Talk:Menin Gate

[Untitled]
User:Maveric149 says "do not EVER start an article with a quote." Perhaps readers will see that the quote at the bottom of the current entry belongs at the top, as an epigraph. If epigraphs were overdone, they'd be tiresome I think. But Maverick149 defaces them whenever he finds them. What do you think of that? Wetman 20:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So long as the quote at the top function isn't overdone, I have no problems with it. Often a quote can project a feeling which is usefull to the article, why else are so many books started with a quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TagarSpinebreak (talk • contribs).

Unveiled?
"the Menin Gate Memorial was unveiled on 24 July 1927."

This is a very large structure. It could have been covered and then unveiled but that seems unlikely. I wonder if there is a detailed record. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a detailed record of the unveiling ceremony - some books cover this (I have one of them and hope to work more on this article at some point) - and there are contemporary newspaper reports. To answer your question, the bit that was veiled for the ceremony was the dedicatory inscription at the top of the archway (the side facing outwards from the town, the moat side). This is the inscription that reads "To the armies of the British Empire who stood here from 1914 to 1918 and to those of their dead who have no known grave". For the unveiling ceremony, this inscription was covered with the flags of France, Britain and Belgium, with some mechanism rigged up to allow Field Marshal Plumer to press a button at the right moment to unveil the inscription. As I said, I have a book that goes into some detail on this and other points, which I will use to expand this article at some point, but if you have other questions, please do ask. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Can you tell me if the inscription is in multiple languages and, if so, which they are.  Wanderer57 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The main inscription is only in English, but appears twice, once on either side. Once below the outwards-facing lion and once below the shroud-draped sarcophagus that faces the town. The other inscriptions on the external walls are the "Pro Patria" and "Pro Rege" bits. Inside (on the internal archway surfaces) are more Latin and English inscriptions (given in the article). There are also bits in French and Dutch that was placed there in 1926 (the French text is in the article, the Dutch text isn't yet but is the same - the 'offered to the citizens of Ypres' bit), and a bit in English stating that the monument is maintained by the CWGC (and that they built it). That's about it, though there is a large amount of additional text in the form of the 55,000+ names inscribed on the panels. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Applause after Playing of The Last Post
I do not know whether the matter of applause after the playing of The Last Post should be covered in the article. A paragraph mentioning the matter was just edited out, though for another reason.

For general information, this source: http://www.ww1battlefields.co.uk/flanders/ypres.html says that applause at the end of the ceremony has become common. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really seem important enough to merit a mention to me. - Kzirkel (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

'Burials' figures (Infobox)
It is surely terminologically inexact to call the statistics of names listed by the memorial 'burials' as the monument is not a cemetery and commemorates casualties who had 'no known grave' (a circumstance that came about either because their original battlefield graves were lost, their identifiable bodies were not found, or they disappeared in the fighting and were not seen alive or dead again). Surely the correct term is 'commemorations'?Cloptonson (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the template. Although it is possible to display both total number buried and total number commemorated (unburied) with the template, the breakdown by nation etc appears to be only available for burials. So the options are get the template changed to accommodate breakdowns of totals for commemorations, omit the national breakdown from the infobox or just put up with the incorrect terminology. This is a common problem with headings in templates, they are often not quite the right term for the specific circumstances, close but ... Kerry (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Commemorated by Nation' would be far better than 'Burial by Nation' but we are left to the mercy of the template. I do see value in leaving the figures by country but would be entirely supportive of a that type of change to the template. However, it really is a template discussion rather than a discussion for this article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Names on the Gate
I’ve read the article as it’s been highlighted on the historical events on this day feed. Zooming in on the photograph of names surprised me. My maternal grandmothers half-brother is shown clearly. Hammond CR (Charles Robert) Royal West Kent Regiment. He died on Hill 60 in 1915. It’s unlikely I’ll get to see the Gate as I now live in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanashby (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear from the article, or the caption to the image, why the name of Sgt O'Connor has been highlighted by this page. There certainly should be an image to illustrate the list of names on the gate, but there should be a rationale as to why this person has been picked out. Was a picture of the wall without a pointing finger not available? Is Sgt O'Connor especially important (outside the fact he sadly died in battle) to the history of the Menin Gate? One person should not be highlighted above the many thousands of others. Thanks. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Sgt O'Connor is particularly important, but if you are going to have a photo of the list of names, then obviously some specific names are going to be seen in it. Looking on Commons, we actually don't have a lot of photos to pick from (most are of the Gate as a piece of architecture), but there are a couple of photos of names without Sgt O'Connor and the finger. But personally I quite like the photo and caption, because Menin Gate is a memorial for many ordinary soldiers. I've not been to Menin Gate personally but to many other similar commemorative places and this is exactly what goes on at them -- ordinary people go there looking for a particular name (important to them) on the wall and, when they find it, they get excited and take a "pointing finger" photo just like this one. To my mind, the photo captures an ordinary person (the finger) commemorating *their* ordinary solider and that this is the purpose of Menin Gate and presumably what takes place there every day. I don't think a photo of the name of a famous general or medal-winner would convey the same sense of personal commemoration. I don't see this as "highlighting" Sgt O'Connor per se, but I guess the caption could be changed to make this more explicit e.g. "Visitors seek out the names of family members for personal commemoration" or something like that. Kerry (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bloodnok on this one. File:Menenpoortnamen.jpg or File:Names from the Menin Gate (Panel 46).JPG or File:Ypres,_Menenpoort_J5.jpg would each be more suitable. I don't like the pointing finger, I think it is a distraction.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the prompt replies. Kerry, I can see your point, but the finger-pointing image is distracting. Also unless you have a reliable source which indicates that people do actually seek out family members, we can't mention that on the page even as part of a caption (I know people do this, but it needs to be supported). I think File:Menenpoortnamen.jpg  would be preferable as it shows poppies and crosses left by visitors, which illustrates the point you are trying to make but does it in a more pleasing way. I was at the Menin Gate earlier in the week as part of a school trip, and it would be better to indicate the scale of the list of names rather than pick out a single victim of war. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Under the Memorial section is a line: "The patient lion on the top is the lion of Britain but also the lion of Flanders" Should that not be a "patent lion" as in heraldry that has a specific meaning about posture I believe, whereas "patient" does not make a lot of sense. I think someone's auto correct went to work!..

I have tried to site my source for this question and cannot readily find more than the sentence used in the latter way rather than the former.

Sir Real One (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menin Gate. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810091629/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009128 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009128

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) 12:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mausoleum?
Isn't it really a cenotaph? If there are no bodies entombed there, or even places for entombment, it can hardly be properly called a mausoleum. I therefore think the link to the Mausoleum article is misleading, but a link to Cenotaph might be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.111.134 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menin Gate. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630152957/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART09807 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART09807

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) 20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)