's car, a mp3 player or the Sydney Opera House, one should one write in to eg. Toyota, Apple or the mayor of Sydney for its permission then? If that's the case, I think the 3 building pix in the article itself should be nominated for deletion too and many more in Wikipedia for fairness & consistency. -- Aldwinteo 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a freedom of panorama for images of buildings. Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ has some info on derivative works. I would say the photos are clearly derivative works of the statues, which are on private property and not visible from a public place. This may help. Secretlondon 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also this and the next 2 sections are what made me decide to nominate the images. If you took a photo of your car, yes the shape and design of the car are copyrighted, but because the car is not a work of art (ie it isn't made just to be looked at, it can be driven aswell) the photo can be licensed as you choose. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If photography is allowed in a space to which the public has access, then surely any rights to the images are abrogated to the picture taker? The images are of true likenesses of the original, so then the copyright is derived from the person whose image it is, being in a public space. Sorry, I don't understand American law, but that would be the case under English law, ie it's fair game. Kbthompson 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to our policy, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason why I brought this issue up, is to ensure that there's a due process in communication and accountability among the parties concerned, are done in a constructive manner to ensure that Wikipedia informational value is not compromised for the common good in the long run. As I've visited 2 Madame Tussauds outlets before, I've not encountered any written notices nor its brochures prohibiting photography on site (If so, that wld take out the fun in the 1st place!). As such, it would be 'implied' that any rights to the images are abrogated to the picture taker to any casual observer (Sorry, I'm more familiar with the English and Singapore law). I also observed that the listed images, all of which are half-body shots, were not scanned images nor were they lifted directly from Madame Tussauds website, but were tagged with proper declaration ('Self Made') & some even uploaded wholesale with technical camera summary on the photo page itself. Whether on this issue or similar cases, I hope some form of common sense, fair play and constructive options have being fully explored & exercised prior to such enforcement (in which I've encountered much of late) unless there's a imminent legal challenge ('show cause'), precedent, or blatant copyright infringements. IMHO -- Aldwinteo 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From Wikimedia Commons (link)."Photographs of copyrighted, non-free two- or three-dimensional works of art must not be uploaded to Commons. Pictures of copyrighted three-dimensional works of art are called derivative works, while pictures of two-dimensional works of art are called reproductions. Examples of derivative works include pictures of sculptures, action figures and other copyrighted works." So the images aren't free unless the statues aren't copyrighted. We could contact them and ask if they are copyrighted and if they are, we could ask for them to release the copyright over images of their statues. The "legal" sections of their sites don't mention the statues, they only refer to the actual websites [2], although on the New York site they encourage visitors to email their photos to them so perhaps they would allow PD/GFDL/CC images of their statues. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a conflict, but I can accept the Commons text as being more detailed. If you read farther in the Commons page you link to, however, you will see that the United Kingdom, at least, has full Freedom of Panorama, which includes sculptures in places accessible to the public. Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of * buildings, and * sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. So the London statues are fine; the Vegas ones may not be. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice find. I have removed their tags and from the deletion page. I also took down Image:Andy Lau MTHK.jpg as it is now tagged as fair use. The only one left is Image:Yoko Ono Sculpture.JPG. I'm going to email Madame Tussauds and ask if they are willing to allow photos of their images to be licensed as the photographer chooses. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely replies & follow-up action mate. -- Aldwinteo 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in the back of my mind I was hoping I was wrong; the images really add to the article I think. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email asking if they allow free licensing of photos of their statues, and if not could they. Hopefully I'll get a reply soon. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong dates of birth and death?

Ellena Herchert (1995–2067) - these dates in the current page are obviously wrong. There seems to be a more plausible date range in the history of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pklala (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Baker Street Bazaar

Should a passing reference/link be made to the Druce-Portland affair, as Druce was based at the above address? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

Why is it "Madame Tussauds" and not "Madame Tussaud's"? Shreevatsa (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists of figures

There are no citations for these lists. They seem to be the subject of frequent vanity insertions without basis. Also, with so many museums with constantly changing lineups, I propose we eliminate the lists entirely. It is just not practical (and not really that useful) to maintain these lists. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I support removing the list, too. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the lists should be replaced by one list contaiing the figures from all the museums. --88.156.129.139 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

youngest person

Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, and Daniel Radcliffe all are in the museum. They are all under 18. Why is this guy listed as the youngest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.145.14 (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I think it maight have been a vanity vandalism. Either way, it's not particularly notable, so I'm taking it out.oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hamburg

In the articel it says: "Madame Tussaud's wax museum has now grown to become a major tourist attraction in London, incorporating (until recently)[when?] the London Planetarium in its west wing. It has expanded and will expand with branches in Amsterdam, Bangkok, Berlin, Dubai, Hamburg, Hollywood, Hong Kong, Las Vegas, Moscow, New York City, Shanghai, Vienna and Washington, D.C.."

