Template talk:Find A Grave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion about existence of this template

On 2007-08-03, User:Pschemp deleted this template. I've restored it. Please don't delete it again without using the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion process. --Alvestrand 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete, merge, or modify?

Delete. Why are we linking to Find A Grave at all? Aside from ghoulish curiosity, it just provides a platform for blog entries and is replete with Copyvio pictures. It does not comply with WP:EL on those counts alone.

If it must remain, then let's at least modify the template to delete "Memorial": not only is that POV, it produces disconcerting results in Wikipedia articles about mass murderers, gangsters, and assassins, where calling an unmarked grave a "Memorial to (name of miscreant)..." is quite bizarre. JGHowes talk - 05:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave is a well known resource for genealogical research, and apparently the largest online free resource of its kind available.
There's a long-standing, massive Wikipedia project - Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave Famous People - which tries to make sure that everyone listed as "famous" at Find-A-Grave has a Wikipedia entry, or at least has someone looking at it from the Wikipedia side and deciding that it's not reasonable to create an entry for it. The list we're working from contains more than 40.000 entries.
The info at Find-A-Grave is often useful for suggesting where to find more information about a person, even though it's not a WP:RS by itself. When we use it, Wikipedia rules say that we link it, even though we shouldn't call it a "source". And I think the template is useful for referring to it in a consistent fashion.
I do agree that the format of advertising at F-A-G is a PITA, though! --Alvestrand (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change: Does anyone object to changing "memorial" to "burial", for the reasons stated above? JGHowes talk - 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them are burials - there are people whose ashes have been scattered, or the actual burial site is unknown. What about "information"? --Alvestrand (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Information" is indeed better than "Memorial", altho some might infer that Find-A-Grave is a RS. How about simply deleting "memorial" from the template, so that it just displays: " name  at Find-A-Grave"? JGHowes talk - 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I could live with that, and it's roughly how the "findagrave" template looks, making the merge easier. BTW, I think a merge is a fine thing, and don't have a strong opinion on which way to merge - but hope someone can do it with a bot. (The ease of changing one's mind on how the reference should look is one reason why I prefer a template to just linking find-a-grave, which also has been done in MANY places). --Alvestrand (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
since no one else has commented, I've boldly removed "Memorial" from the template. JGHowes talk - 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Now that the difference in appearance is gone (thanks for taking action!), we should go back to the merge.

The difference in the 2 is:

  • findagrave uses "grid" where Find A Grave uses "id". I prefer "id".
  • findagrave allows positional parameters, Find A Grave doesn't. I prefer allowing them.
  • The names are different. I think "Find A Grave" is cuter, but it's also more unusual - no preference.

How do we do a template merge? Ask a robot-owner to replace all occurences of one with the other, changing parameters on the fly? I've never tried to merge a template before... --Alvestrand (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can probably be down with AWB, and if not, Wikipedia:Bot requests. –Pomte 00:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other templates

I came to the party late, but I think there are a few more that need to be addressed in the mix of merge discussions. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


i think {{findagrave}} is the zen option. the spaces and mix-case of {{Find A Grave}} could cause problems. all would be solved if the functioning can be redirected such that both continue to work. the other two options are just a bit on the offensive side, and should be retired --emerson7 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, {{findagrave}} is my preferance, too, because of the helpful positional parameter; also the elimination of spaces/capitalization possibility of mistakes. JGHowes talk - 02:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)