Template talk:Find a Grave/Archive 1

Archive 1

What are the parameters for usage??

The {{tl|Find A Grave}} template recommends to use this template instead and that it has different parameters but they're not documented (yet). OlEnglish (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

{{editprotect}} Since the discussion at Template talk: Find A Grave was not to merge because of the use of the other template, could we please have this old old merge proposal template removed? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done  JGHowes  ^talk 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Accepting id as an alternate parameter for 1?

The default is for the ID to be in the first parameter. However, the {{[[Template:Find A Grave|Find A Grave]]}} template takes the ID in the id parameter. Can we set this template up so that, if 1 is blank, it will use the id parameter instead? I think the syntax is {{{1|{{{id|{{{grid}}}}}}}}}, but I wanted to ask before changing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support.  JGHowes  ^talk 03:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate

This is only useful for grave location, info on findagrave is notoriously inaccurate. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate spelling is gone

As of today, the template {{Find A Grave}} is deleted. So long, it's been good to see you! --Alvestrand (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at External Links Noticeboard

Those who watch this template page may be interested in this discussion at the External Links Noticeboard regarding the appropriateness of external linking to the Find a Grave website. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage/deletion?

Having a template for linking this site is encouraging people to add links. Quoting the site disclaimer: "The Find A Grave web site may contain information that is created and maintained by a variety of sources both internal and external to Find A Grave. Some pages are unmoderated and may contain the personal opinions and other expressions of the persons who post the entries. Find A Grave does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these pages or information contained in links to other external web sites, and does not endorse any views expressed or products or services offered therein. In no event shall Find A Grave be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods, or services available on or through any page, site or resource."

They do not provide strictly (by the disclaimer, not any) editorially verified content (so it's a no go-source), nor do they provide additional information (for the objects I checked the findagrave article was always less comprehensive and shorter than ours) to our articles. They do however have something we don't – a fame-meter at the end, letting us rate the deceased person. Tasteful. The site also seems commercial, making ungrounded links spam-for-profit ("the worst kind of spam" :-). Discovered this template when I removed a (mypov: useless) link from Richard Pryor. Btd (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can also leave virtual flowers, with a personal message, on a memorial.--BillFlis (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

I cleaned up the documentation a little, clarifying where the "#" parameter can be found, but it needs some explanation of the optional accessdate parameter: what is it? how is it used? Updating the example to include it would be helpful.--BillFlis (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Template modification suggestion

I would like to modify this template to look a little more like a citation. Here is my suggestion. The current template looks like this:Henri Langlois at Find a Grave or sometimes like this Henri Langlois at Find a Grave Retrieved June 19, 2010.

I would like to modify the code so it displays more like this: "Henri Langlois". Find a Grave. February 7, 2003. Retrieved February 1, 2010.

Would anyone have a problem with this? --Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a result of a recent change, it's now displaying with the whole thing in double quotes. Intended?--BillFlis (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The ordinary {{cite web}} template displays as

which is more detailed and helpful, and is our standard citation. What are the specific advantages of the findagrave template, when the standard template appears more effective? And the standard template can be used with one click if enabled as an add-on with Firefox. SilkTork *^YES! 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One advantage of the findgrave template is that it's easy to use and to remember. I don't even need to know what an url is. Also, I usually include it as an external link rather than as a cited reference.--BillFlis (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No in my opinion it shouldn't be in double quotes we can fix that. The main benefit is to be able to quickly identify what articles use the find a grave reference. Since the findagrave website typically employes the http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid= and then a # we can save the users a few keystrokes and time by incorporating that into the template. BTW, I also agree that having additional fields would be beneficial and we can do that as well. It was suggested that we start with the current format of the template and see what fallout and comments we get before doing more. Case in point. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am all for ease of use (which is why I have web cite on Firefox - one click and it gathers all the information needed, and then it's just one click to paste it into the article), so if this template is easier for folks that's a positive advantage. However, it could be offering a little more data than it offers at the moment, so a move to increasing the template's scope would be very useful. The way that the information is presented might also benefit from a little touch up.

