Talk:Madame Tussauds

Cluttered citations

The citations for the list of wax figures goes off the edge of my phone screen. Could it be resolved like this?

Alduin2000 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC) </ref>

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)

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)

I think that's a perfectly reasonable proposal. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

Singapore Branch

Why Catriona Gray is not included on the list of wax figure in Singapore column? Rogeliomnl24 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hong Kong Branch column

Please remove Catriona Gray there, instead put in Singapore Branch column, thanks! Rogeliomnl24 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Madame_Tussauds#List_of_wax_figures, let's delete this.

Hello, any watchers around?

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)

Added some Tussauds at Marvel:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Or just replace it with "Main article: List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I've been suggesting this for the past six years. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's no opposition in the next 15 minutes we'll do it. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What about 30 mins? Ha. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The link to the Main makes sense to me. Thanks for flagging this @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Star Mississippi 00:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been 24h and participants are unanimous. I'm doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that Madame Tussauds and Donald Trump probably meets WP:GNG, [2]. Oy... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone inserted a new list, with Marvel, I removed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Understand not having a set of lists for all the various Madame Tussauds in the article; for one its unwieldy, but this being the London article, ie. the original Madame Tussauds, the only one that existed for 140 years until the first overseas branch (Amsterdam), it seems peculiar to omit any list from the London location, while all the other articles have lists. Why single out London? The Hong Kong article for example is a GA. Tub st (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT has limited use, but it's an argument, sure. IMO for example Madame Tussauds Delhi is not improvement/better, if you want such a list you can look at their website, which will also be better updated. The lists I've seen added to this article appeared to me as WP:FANCRUFT, and IMO the link to the list article is the way to go. This article has a list of museums at Madame_Tussauds#Museum_locations, it certainly doesn't need 2. Per content, this isn't quite "The London article", it has an international leaning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if people want to see a list of exhibits (and spoil the surprise before the visit), the official website is one click away? And it will be always more reliably up to date. Madame Tussauds in London may be regarded as more important than all the others, but when we look at the Wiki articles for these celebrities we don't see "has a wax model at Madame Tussauds" - it's hardly essential biographical detail. What's next, List of Exhibits at the National Gallery?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessarily unreasonable to mention in a bio, see for example Harry Styles or Cristiano Ronaldo. But you know, WP:PROPORTION and all that. There are limits: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Madame_Tussauds_COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for linking, I was unaware. Looks like User:AndytheGrump summed things up over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As did Bishonen: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Inappropriate_and_Uncivil_Response_in_Discussion_by_User:@AndyTheGrump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Succinct. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Very. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If this isn't "the London article", then there should really probably be a London article for the table to be in. It seems unreasonable for the London article to not have a list of notable figures (and neither tables nor website are "spoilers", not every figure only main notable figures are mentioned), the list just isn't helpful or appropriate for this purpose. Would you support a split to Madame Tussauds London? Happily888 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Imo making a new article for duplicating what I consider fancruft is not improvement. I can't stop you from trying, but depending on how it turns out, I or someone else might nominate it for merge/deletion at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see lists of figures, for any of the branches, including London, as very useful. Readers are better served just going to the websites for the company. Either the entries here are unsourced or, if they are sourced, the source is likely to be the more-up-to-date company website? This is like a little shabby bit of fan-cruft promo for the company/ branch? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is different from an aquarium listing its exhibits and species, a zoo listing its animals and exhibits, a museum listing its collections and art works or a theatre listing its productions. If you have a problem with this, then you should probably have a problem with these as well. Happily888 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Not interested in discussing "my other problems", thanks. But what's going on with tags in that section, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC) p.s. do you think National Portrait Gallery, London should have a section listing "notable portraits"?

Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Marvel_at_Madame_Tussauds

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)