Jump to content

Talk:Mametz Wood Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Memetz Wood

[edit]

Why do you think that hand to hand combat was necessary in this battle?


What was the aim of the attack on memetz wood?


Why is the momorial for memetz wood a dragon tearing through barbed wire?


Information on the memorial itself?

[edit]

The title of the article is "Memetz Wood Memorial" but only two sentences discuss the extremely interesting memorial itself "There is a memorial to the 38th Division nearby on a rough single lane road at approximately Lat: 50:00:36N (50.0099) Lon: 2:45:02E (2.7504). This can be reached from the village of Mametz on the D64 road. The memorial takes the form of a red Welsh Dragon tearing at barbed wire on top of a 3 metre plinth."

Anyone know who designed it? When it was built? etc etc etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.254.153 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit

[edit]

What does this mean: "On the 7 July, the men hey there :) re before they reached the wood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.23.121 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1996?

[edit]

"The attack occurred in a northerly direction over a ridge, focussing on the German positions in the wood, between 7 July and 12 July 1996 ." !996 ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.23.121 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date in image caption

[edit]

I am the author of the panorama so you may think I have a conflict of interest User:Verbcatcher. However I do think it useful to give the date of the photo in the caption so that readers do not have to delve further to find where it stands in the historical context. Restoration is apparently afoot, so the view may change. Perhaps the month is not needed in the caption, but would you accept adding back the year? I regret that at the time I took the photos I was not that interested in the memorial and so took no photos of it alone. I have a few taken inside the wood which I have not yet uploaded, but would so do if there was interest (not suitable for the memorial article of course). I find it remarkable and pleasing the number of daily views of this page.SovalValtos (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we would only need a date if the scene had changed significantly since the picture was taken. We would need a date if the memorial is significantly changed by the planned refurbishment.
User:SovalValtos, we used to have a photo of the memorial alone but this was removed because it infringed the sculptor's copyright. The Freedom of panorama copyright exemption does not apply in France. I had thought that your image was ok because the sculpture is only a small part of the image, but now I'm not sure, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. You could post a question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Please don't take it personally if I nominate this image for deletion (which would amount to a request to review its copyright status). Verbcatcher (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought also that the sculpture was an insignificant part of the image, no more so than if a vehicle with a copyright design was included. Nothing taken personally. Do what you see fit of course. I will not pose the question to cvpc. Might a pixilated version eliminating the sculpture do with a suitable caption, just illustrating the surroundings? I do think the image adds to the article. By the way, how do we know the scene has changed without an image or source?SovalValtos (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the image adds to the article. Reducing the resolution of the image on Commons might help; if you download the original file you can see clear details of the sculpture (thanks to your high-quality work). But I'm not an expert. We will probably know if the scene has changed from the publicity surrounding the 100th anniversary of the battle in 2016, and possibly for the refurbishment of the monument. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred it to an expert on copyright. User:Jameslwoodward I am not keen on the idea of degrading the resolution overall.SovalValtos (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the image with a blurred version, but it has not yet shown in the article as the thumb. Maybe we must wait...SovalValtos (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had problems when I first looked at your new image, but later and on a different computer it looks ok. Perhaps the old image had to be flushed from a cache somewhere. On the original issue, I still think the caption is better without the year of the photograph, but I won't revert it if you put it in. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or split?

[edit]

The detailed description of the battle and the description of other artistic works it inspired fit uncomfortably in an article ostensibly on David Petersen's memorial. The most significant thing is the battle, and this needs an article in its own right. I propose that we rearrange the article so that its main focus is on the battle, and rename it accordingly. The material on Petertsen's memorial could be a section in the article, with a redirect. Alternatively, we could create a new article on the battle and move most of this material into it, leaving this article about the memorial.

What should the new article on the battle be named? Battle of Mametz Wood seems natural to me, but was it actually a battle rather than an engagement or a skirmish? Does this matter? Naming the article simply Mametz wood would look like an article on the wood itself. Your thoughts please. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make a better answer later (cold starting), but I suspect I do not have a good enough grasp yet of how the broader subject is handled and divided, so will need to look around. No rush, let us get it right.SovalValtos (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher I think the Petersen memorial is just to 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division not to other units involved in the action on either side. This article content might fit most comfortably in List of World War I memorials and cemeteries in the Somme where there is already some duplication of content with this. The other artistic works material could go there. The list article is already more than a list so moving images into it would not be a problem.
The main battle is clearly Battle of the Somme, which itself is divided into parts. Mametz wood does not seem to relate to the history covered by First day on the Somme article but rather the Battle of Albert (1916) and Capture of Mametz articles. I am not sure either way about creating another separate article on the Mametz wood fighting apart from the three that exist. I suppose it depends on whether it is easier to grasp the history in few articles or if the existing articles have become too large and need dividing.
One possible reason for keeping the article as is, is that it keeps together material relating to Sassoon and Graves. It has a lot of views. SovalValtos (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Mametz Wood has acquired a significance in Wales that outweighs its military significance. The National Museum Cardiff says: "Now embedded in the Welsh national identity, this battle has come to represent the bravery and sacrifice of Welsh troops in World War One."[1] The battle merits an article chiefly becaue of its cultural significance in Wales, and the significant artistic works that it has inspired. The number of views of this page is probably driven by the recent centenary commemorations in Wales and by school history lessons is Wales. Most of these readers would be seeking information on the battle, not on the memorial. It is a pity that we did not improve the article before the centenary.
My preference is to convert the article into one focusing on the battle. Initially this only requires interchanging two sections: The memorial and The engagement and changing the title to something like Battle of Mametz Wood, with appropriate redirects. We should then add material on the recent centenary commemorations. If there is any good material relating to the German side then we should include it.
There is significant material available specifically on this battle and on its commemorations. I will list some of the better sites in a separate section to demonstrate its importance in Wales, and as resources for improving an article on it. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'War's Hell!' The Battle of Mametz Wood in Art". National Museum Cardiff. 30 April 2016.

Additional sources

[edit]

Museums

[edit]

Education

[edit]

Broadcasting, newspapers and curated websites

[edit]

Books

[edit]

I have not read these books

Other websites

[edit]

Verbcatcher (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A useful list of additional sources. Thank you. There must be German sources on the action and the Lehr Regiment of Prussian Guards at Mametz. Has anyone looked for French sources on the memorial?SovalValtos (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was a little surprised to see the absence of an actual photograph of the memorial, as there previously was one. I note that there does not appear to have been a discussion about the deletion of the previous photograph here, but rather a staggeringly brief exchange on Commons here. The rationale was given that:

""The sculptor David Petersen has successfully taken legal action to assert his rights in relation to this sculpture."

This is sourced to the Western Front Association (WFA) 2011-12 Annual Report Supplement that is no longer available at the original link, but rather here. The supplement includes a report by the WFA's legal officer, Richard Hughes, in which he states:

"The WFA is now established as a pro bono/charity client for the law firm where I work and, with the assistance of colleagues, we were able to protect the rights of David Petersen, the sculptor of the Welsh memorial at Mametz who rightly objected to unauthorised replicas which were being sold at a profit at a time when the memorial needs maintenance. So far we have won over £2,000 which will go to the upkeep of the memorial."

It seems to me that the legal issue with the memorial was significantly different from how it was presented in the deletion discussion. Petersen no doubt retains the UK copyright on the statue itself, and hence the manufacture of replicas - which I take to mean 3-dimensional scale models or miniatures - by a third party or parties in the UK would be an infringement under UK copyright law. That such third parties were apparently making money from selling infringing replicas at a time when there was ongoing fund-raising for the care of the actual memorial is pretty obvious grounds for action to be taken against them.

This is clearly qualitatively very different from the inclusion of a photograph of the Memorial in its "natural setting" on Wikipedia, and indeed someone interpreting this as conflicting with the lack of French freedom of panorama. It goes without saying that the only place such a photograph would be infringing would be in France itself, where Petersen does not live, and where Wikipedia's servers are not based. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Cooper: I nominated the Commons image for deletion (linked above) because the memorial is located in France and the freedom of panorama rule that allows photographs of sculptures in the UK and elsewhere does not apply in France, see see c:Commons:Freedom of panorama. The willingness of the sculptor to take legal action does not affect the legal position. The exchange of Commons was brief because its rules are well established. Photographs of sculptures located in France need explicit permission from copyright owner of the sculpture (normally the sculptor), unless the sculptor has been dead for 70 years, see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France.
The rules for images in English Wikipedia are different from those on Commons. However, WP:COPYOTHERS indicates that we need permission from the copyright holder (Petersen) unless we are using the image under a Wikipedia:Non-free content rule. WP:NFCI indicates that non-free images are allowed of Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. It is doubtful whether the current article amounts to a critical commentary on the sculpture, as we only give a brief factual description. Compare the to the critical commentary in Bust of a Woman (Marie-Thérèse) where a non-free image is used. You could raise this issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was further discussion with a Commons Administrator User:Jameslwoodward [1] concerning the current image and its pixelated variants that I uploaded.SovalValtos (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since the French copyright law very clearly does not permit derivative works, including photographs, of copyrighted works such as this sculpture, the DR referenced above was longer than one might expect. The fact that the sculptor has successfully sued infringers is interesting, but completely unnecessary to the deletion on Commons. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I note that Freedom of Panorama#France now states:

"Since October 7, 2016, article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property provides for a limited freedom of panorama for works of architecture and sculpture. The code authorizes "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places (voie publique), and created by natural persons, with the exception of any usage of a commercial character"."

In this context, the objection to including a photograph of the actual Memorial on this page seems to be no longer valid. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cooper If (Jameslwoodward) or another Commons Admin has the time to comment it would be helpful. A small point but would an image taken after 7 October 2016 have to be used, or is the French code change retrospective? I do not have an image of the memorial to upload other than the composite view already in use in the article. The un-pixelated original is still available on Commons that could replace the current blurred version. There are views in Commons of the memorial alone [2].SovalValtos (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image could not be hosted on Commons because it does not accept licenses that exclude commercial use, see c:Commons:Licensing. The images of the sculpture should be removed from Commons. However, I think a non-free fair-use image hosted on Wikipedia might be justifiable, see WP:NFCI. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised a deletion request for the photos of the sculpture on Commons, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mametz Wood Memorial. Please participate in the discussion there. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mametz_Wood_Memorial&oldid=1208751597"