@BillFlis - there have been several discussions about this template on External links. Placing it in the external links section when there is already information about the burial location in the article would not be appropriate. The template is more appropriately used as a cite tool. If there is no burial location mentioned in the article, and you feel it would be appropriate, then insert a sentence about the location, and use this template within <ref> </ref> tags. SilkTork *^YES! 08:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the Find a Grave site (its input by people to and not as reliable of a source as something like the Army Center of Military History or DANFS), so this cite really shoudl go in External links, especially for higher rated articles. I do think that at the very least this is a good secondary source and External links is a good place for it. The problem is its one of the few sites that gives birth and death dates and locations, burial place and location (often times down to the burial plot with GPS coordinates) so often times its the only way to identify a persons birth, death burial info. With that said I also agree that this template needs a few more paramaters so I added some in the articles sandbox but I do not have admin rights to add the code to the template itself so someone else will need to do that. I added info for author (for the person who entered the data into Find a Grave on the individual), date for the date of the entry in find a grave and work for the specific area that the entry lives in at the find a grave site (for example what catgory they fall in[1]. I also found out that updating data in the Find a grave template drives data in {{Congbio}} so the code for that template needs to be updated as well. I recommend removing the code that links to find a grave (so we don't have templates populating templates) but at the very least we should update it to include these new paratemters. Please let me know if you want me to make any other changes to the template but again I cant actually apply it because Im not an admin. --Kumioko (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and make the changes. I am hopeless at code. I just copy other templates.

As for findagrave's reliability and placement. It's a tricky one. It should not be used as an external link when there is already cited material in the article. And if there is a more reliable source for the grave, then it would be appropriate to use that. However, if the grave or burial is mentioned and is not cited, then using findagrave is acceptable. It is cited by others, and it has an editorial team, and is somewhat respected. It's not a top flight source for sure, but it's not casual either. It's really a case by case situation. Simply putting the findagrave template in EL without thought is not appropriate - there should be some consideration of the issues. If the grave location is not felt important enough to mention in the article, then listing it in EL may not be helpful, and can be seen as list clutter. There may be seen to be a conflict between WP:ELMAYBE#4 and WP:ELNO#1 and judgement is needed. As the main use of the template is to link people to a photograph of the gravestone in location, then its use as a source is acceptable. This is not about opinion or questionable facts - it's about linking to a verifiable fact. It is more helpful to the reader to have an inline link to the gravestone, than to have to scroll down to the EL section (which should mainly be used as a form of "further reading" list). I support careful use of the template as a helpful source. I am dubious of using it as an EL add-on where the contents of the article haven't been read first. SilkTork *^YES! 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its best to use another reference if possible but I am also aware that there is a project deveoted to ensuring that all articles with a Find a Grave page have a link to it so I can live with it personally. Further reading might also be an acceptable place for it but since the MOS states it shoudl go under EL that gets sticky when some users take that as a hard rule and not a guideline that can be flexable. Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Is there a reason for displaying the subjects name in quotation marks, and for using a full stop twice? I'm not sure which is the right way of displaying but it looks odd in articles that have other "at such-and-such site". Example Fred Astaire#External links shows him "at" Allmovie, Internet Broadway Database, Internet Movie Database and TCM Movie Database. The "at" Find a Grave is the only one to use punctuation. Was this intentional? Rossrs (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well its not intentional per sey but the difference is the Find a Grave template and the Hallofvalor template now follow the standard as {{Cite web}} (it uses the web cite template in fact) where as the others you listed do not, yet. I have a list of about 25 templates so far that work as the ones you listed do and I am attempting, a couple at a time (currently working on {{Congbio}}) to convert them into the Cite web format as well as adding additional paramters such as author, work, date and accessdate where approripate. Once I am done with the Congbio template I will address the 4 Arts and Enterainment ones you listed. In regards to the punctuation and the full stops (periods here in the states) I don't have the answers to those questions other than thats how the Cite web template is set. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I guess my question is why the cite web template is set that way, but I understand you don't have that answer. Although I think that the quotation marks in cite web relate to the titles of works, but it makes less sense to me in the Find a Grave template as it's the name of the person, and the full stops in cite web break groups of information, but again, that doesn't look right to me in the Find a Grave template because the entire line is a single "phrase". Looking at {{Congbio}}) the Henry Clay example is different for the Find a Grave template and the Biographical Directory. Rossrs (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your saying and I agree that in some cases it might look a little strange. I think thats partially cause there is such limited information in the FG entry thoug. I more data is added such as the case of some of the changes I am making to the Medal of Honor recpipients that includesauthor (where applicable), work, date and accessdate it doesn't look too bad. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "at" is missing

Most other templates of this kind on Wikipedia include the word "at". For example, when the IMDb one is added to a page it reads "Person's Name at the Internet Movie Database". The Findagrave template should include the word "at" to be consistant with the others.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the full stop after the name should be replaced with "at"; neither is there a need for the final full stop:

"Henri Langlois" at Find a Grave

I believe most categories in the Category:External link templates use that format. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's missing no more. Thank you.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit to remove the full stop when accompanied by the "at". I ended up adding a bit more complicated logic in there since it appears this is also used as a citation template? I think we should have two templates: (1) this one that is used as an external link template, and (2) say {{cite find a grave}}, which is used as a citation template. What do you think? Hopefully I didn't break anything. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In quite a few articles it seems to be formatted as a citation, although it is being used only as an external link. Two templates would work, although it should be noted that beyond basic burial information, it does not meet the criteria as a WP:RS because the biographical content is user submitted without sources being noted or any evidence of additional fact checking. Rossrs (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes around the name?

We already have a blue link, why do we need scare quotes around the name, its a double emphasis that we avoid in Wikipedia. IMDB doesn't use quotes around the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats just a collatoral property of using the Cite web template as the source for this template. The IMDB just uses a link and not the Cite web template so thats why it doesn't contain the quotes. --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but to me that explains how it happens, but not why it's acceptable. It's just saying "because it's there". Can it be changed so that the scare quotes and additional punctuation do not display? Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not without modifying the Cite web template. You should bring the suggestion up there it its talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Back here you said "No in my opinion it shouldn't be in double quotes we can fix that." Reading that, I thought you were intending on fixing it, as you said. 13:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we could but then I found out it was something that was built into the template so in order to change it we would need to modify that template, or not use the template at all. Either way we would need to discuss it here (about not using the Cite web template) or on the Cite web templates talk page. I think it "might" also be possible to add a parameter to the Cite web template to ignore the quotes (giving the option to use or not use them) somehow but Im not sure Ill have to play with that. --Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why do we use cite web for Find a grave and not for YouTube, IMDB, ect? I think that Find a grave template must be writed without using cite web. emijrp (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. Kumioko, why are you putting them in the external links sections in a cite format when no information is being cited to them? There doesn't seem to be any need to have the date it was retrieved, again because nothing is being cited to them. It doesn't matter when it was retrieved. This is now creating a deviation of formatting within articles (example Anita Louise has a number of external links, and the "Find a Grave" link is the odd one out since your edit). The inconsistency doesn't look very polished or professional. On the other hand, articles like Greta Garbo follow a consistent style format with its ELs. Initially I thought the template had been updated so that all displayed the same, but now that I realize that's not the case, I'm more perplexed. I've read through all the comments here, but to be frank, I don't understand why you're doing this. Rossrs (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Propriety of links to Findagrave.com

FYI, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Propriety of links to Findagrave.com. –xeno^talk 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes redux

Since no one has removed the scare quotes from the Findgrave template we have two choices:

• Rewrite the template to remove the quotes.
• Start removing the templates and go back to manual formatting of the links to get rid of the quotes so that all external links have the same look and feel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there were two Findagrave templates and one was deleted. "Template:Findagrave" was deleted and was the one formatted for external links. It is now a redirect and is locked. SO I am going for option two to manually format the links so they do not have the scare quotes around the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no quotes: {{Find a Grave|1234|Henri Langlois}} gives Henri Langlois at Find a Grave. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem. It is when you add the access date as a second parameter you get the scare quotes. I will just chop off the access date from the version I use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Richard Norton". Find a Grave. Retrieved September 3, 2010. using {{Findagrave|8036563|accessdate=September 3, 2010}}
• Richard Norton at Find a Grave using {{Findagrave|8036563}}

How about "template:Find a Grave cemetery" ?

I've just read and understand the various caveats/concerns for the current "memorial" template. With those issues in mind, I can still see a use for a parallel "cemetery" template ...in fact, there may be fewer concerns, as editing Find a Grave cemetery entries is much more tightly controlled than the editing of individual memorials.

So, I've created {{Find a Grave cemetery}}. I haven't done anything very complex -- mainly because this is my first template -- but wanted to see what people thought of the idea before going any farther.

The main concern, in my mind, is the WP:ELNO question "does this point to content not already in the article?" to which I'd generally say "yes", that being the list of memorials at that cemetery, but of course that takes us back to the question of how well controlled the Find a Grave memorial content is.

The other place where I could see this or a variant being of use is for the "Find a Grave" field in {{Infobox Cemetery}}.

I've added it to one article: Chapel of the Chimes (Hayward, California).

Comments?--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Fix typo in Examples to read as follows:

<ref name="FG" >{{Find a Grave
 | grid       = 94078737
 | name       = Sally Kristen Ride
 | date       = July 23, 2012
 | accessdate = September 23, 2012
 | author     = Marc J. Daniluke
 | work       = American Astronaut
 }}
 </ref>

Only change is in the "work=" parameter. "American Astronaut" is the description on the particular page. (At present it reads "Astronauts".) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at the documentation next time. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

{{editprotected}} If an admin could, please correct the capitalization of Find A Grave to Find a Grave. I've already taken care of the issue on the documentation page. Thank you in advance. — Σxplicit 03:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's consistently capitalized as "Find A Grave" on its website.--BillFlis (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}}

Move it back to "Find A Grave, style guidelines notwithstanding. The site is owned by "Find A Grave, Inc.", and it is consistently called "Find A Grave" throughout the site. See http://www.findagrave.com/privacy.html.  — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Stipulations for use / non-use within the Template:Find a Grave page

From a discussion about inability to use Find a Grave under any circumstances and generally for External links at Talk:Rhoda Holmes Nicholls/Archive 1#Find a Grave:

it has been the general consensus at WP:RSN that Find-a-Grave is not suitable as a source for anything, including memorial information. It is rarely accepted as even an external link

It seems that the template page should be reworded.

Is there a definitive statement somewhere, because I would be happy to write a draft using the information I pasted above - or another source to help clarify this for users.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked for input from the Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion about the template (and Find a Grave as RS or as an external link) is pretty confusing. 1. It seems that how the Find a Grave data for Nichols might be used belongs on the Nicholls page – to assert that that particular discussion would apply to "any circumstances" is to far fetched . 2. There is no current thread at the RSN (although find a grave has been brought up before). To put my concern another way, where are we to discuss this? At Nichols, at perennial websites, at WP talk, at the RSN, or here?

That said, what particular changes do you propose for the template usage guidance? It seems the present language duplicates the perennial websites language. – S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Great points, regarding where to discuss it and the numerous RSN threads. I posted a "please provide input" kind of request on the RSN and Find a Grave for famous people talk page. And, the discrepancy of opinions is why I'm here. This is the only place that provide a definitive approach.

The present language generally fits my understanding gleaned from noticeboard postings, etc. The input on the Nicholls article seems unilateral: "it has been the general consensus at WP:RSN that Find-a-Grave is not suitable as a source for anything, including memorial information. It is rarely accepted as even an external link".

I'm just hoping to get this clarified so that there's a bit clearer standing one way or another. It is seeming to me that it is probably good to:

1) Clearly state that this should not be a source for biographical information, since is information that can be updated without any fact-checking, editorial control, etc. (i.e., a primary source for original research)

2) State the opinion about use for memorial information, which I think should take into account whether or not there is a photo of the gravestone, per What counts as a reliable source + note #6. I've also seen postings previously on the RSN that the memorial information is generally stable and correct.

3) Regarding external links, I'm not familiar with that at all. I think it would be good to resolve "rarely accepted" vs. accepted in these circumstances.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, Based upon the background information that you supplied at Talk:Rhoda Holmes Nicholls/Archive 1#Find a Grave, I am guessing that #1 still holds true and for #2 a photograph of the gravestone must be present to use FAG as a source of dob and dod information.

