Template talk:Infobox cemetery/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Request for Support for Acres

It would be nice if this supported the size of the cemetery in terms of acres. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's there. Thanks! Americasroof (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Map Support

It would be nice if it supported maps (either a regular map with x and y or a locator map with automatic dot from the coordinates. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Style

I hope nobody minds, I added "style" to the template and in the explanation table. I find that many cemetery descriptions include something of the designer's intended style, whether architectural, or artistic, or cultural. Thanks Boneyard90 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

This infobox is a really good idea, and over time it deserves to become a standard fixture on cemetery articles. (Thanks Boneyard90 for adding it to articles and thus drawing my attention to it.) However, I'm not happy to use it myself until we can get some confusing terminology corrected and a broader range of features included. I'd be grateful for some assistance/direction in getting these fixed:

"Gravesites": graves currently displays as "Number of gravesites" - this should be replaced with a less ambiguous term: "Number of burial plots" (or perhaps "graves"). My rationale is that gravesites isn't a real word, and is confusing - literally it suggests a number of divisions of the site? I'd prefer plots as that term also covers mausolea and vaults.
Cremations: we should have an equivalent for "Number of cremations" - most crematoria are attached to a cemetery.
Catacombs: "Number of catacomb burials" would also be appropriate for some
Recordia, Columbaria, Ossary - other common features
Terms of lease: something to indicate the typical length of leases sold: this might be perpetuity, 50 years, or even 10 years in some instances.

I'd be grateful for some assistance in this area as I haven't worked on Infoboxes before. Ephebi (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some good points, I think. But here are my thoughts individually.

1) Not for nothing, but I found "gravesite" in a dictionary: "the site of a grave; the place of a burial", so it's a synonym, just a little unnecessary. Perhaps it was intended to cut down ambiguity between the "plot" and the "burial" (i.e., individual decedent or body). The issue I noticed was some articles mentioned number of gravesites (i.e., "plots"), others mention the number of interments, as in number of people buried there (as some graves have 2 or more sets of remains.) Some ambiguity that could be corrected by addition of a line for interments.

2) On cremations: a line that might not get much use. I worked in a cemetery, and I couldn't tell you how many cremations were there. Some couples are even split on the issue, with one spouse opting to be cremated, the other interred, and both in the same grave; so I'm not sure how many cemeteries could accurately publish that kind of information.

3) "Other features" would be a great idea. Many cemeteries have, as you said, columbaria or ossuaries, many have war memorials or chapels.

4) Terms of lease. No objection, I just haven't read any articles that mentioned anything specific. Though it would be interesting (disturbing?) and informative to have that information when available. I mean, 10 years? wow.

I don't know how to edit the infobox template. I added "style" (see above) but it nothing shows up on the page when the line is filled in, so I didn't edit very effectively. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Gravesite doesn't appear in any Brit. English dictionary I'm aware of, nor in the US Websters. I'd really like to change the word to something more easily understood and unambiguous if I knew how ;-) I agree- interments and plots are two very different things. Capturing both would show an differences in the 'occupancy' level of plots in the Old World & New World. Regarding cremations, law here in England is very strict on what registers are kept, to an amazing level of detail. (My local one even recorded the cu ft of gas consumed & type of coffin!). But regarding scatterings, interments and cremation burial plots, I doubt that it is worth recording separately, as classification can overlap. Terms: UK has had a mixture of historic 'in perpetuity' burials and leases for 25/50/75/100 years. Continental cemeteries have operated - what appears to us to be - short leases for ages. Yes, I've even been told 10 years. In the UK we have lots of Friends Groups for the more notable sites that record those statistics, along with significant burials, ecology, etc. I'm aware the other Significant Cemeteries in Europe are working on getting similar information together, as it greatly helps interpretation. Ephebi (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I used "dictionary.com", which is based on Random House dictionary (2011). Not quite as venerable as Webster's, but a Google search yielded 642,000 results, so it would seem to be in common usage. But, it's all moot if nobody here knows how to edit the template. If it can be changed to, say, "graves" only, would that include urn niches, or crypts in "above-ground" graves? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So after giving it some thought, do I understand it to be a good idea to get rid of "gravesites", and replace it with:

