This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Amusement parks 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.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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)reply
I still don't see how this can be resolved. Any suggestion would be welcome.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 20:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Cluttered citations
The citations for the list of wax figures goes off the edge of my phone screen. Could it be resolved like this?
Maybe, yes. But had you considered that these so-called citations don't really support much, or in some cases any, article content? See my thread "List of the wax figures" above. Sorry to drone on about this, but nobody seems to care very much. Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 22:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean, perhaps the list as is could be moved to it's own list page and a smaller list of notable figures that are more easily kept control of and verified left here.
What do you think?
Alduin2000 (
talk) 16:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I think that's a perfectly reasonable proposal. Many thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I've gone ahead and done it. I've transferred tables from other pages for now but obviously there is no separate London page and other notable figures may be missing as of now.
Alduin2000 (
talk) 17:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Many thanks,
Alduin2000, I think that's a vast improvement. The sourcing for that main list can now be considered separately.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 22:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I suggest we delete this part of the article. As the article states, there's no reasonable criteria. Odds are that anyone who has a waxfigure also has a WP-article. This is just
WP:FANCRUFT, and can be handled with one or more categories instead. This info belongs on org websites.
Also... A separate column for Marvel? Please no. Not that I don't like Marvel.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply