Talk:Australian War Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military memorials and cemeteries task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force Ottoman military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Portal	Australian War Memorial is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 roof 2 Motto 3 Piper 4 World's largest collection of Victoria Crosses?? 5 Anzac not in caps 6 Architecture 7 Photos 8 A different photo question 9 Thinking aloud 10 Assistance is required 11 Feature article? 12 Museum 13 Structure and content

[edit] roof

I remember hearing something about the roof of the tomb of the unknown soldier being specially designed to illuminate the grave at the 11th minute of the 11th hour, can anyone confirm this (preferably someone who lives in canberra)

[edit] Motto

Does anyone know the actual motto that goes with the basket handles on ANZAC Parade? anyone, if you do please contact us asap and there is a reward. that is only if you know — B.Bryant 23:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Piper

Does anyone know what the piper plays at the closing? (Is it even the same thing every time?) I presume that it's the equivalent of Taps, but I don't have any idea what the term for it is. — B.Bryant 23:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The tune played is "The Last Post". IIRC "Taps" sounds very similar; it may be based on "The Last Post", which is generally played (outside the USA) when "Taps" would be played.

(I was actually at the War Memorial today. Took a host of pictures. All of them ruined by a whopping great date/time watermark. Oh, well; it's not like an excuse to revisit the place is unwelcome.) --fuddlemark 15:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, is there a general article on the use of pipers in the military, e.g. who uses them, what the history is, what they play, etc.? — B.Bryant 23:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World's largest collection of Victoria Crosses??

I believe the AWM's collection of VCs is the largest such collection in the world. Is this true? JackofOz 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This page claims it is the largest publicly held collectiobn in the world. [1] --Martyman-(talk) 00:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'll add that link to the Victoria Cross article as well. JackofOz 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this page might be a better fit as it also lists the VC's at the museum. [2] --Martyman-(talk) 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, mate. I'd rather you get the credit than me since you did the legwork. JackofOz 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's cool. You probably know these articles better than I do. You can add it if you think it is appropriate. --Martyman-(talk) 01:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but I insist. I'm feeling good today and my generosity of spirit knows no bounds. JackofOz 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anzac not in caps

ANZAC is certainly put in upper case when it's a stand-alone acronym. And caps are always used on maps and road signs, so it's ANZAC PDE in those cases. But for general reference, I would have thought it's "Anzac Parade", not "ANZAC Parade". I've made the change in the article. JackofOz 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture

[3] From the press release

The nation’s top award for public buildings, the prestigious RAIA Sir Zelman Cowan Award for Public Buildings, was awarded to Denton Corker Marshall for Anzac Hall at the Australian War Memorial. The project involved creating a new museum at the war memorial that was sympathetically designed to “remember the men and women who fought for Australian in theatres of war”. The jury described the result as a “powerful and contemporary form of the new building that complements the old”. --nixie 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Can some space be found for some of these photos? --Fir0002 05:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will have a go at re-organizing the photos tomorrow if no one beats me to it. --Martyman-(talk) 06:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted a gallery feature, as found on London building articles. This automatically builds a table of thumbnails from image names inserted one per line between tags. See here for a creative example. --Surgeonsmate 04:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A different photo question

Wikipedia states that Australian copyright law says that any photograph taken before 1955 is public domain. However, the Australian War Memorial website says that permission must granted to reproduce any of the photos from their site. Which is right? They have a lot of good World War II photos that I'd like to use in articles here on Wikipedia. I've tried writing to the Australian War Memorial with this question but they haven't responded. Cla68 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Australian copyright law the situation seems fairly clear:

* Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died in 1954 or earlier, is out of copyright.

* Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died after 1954, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the author's death.

Also any work that was published after the death of the author, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the year of first publication. Unpublished works hold copyright indefinitely.

Photographs, sound recordings, films, and anonymous/pseudonymous works are copyright for seventy (70) years from their first publication.