| graves = (meaning number of plots or tombs; though its possible some editors may arbitrarily include cremation niches or crypts)

| interments= (meaning # of sets of human remains placed in cemetery custody. The difference between the two is significant since there are multiple burials in a single plot, and I know of one cemetery that accepts unclaimed bodies from the city morgue, but instead of a pauper's section, it buries them in unused space, like aisles between rows of graves and areas along access roads)

| inhummations = (# of full-body burials)

| cremations = (interred or stored cremated remains)

| term of lease = (although it seems to me that this would only be used in connection with European cemeteries, I suppose it doesn't hurt to include it)

| notable features = (or something similar, like "other features", "associated structures", or "notable structures", which would be for some hallmark feature of the cemetery, like a mausoleum, chapel, columbarium, memorial, etc.)

That's six new items. Anything else? I thought I might contact the original editor about this. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thought - though maybe only 5 changes are required:

Graves - agree

Interments - agree* - would include 'full body' burials as well as burials of cremated remains (or cremains, as they say in US), in earth, vaults, catacombs, niches etc.

Inhumations - not necessary - don't think that the subtlety would be picked up by most editors, and doubt that it would differ significantly over interments in most cases

Cremations - agree, but used to record the number of services held at the crematorium, not storage of remains

Leases - agree - note that several terms may be sold by the same cemetery

Notable features - agree

curious what you say about poor burials by access roads... in some Victorian-era British cemeteries these were the premium spaces.

Thanks for your efforts here - realising that US has been developing its own different terminology in recent years, it makes the infobox even more relevant Ephebi (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a look at this suggestion and see how workable it is. I'm working on its implementation in the new sandbox. Firstly, can it be assumed that the change from "gravesites" to "graves" will not cause any problems with existing deployments? Are the two always synonymous for articles where the attribute is filled in right now? If not, the articles will need to be fixed as the new code is deployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's conceivable that with the lack of specific categories, an editor might conceivably have used the category "gravesites" for either "interments" (bodies) or the number of plots of land, out of expediency and depending on what information was provided by the cemetery, but I think that issue would be independant of the "grave vs. gravesite" issue. So the question remains, what are we trying to say here? As for the difference, I might say that a mausoleum is NOT a "grave" (meaning a hole in the ground), but it does occupy a "gravesite" (a rectangular plot of surface land). Thoughts? Opinions? Boneyard90 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From the online English Chamber's dictionary: grave(1) noun 1 a deep trench dug in the ground for burying a dead body. 2 the site of an individual burial... / burial(noun) 1 the burying of a dead body in a grave... 2 archaeol a grave and the remains found in it. ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Saxon byrgels (tomb).
From the online US Merriam Webster: Grave (n) an excavation for burial of a body; broadly : a burial place / BURIAL(1) grave, tomb
Neither dictionary recognises the word "gravesite". I would draw from the 2nd set of definitions above, that a mausoleum can be considered a type of grave. Indeed, with the cemetery that I am intimately associated with, the registers span 175 years and describe all mausolea, sarcophagi, vaults, loculi and catacombs as 'graves'. Hope that helps. Ephebi (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If this were strictly a debate over definitions, I would have to disagree that a mausoleum is a type of grave. HOWEVER, I believe that cemeteries list mausoleums as "graves" out of expediency, and because the word is in common use. I believe that practice can be applied here. So, Mr. Cunningham-thumperward, I think what Mr. Ephebi and I are both saying is that the move from "Gravesites" to "Graves" is acceptable and/or desirable, but with the change, I suppose we would have to go back to every cemetery article with the old infobox and manually fill in the new category? Ephebi: Is THAT part acceptable to you? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern about matching the terminology to the article, but I'm not convinced that it is an issue. The attribute is called "graves" in the infobox, and that will be preserved. The change for that attribute only relates to the presentation, so, AIUI, there should be no need for edits, although maybe a need for checks. I don't see evidence that editors have been confusing the number of burials with the number of plots. In Europe, it is common to have between 2-20 bodies associated with one plot and so IME European editors tend to be very sensitive to those differences. I understand that in USA you have had a historical tendency to bury one body in one plot. If this is the case then the number of burials is likely to approach the number of plots, and any difference will be small. Ephebi (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's easy enough to make the new attribute backwards-compatible; it's just that doing so will mean that every current "gravesites" entry will now read "graves", and I didn't want a situation where existing factual data was made inaccurate. I'll continue to work on the sandbox and will let you know when the code is ready to be deployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment As writer of the Camperdown Cemetery article I want to say that the use of "gravesite" is inappropriate. I suggest that there is an option of either using "graves" or "interments" . The word "graves might be favoured by very old cemeteries/graveyards that have no existent records but do have marked graves. Other cemeteries, of which Camperdown is an example, have an almost complete set of interment records while many of the graves have been destroyed or are unmarked. It the info box works the way it ought to, then only the items on the list which are filled in will show. Amandajm (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To summarise past discussions, would there be any objections to settling on:

  * Graves (not gravesites)
  * Interments 
  * Cremations 
  * Leases 
  * Notable features

Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

4/5 Agree. I thought we already did this. No? Well, I'm ok with the first four. The first concerns me because some cemeteries have so many monuments, chapels, mausolea, lychgates, etc. that some editors may feel free to add the entire list. Same reason I wouldn't want "Notable burials" in an infobox. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK then, we are agreed on this:

  * Graves 
  * Interments 
  * Cremations 
  * Leases

Thanks for checking, Ephebi (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates pushed

I've made a best-guess effort to pick labels for these new fields and have now updated the template (and documentation) to include them. If the labels need corrected then by all means dive in and fix them yourselves: the new codebase should make it much more straightforward for people unfamiliar with templates to find where things need changed. The documentation also needs to be completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Boneyard90 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates vs Lat Long?

Why does the infobox contain both lat/long and coordinates lines? Seems that MOS:COORDS covers the particular detail. Do we need both? I propose deleting the lat/long portion and replacing with coordinates alone, with reference to the MOS. --S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found it's helpful to have both, depending on the information provided in the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How is it helpful? When inputting coordinates we are inputting the exact same lat/long data. MOS:COORD tells us how to do this. The info as to particular lat/longs is always (or should be) exactly the same as coordinates. (And thanks for your very prompt response! I am quite surprised.) --S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've usually added the infobox to pre-existing articles. Some articles contain the coordinates I recognize in one format, some in the other (I think). I hadn't thought about it too much, and I never felt like digging through WP guidelines to change from one format to another (I think I recall three different formats, whether or not they're interchangeable). If you find other editors that support your position, I doubt I'll protest further. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look for commentary on some of the other talk pages. This may be something that needs changing on numerous infoboxes. --S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

established

I'm not sure that "established" is working correctly. For example, both Camp Hill Cemetery and Minden Cemetery set the "established" parameter but the setting is not displayed in either case. Could someone look into this? Thanks. 67.101.6.231 (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done fixed --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"findagrave" description & results

In looking at cemetery articles, I see the cemetery Infobox with a "Find a Grave" line near the bottom. The "Find a Grave" is actually a link to Find a Grave. Yes, www.findagrave.com is a useful and interesting tool -- I have contributed a few hundred entries to it (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&CRid=109440&MRid=47450883&). But there are other grave finding websites and services. In particular, there is a grave locator service with the VA. (See: http://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/j2ee/servlet/NGL_v1) And the American Battle Monuments Commission has a service too. (See: http://www.abmc.gov/home.php) SO why does the Infobox template link to Find a Grave as the findagrave link? I submit that we delink Find a Grave from this particular Infobox and rename it more generically -- like "grave locator service". That way editors can put in grave locator links for particular cemeteries and not be tied into FAG. Instructions can be given in the Description line so that users can click to the best gravelocator service for the particular cemetery. What are your thoughts? --S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense: the important thing is that the link is reliable, not which specific site it's from. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Replace

| label14    = [[Find A Grave]]
| class14    = 
| data14     = {{{findagrave|}}}

within the template to:

| label14    = Grave Locator service
| class14    = 
| data14     = {{{gravelocator service|}}}
| label15    = Grave Locator Cemetery
| class15    = 
| data15     = {{{gravelocator cemetery|}}}

Change numbers of next label/class/data, and Bot all of them --WlaKom (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Latitude & longitude parameters