I'm a little unclear under what circumstances, if any, the cemetery information (name, city, state) could be used. Is it based upon whether or not the information was supplied by the the Veterans Administration, Commonwealth Graves Commission and the American Battle Monuments Commission? How would we know that, for instance I looked at the page for Ullysses S. Grant, and I don't see that it was supplied by the VA or American Battle Monuments Commission? Or, should Find a Grave never be used as a source for cemetery?

Then, I assume the next step is to run this by the RSN before any edits could be / should be made. Is that right?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Most memorial pages have a creator listed near the bottom. For the CWGC/ABMC, their membership page is [2] and you can see a search function on the page. (All "members" have such a page.) So back in 2010 the CWGC uploaded data for this person. The VA member page is here. The VA did not bury Grant. (He died in 1885 and the VA was created as an agency in 1930.) The memorial pages get numbered sequentially, so Grant's was the 411th such page created. The first FindaGrave memorial is Cleveland Abbe. And Abbe is in WP as Cleveland Abbe. Notice that Abbe and Grant have genealogical data included. Depending upon the particular memorial, the data is more or less correct. So these are valuable pages for people working on family histories. For the Abbe family, we see gravestone pictures. So in the Abbe case, I would include his FindaGrave link in the EL section. That would assist any interested reader in locating his remains and his family history. In fact, we could use the FindaGrave page as a reference showing where he is buried. To summarize, the usefulness of the FindaGrave pages all depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Do we want to use it to verify Grant's burial? No, it is not needed. Is it useful as an EL for Grant or Abbe? I'd say so for the family history aspects. After all, Grant's son is in WP and his article says he's buried in San Diego. The son's FindaGrave page has a gravestone picture so I'd say it verifies the burial. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, Once again, very helpful information! What do you think about moving a copy of the Template:Find a Grave page to a user subpage, making some edits based upon your input and from the Wikipedia perspective - to then be reviewed (perhaps by you/this talk page audience, RSN, and Find a Grave famous people)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What edits to {{Find a Grave}} do you think are needed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of points

Just to summarize what I think the key points

Moved to User:CaroleHenson/Find a Grave summary points to track changes

are now based upon the discussion above, at Talk:Rhoda Holmes Nicholls/Archive 1, and Template:Find a Grave (also looked at RSN postings and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave) Use of Find a Grave as a reference or external link is limited and context dependent. Reference: Find a Grave is not a reliable source for biographical information. It can only be used as a source for memorial data documented on a gravestone when all conditions are met: There are no fully reliable sources which may be used There is a photograph of a gravestone (See also Verifiability of a reliable source) The pages for the person do not have unlicensed copyright inform1ation (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper) If it cannot be used as a reference, then the Find a Grave reference should be replaced with a {{citation needed|date= }} tag or a more reliable source External links: Find a Grave can be used as an external link if it meets the following conditions: At least one of the two: A gravestone photograph is on the website - or - The person is a designated "famous person", thereby subject to Find a Grave editorial control The pages for the person do not have unlicensed copyright inform1ation (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper) The scenario is not one of the restrictions on linking Find a Grave is not used as a reference There is information on the site that is not covered by the Wikipedia article There is not a circular reference to Wikipedia (WP:FORK and WP:CIRCULAR) Remove existing External links where the criteria is not met

The points I'm unclear on are:

1. Is it helpful to add some background: Find a Grave records are mainly created by individuals and do not meet guidelines for reliable sources. There are several million records that have been added by the Veterans Administration, Commonwealth Graves Commission and the American Battle Monuments Commission.
2. Information provided by the Veterans Administration, Commonwealth Graves Commission and American Battle Monuments Commission can be used.... (but I'm not sure how the user could tell this - is based upon the "bio" or "maintained by" name?)