Are there really any plans to open a branch in Hamburg? Reference, please! Erdberg (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First sculpture

I've added "citation needed" to 'Tussaud created her first wax figure, of Voltaire, in 1777', as this is contradicted by the article Marie Tussaud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.144.19 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Statue list

This article should not include the statue list. However, I have placed a copy of the most recent list at Talk:Madame Tussauds/Statues for reference. It is of some interest who is represented but I find it particularly intriguing that there are so many redlinks. Feel free to play with the page - I hope to go through and see if there are any article omissions that we should investigate. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Prague

As far as I understand it, there currently is no Madame Tussauds in Prague. Therefore Prague should be removed from the list of locations.Jeremiasss (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums

The article List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It doesn't seem likely that this list page will ever be properly sourced or verifiable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thought I'd put this here since the list is directly connected to the subject of this page. I created the list page because it cluttered up this page and didn't have any criteria for inclusion but now it seems it will never be verifiable - almost none of the wax figures are sourced. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just posting a follow-up here: the PROD was removed. I haved nominated the list for deletion and the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums. Alduin2000 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed purge of "comprehensive" statue lists

I have had this article on my to-do list for some years now, but haven't found the time (or energy) to turn my attention to it. I'm pretty sure I had an idea of what I wanted to do with it, but I'm no longer sure what that was. I do know that I find myself quite annoyed (as others above in the past), that we have long and unwieldy lists, with almost zero reliable sourcing. Bad lists are a scourge of Wikipedia, and this page exemplifies that.

Since List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums now exists, and its existence has consensus (per RfD linked in the thread above), I don't see any great need or justification for the mess of tables which are:

1. partly duplicative (e.g., 12x Marilyn Monroe),
2. rarely accurate, as Tussauds constantly changes their exhibits,
3. space wasters (cf. the Hollywood table, which requires 12 rows at the moment for the "A-List Party" column, while "Modern Classics" uses only 3)
4. incomplete, as we currently have 19 tables but list 26 museums, and
5. (again) mostly unsourced.

I think what I would like to do is move this article (back?) toward talking about the museum(s). We've got an article for all(?) the statues, and it appears (frankly, much to my astonishment) to be well-referenced. What this article could/should have, is sections about (certain of) the museums, with a mention of their focus, with only a few brief examples of the categories statues. And I know from experience that any time one lists two examples of something, another editor will come along and add to the list, but if we can agree here and maybe add comments in the wikicode that there's an upper limit (like 3) to the examples, maybe that will hold back the tide. It'd be nice to have this article in trim shape, with good sources (poss. backsourced from the List article) for most everything.

A (possible) example for the London section: The London museum includes older waxworks as mentioned above, but also include focus areas such as film (e.g., Emma Watson, Alfred Hitchcock and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan), music (e.g., Amy Winehouse, Adele and The Beatles), sport (e.g., Jessica Ennis-Hill, Muhammad Ali and Cristiano Ronaldo), leaders and history (e.g., Napoleon Bonaparte, Elizabeth II and William Shakespeare), and Marvel characters (e.g., Captain America and Iron Man). Many of the figures on display are British or Commonwealth of Nations citizens.^{Some other good reference(s)}

Then we can say something special about the London museum (if we haven't already covered it in the sections above), like it's being renovated through 2029 or something (or that Camilla visited and the workers rushed to keep her from melting, har!).

In the Hollywood section we talk about the focus there: Hollywood film stars, pop icons, A-List party people, etc., with up to three examples for the categories we mention. If there's more to say about the Hollywood location, we say it there, with citations. And so on.

All the tables would then be deleted, using atomic-powered digital sledgehammers.

What do you think of this approach? I see with some sadness (and rather too late) that User:Martinevans123 is currently blocked, but I'll ping User:Alduin2000 and (FWIW) User:Violetriga, and invite any editor to chime in on the approach I've outlined. All feedback is welcome.

References

Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the list tables should be removed and an upper limit of three examples per area seems reasonable. However, I think we should probably only provide examples if RSes think they are important enough to mention, so I would also support listing no examples if RSes don't provide any particular examples. This proposal seems like a good first step either way though, so support limited lists for now. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Alduin. I just now noticed that the ref for the London table that I reused in my example isn't even an external source; it's the Tussauds website.

I agree about the RS sourcing, though. It'll be some work to convert the tables-with-everything! format to selected-well-sourced-examples, but I think it'll save us some effort in the long term and improve the page. I will probably wait to start until, say, the weekend, not least to allow for more input. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I am no longer blocked. But I see this article is now worse than ever. It is now over six years since I first raised my concerns. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

List of the wax figures

The section says (emphasis added): "The following is a list of the wax figures ... which are displayed at the Madame Tussaud museum whether in London museum or other major cities museums." Not "which have been displayed" or "which may be displayed" but "which are displayed". There are sources for each of the Madame Tussauds sites and I was guessing that before any name could be added, maybe an editor should check all of the links to check the person was indeed currently on display somewhere. But looking at the sport section on London website, for example, I see that it says "Here's just a few of the famous faces you'll meet in our Sport area..." So how can most names be added on anything other than the basis of personal knowledge, which would be WP:OR? How recent do other supporting sources e.g. newspaper reports, have to be, to be considered valid? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see how this can be resolved. Any suggestion would be welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

And so it continues.... What's to stop any editor, anonymously or otherwise, adding as many people who have Wikipedia articles as they please? Unless this content can be sourced, to me it looks not just useless but also potentially misleading. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Four years on.... and it's just the same. Perhaps worse. Without any sources, no-one can ever know. Perhaps a request to delete might provoke some discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)