So my intrepretation is that in Australia we can freely use photographs published up until 31 December 1935, and after that date we can make use of fair dealing. However, this is under Australian law, and my understanding is that Wikipedia is published in the US and US law applies. --Surgeonsmate 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking aloud

I just adjusted this article to include Kerry Stokes aquisition and kind insistance on it being displayed at AWM. Looking at the article is there value in a subsection on the VC medal collection given that this is a significant collection or would it be making the article touristy Gnangarra 09:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• To my mind there seems sufficient on the topic and a separate section is not justified. The purpose fo the AWM is not to house Victoria Crosses but to remember all soldiers who fought (including those awarded VCs). I must have missed it - saw the anonymous purchase, haven't seen the ref to Stikes - surely no longer an anonymous purchase if attributed.--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point about the suggestion. Kerry Stokes bids were anonymous, thats how it should read. I'm not worried about any edits I just inserted the paragraph from the VC article. Gnangarra 10:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article ever got to the point where it discussed each gallery the VCs could be further expanded on since there is a whole gallery for them - but until then I think the balance is good as is.--Peta 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance is required

This article looks great, much better in fact than the articles of Parliament House, Canberra and Old Parliament House, Canberra, they are terrible by comparison. I am on a kind of mission to greatly improve the quality of these important but ignored articles. Look at United States Capitol and Michigan State Capitol!

If you can do this for the War memorial, then surley we can work together to boost the quality of other Important Australain Land-marks. Your help would be grealy appreciated.

Thanks , User:Dfrg.msc 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feature article?

Anyone think this is ready for feature status? – B.Bryant 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See the featured article criteria. The most noticeable failure of this article against that criteria is the provision of references. A peer review of the article may help offer ideas for improvement.--cj | talk 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is also not comprehensive - while it discusses the building it does not talk about the AWM as (1) a toursit attraction and more importantly (2) its role in preserving and recording history.--Peta 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rated it as B-class - add references, etc. and nominate it for good article status. Carom 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Museum

I've used the fantastic AWM website for a few years now, so I know the AWM mainly as a museum/repository: in fact, it was only really on reading this article that I realise it's actually a memorial as well. The introductory paragraphs talk about four major elements: an Anzac Parade, a commemorative area, a museum, and a sculpture garden. The contents mention three of these but not the museum - instead it has a section on the memorial building. Reading that section it isn't made explicit that this is the museum - it's confusing to people like me who aren't familiar with the physical set-up of the site. Jasper33 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a museum in the sense that the IWM is. It's a memorial, first and foremost, and the fact that it contains relics and exhibits is of secondary importance. It may seem a moot point if you only look at the physical objects in glass cases, but the distinction is crucial and goes right to the heart of the Australian collective consciousness. Attend a Dawn Service and you'll begin to understand. --Pete 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I live on the other side of the world. I was trying to point out that the article isn't clear: the museum is mentioned in the first para, but it's not clear whether exhibits are found throughout the various areas, or just in the commemorative area and the memorial building - or some other combination. I don't know because I haven't been there: I was hoping the article would clarify the matter and it doesn't. By the way, I am hugely grateful to the Australian Armed forces: they liberated my grandparents from a Japanese POW and civilian internee camp in Borneo in 1945. Jasper33 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure and content

I have some ideas about the structure and content of the article. I am a novice at Wikipedia but happy make the changes and additions if people agreed.

Museum Galleries and Research Centre

I think there should be separate sections for both Memorial’s collections and galleries and Research Centre. Both are areas of the Memorial that fulfil important functions of the Memorial as define by the Australian War Memorial ACT 1980.

The Memorial’s website claims that “The Research Centre is the single most important resource for researching Australia's military history’ and I can’t argue with that so perhaps a section would be good.

I also believe that as the largest part the Memorial, the museum galleries, desperately need representation in the article. The museum seems to be a vital part of the Memorial’s commemorative function. From personal experience, most people spend most of the time in the galleries. It is far from being of secondary importance instead its where people learn why the Memorial exists and why its important to remember.

Remembrance Driveway and Anzac Parade

The Remembrance Driveway and Anzac Parade seem to have a very high profile in the article especially when there are more relevant sections about the Memorial itself lower in the article. The article states that Anzac Parade is part of the Australian War Memorial. However, as the NCA website states, Anzac Parade is managed by the National Capital Authority not the Memorial.

It seems to me that both sections could be moved into one section covering the physical surrounds of the Memorial.

Comments?

NickNoo 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What's holding you back?

I agree with all you say. I don't have a real lot of time nowadays, nor do I tend to make large rewrites. I'm more of a detail man. I've added a couple of photographs to the article, and tidied up a bit here and there over the years, but that's about it. You are as good as any other editor when it comes to doing the work, so if you see something that needs doing, and you can do it, then get stuck in. Just ask for advice and you'll get it, and if you seem to be heading down the wrong path, you'll soon notice other editors putting a steadying hand on your shoulder. That's the way the thing works. Make a big bold change and other folk will come along and tidy up the headings and wikidates and so on. If the thing gets too big we can always split up the main article into sub articles. I've wondered about Anzac Parade and the Remembrance Driveway myself - all they really need in this article are brief mentions. --Pete 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)