Talk:The Little Mermaid (statue)

message: I have photos of one in Podgorica or podgora Croatia from 92 but can't find it anywhere  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phunny12000 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

message: Is there a particular reason all of the pictures in the article are of reproductions, rather than the original? It seems rather odd.TFGreg (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The top photo is the real thing and not a reproduction, although admittedly not in its usual surroundings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as I can gather a photo of the original in Denmark can't be featured on wikipedia as Denmark doesn't have a "freedom of panorama" exception to its copyright law. So a photo of the statue in its original location breaches the artist's copyright and hence it doesn't meet the standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Pjf33 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original? 

message: The TELUS Convention Centre in Calgary has a reproduction, purchased by the Danish-Canadian Society and donated to the city in 1974. At that time, it was apparently one of only three half-size reproductions: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pages/Public-Art/Downtown-Public-Art-Circuit-tour.aspx#mermaid There is now a website which sells authorized bronze reproductions ( http://www.mermaidsculpture.dk/ ). Presumably this is one of the first authorized reproductions made? Perhaps it's worth noting that there may be many authorized replicas, both in public and private collections? Country Wife (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information! It can be incorporated into the article, into a new paragraph maybe.  (As for the website selling 'authorized replicas'; obviously the Eriksen family has decided that making money from suing 'copyright violations' isn't enough; so they're selling the statues for huge sums of money. Smart. ) --Peter (Talk page) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replicas  

message: Would it be possible to add with sourcing the rough size of the figure in proportion to the the size/height of the human it was based on. 87.114.142.255 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size relative to life size 

message: An editor made some fairly extensive changes, the diff is here. The changes may be fine, I'd like to know more about them. The editor (User:Member skov) is a brand-new editor and these are his first edits, which we welcome, but I do notice that he changed "has been a major tourist attraction since 1913" to "has been a major tourist attraction since 1930". The statue was installed in 1913. It may have not been a major tourist attraction until 1930, but what happened then? A couple of other edits deleted referenced material, and I'd like to know if there's a problem with the reference or the editor thought the material extraneous, or what. There are a couple of small grammar errors too. So all in all I elected to revert the edits for now and invite the editor to discuss them here first. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  re changes of March 29 2013 

message: The mermaid statue is often depicted as if sitting on a rock surrounded by water (e.g. in the main article picture, which has a water background and is closely cropped at the bottom effectively hiding the land foreground), and I think many people who have never been to Copenhagen think she sits on island.  But in fact the permanent location has always been on a rock resting dry land, at the water's edge, where tourists can touch or even climb onto the her without getting their feet wet. During the statue's visit to Shanghai in 2010 an authorised copy was installed on a rock in the Tivoli Gardens, in a more aquatic setting, surrounded by water and not accessible from land.  But after the statue's return to Langelinie she was again placed in a land-accessible location, despite fact that in 2006 city officials had considered moving her several meters off shore.  The officials may have reasoned that such a move would have been counterproductive, frustrating the harmless attentions of her many fans, who merely wanted to climb on her and be photographed with her, without stopping serious vandals.  My recent changes have sought to point out the (I think) underappreciated fact of the statue being on shore rather than in the water, without giving it undue emphasis.  I did so by calling the Tivoli location "more mermaid-like", which Hazhk deleted on grounds of its being too much of an opinion.  Perhaps so, and certainly it is somewhat silly to speculate about what it means to be mermaid-like, or degrees of mermaid-likeness. But is there another way to gently get the point across?CharlesHBennett (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your point is valid and we should emphasise that this is a sculpture that is on land and very accessible, hence the vandalism. I think your most recent edit is helpful. Perhaps we should consider a short sentence in the lead explaining the statue's inland location? -- Hazhk Talk to me 01:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   permanent location of statue on dry land at water's edge, and reasons for it, versus temporary location of replica in Tivoli 

message: It says "Aside from the statue on display, which is a replica of the original,". After reading about all the vandalism and getting upset, it would be nice to know if it was a replica that was vandalized or the original, when it was switched, why, and where original is now if not on display. The entire article suggests that the original rests on display and was vandalized, until this one sentence towards the end which suggests something entirely different. Which is it?.45Colt 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original or replica? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Little Mermaid (statue). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124865622123982685
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410074105/http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pages/Public-Art/Downtown-Public-Art-Circuit-tour.aspx to http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pages/Public-Art/Downtown-Public-Art-Circuit-tour.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909035947/http://www.hcandersen-homepage.dk/skulptur_den_lille_havfrue.htm to http://www.hcandersen-homepage.dk/skulptur_den_lille_havfrue.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Den lille Havfrue. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Den lille Havfrue until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Den lille Havfrue" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This fact is hidden in note "A" at the end of the article. It appears to be something that would make more sense in-line in the article, but glancing through, I do not see a good place to put it, to fit with the flow of the article. Any ideas? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 07:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note "A" re: the original "never" being on display