I guess so. Want me to sandbox something up? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, I hate having to convert from dms to decimal :-) NtheP (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have added the following parameters to the sandbox version, see Template:Infobox cemetery/testcases:

All of these are optional, but with the following restrictions:

If |latitude=|longitude= are present, whether specified or left blank, then |latd=|longd= are ignored
If |coord_region= is blank or omitted, a value is derived from |country=
If |coord_format= is present, it must be either dms or dec; if it is blank or omitted, the default value depends upon |latm=. If |latm= is blank or absent, the format is dec; if |latm= is present and non-blank, the format is dms - the effect of this is that the output format is the same as the imput format, but |coord_format= may be used to override that behaviour

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Being picky should the parameters be |lat_m= etc not |latm= for consistency with other templates? NtheP (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but for consistency with what? Some templates have the underscore; some don't; there are various combinations of abbreviations. I had a look at several, and found at least five variants for the longitude minutes: |lonm= |lon_m= |longm= |long_m= |long_min= - I can't remember why I picked |longm=, perhaps because it's short. Clearly I didn't read the first sentence properly. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just looked at MOS:COORDS, if it isn't followed I don't want to be an ungrateful wretch because at the end of this I've got the adaptation I asked for. NtheP (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good reason. Have amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Notable/Abandonment fields

Unfortunately I don't know how to edit templates... can someone add a "notable" field to the box, to list a few of the most notable people buried there? Also one for date of abandonment (for closed/abandoned cemeteries). I think that would be useful. Thanks! Wikimandia (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, added |abandoned= but will wait to see if there are any objections to notable graves. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Maybe notable isn't necessary, since it might be already covered in the article. Wikimandia (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually "Notables" are listed in the article. I'd say the trouble is that how many "notable" names do you, can you, or should you list in an infobox? Is there any way we can limit the number of names? - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Is 'abandoned' the right term? They remain consecrated or otherwise sacred. Some get 'closed' for new burials while burials can continue in existing family graves. A few get closed for burial while its crematorium is still in operation. Also notable burials are held in the text or categories. Ephebi (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FindAGrave IDs vs. URLs

The template's current documentation, says:

|findagrave= - URL of Find-a-Grave's web site page for this cemetery

This means storing characters text each time, and a big headache if the target website's URL structure ever changes. We should store the ID, and have the template code convert that into the full URL.

We'd need to get a bot to do the conversions (alternatively, we could use LUA so that the template handles either type of input; but that may be overkill).

Longer term, we should pull in the values from Wikidata, where they exist, and are not locally overwritten. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Architect

It would be useful if a field for the name of the architect could be added to this template. Mercy11 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pet cemeteries?

Is it appropriate to use this template or Pet Cemetaries and if not, should something else be used?Naraht (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Templates within Infobox cemetery

@Frietjes: is there a way to program the findagrave line so if you put the id number in it sends you to the website? Right now, adding {{Find a Grave}} is duplicative and ugly. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Frietjes and Evrik: NO. That should NOT be done. Also the {{Find a Grave}}-template should not be used inside the infobox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, currently, {{Find a Grave}} is allowed on the template. Actually, that template draws on wikidata. Editing this template would remove the need for the template and URLs. --evrik ^(talk) 02:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Where's the codes ?

why do these docs get written with codes in the code that aren't in the docs ?
opened and established, fine.
closed, disestablished, abandoned ? Dave Rave (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Embedding other inboxes within Infobox cemetery

Hi there. I can't get {{Designation list}} or {{mapframe}} into {{Infobox cemetery}}. Please refer to Home Island Cemetery, for example. Any suggestions on what I'm doing wrong? Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

swapping the nrhp and embedded line gets it working but that just means the embedded code isn't working, dunno Dave Rave (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How to use NRHP

I can't seem to find a way to use the NRHP parameter correctly. Is there guidance (or examples) of it being used? snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Snood1205 Mount Hope Cemetery (Rochester) uses it and it appears to come out in a reasonable manner. Not sure that is a perfect example, but seems OK.Naraht (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Naraht: That's perfect, thank you! I'll change the docs to show that you want to use {{Infobox NRHP}} snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 23:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Other names parameter

Would anyone object if I add, like other infoboxes have, an "other names" parameter here? $ɱ$ (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)