Thanks,--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Made two additions above, in italics. I didn't put the circular reference issue in references, since Find a Grave should not be used for biographical info, but perhaps it's needed there too to cover all the bases. I have asked for input from the Perennial website talk page, Find a Grave famous people talk page, and RS Noticeboard.--CaroleHenson (talk)

Almost all pages have a "created by" line and those created by the VA, CGC/ABMC will say so. Pages can be transferred to an individual Find a Grave member to maintain, but the original created by credit line remains. Any individual maintaining a page can change data, but an element of good faith is kept. That is, data gets expanded upon or corrected but I think essential data such as DOB, DOD, and the name of the cemetery is basically immutable. These are minor points. That is, if someone is getting a WP article, the article should have plenty of other sources for information not on the gravestone. But I think Find a Grave does remain useful as a source as to where they are buried, which other sources often ignore. Also, I don't think a lot of detail on how Find a Grave operates is needed in the proposed guidance. That info is available in the article. Otherwise the guidance looks good. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've created User:CaroleHenson/Find a Grave summary points to track the changes (I hope this approach works, it's the only thing I could think of to make changes to the summary that can be updated and reviewed effectively), and will comment on your response next.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, once again your background info is very helpful! I'm one of those people who has to "eat an elephant one bite at a time", so let me see if I can break this down:

1. No background information needs to be supplied.
2. I totally understand and agree with your points about there generally being other sources for life event dates, but not the cemetery
3. There are cases where information from Veterans Administration, Commonwealth Graves Commission and American Battle Monuments Commission can be used, and that is determined by the presence of created by information that includes VA, CGC/ABMC. I am guessing this means:
   1. Biographical data - no change
   2. Memorial date / life event dates - I'm guessing that the line "There is a photograph of a gravestone" would be updated to "There is a photograph of a gravestone or the record was created by VA, CGC/ABMC"
   3. External links - I'm guessing that the initial "one of two" becomes "one of three" criteria, now including VA, CGC/ABMC

--and I'll make the changes to the workpage just after this for your review to see if that looks right.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich and others,

If you are ok with the summary points on the the workpage, I am happy to take a stab at drafting an update to the template page on the workpage, a new subpage of Template:Find a Grave, or somewhere else. How does that sound. Do you have a preference where?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Request edit

Can we add the following related template to the See also section?

{{Find a Grave cemetery}}

* {{Find a Grave cemetery|12345}} – for the index page to particular cemeteries.

This template links to the landing page for the particular cemetery}} Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. You could have done it yourself because Template:Find a Grave/doc is not protected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

TFD nomination: Edit request

I've nominated it for deletion, but can't add the notice because of page protection. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• For all the others, here is the discussion page: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 3#Template:Find a Grave ...GELongstreet (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs noinclude (ping User:DrKay). --130.234.176.194 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Request fix

The template has started swallowing the bullet that is generally put in front of it when used in EL sections. One puts an asterisk in front of it, but no bullet appears when rendered. This is fairly new behavior, so must have resulted from some recent tweak to the template. BMK (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Done I think it's because the noinclude isn't on the same line as the rest of the template. I've added a comment. Let me know or reactivate the request if that doesn't fix the problem (purge the problematic page in question). Izno (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Find a Grave" italicized in the output?

I'm wondering—why does the template italicize "Find a Grave" in its output ("Find a Grave") when the title of the article itself is in plain text?—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the italicised output started with this edit by User:Hyacinth on 19 March 2012 which was probably inspired by the unclear guidance at MOS:TITLE#Major works (Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features.) and the treatment of |website= at {{Cite web}}. IMHO, and in line with the display at Find a Grave itself, it should not be italicised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A parallel example, for what it's worth: IMDb's name is not italicized in its article, and its various associated templates also do not italicize its name.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Thanks for the MOS link. I have generally been been following the same pattern when cleaning up references—if a site's Wikipedia article title is italicized, then I also italicize it, and do the converse when the title is not (erring on the side of "not"). In this case I agree/support: "Find a Grave" should not be italicized. Hyacinth: Would you care to chime in?—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Following the discussion above, please remove the italics for the term "Find a Grave". In other words: change

{{{work}}}}} at ''[[Find a Grave]]''

to

{{{work}}}}} at [[Find a Grave]]

Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this result. Thank you! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Find a Grave in inline cit and External link (2017)

I find a few of my Find a Grave source deleted because user see the write up that it is unreliable. After I undo the link deletion, it is deleted again. Is there a write up to others not to delete the link? I need some official write up on this template so that I could justify its existance. See John Bohn revision history. SWP13 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the earlier entries on this page? (Template talk:Find a Grave#Usage/deletion?, Template talk:Find a Grave#Inaccurate, Template talk:Find a Grave#Reliability) 32.218.45.216 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source and shouldn't be used as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)