Talk:Robert B. Van Valkenburgh

findagrave link
I see that the external link to findagrave has been removed. I think the fact that there are ~43,000 other links to findagrave in Wikipedia should be a good indicator that these links have been deemed useful by the Wikipedia community in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsu (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's been found to be WP:SPAM in the past, so let's make sure we don't pretend it's always an acceptable link.
 * So what specific value does it have for this article? --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I thought the photo of the gravestone was a useful document in itself. I see over in this discussion of ExternalLink sources that sometimes it is acceptable to include a link on that basis? Edsu (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The burial site info here is referenced to the not so accurate Congress Bio. The Find a Grave entry shows a photo of the tombstone and other pertinent info about the burial place. Besides Find a Grave is a valid external link under WP:EL Links to consider # 4 and a valid exception under Links normally to avoid # 12. RE Ronz - Please read WP:Consensus and WP:Reverting. Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement Editors should never (except in case of BLP) revert during an ongoing discussion (which is taking place at ELN right now. Kraxler (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELBURDEN. The link should not be in the article while under dispute.
 * "The burial site info here is referenced to the not so accurate Congress Bio" I don't understand what you mean. Could you reword and expand? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." - This is not applicable here, since there is no default: several discussions have taken place. It would be your burden to show that in these past discussions consensus to include has not been reached. The vast amount of links and the existence of a template for Find a Grave, and the posts of numerous editors in those discussions show widespread community approval, and tend to assume that consensus is that the links may be added/maintained. If you think otherwise, show me a link that supports consensus (not unilateral personal opinions of a handful of editors) against Find a Grave. You also can continue to discuss at ELN and wait for the result before causing more drama. Kraxler (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just ignore "by default". I've never seen confusion about the wording, but perhaps it should be removed from WP:EL to make it clearer that disputed links should normally be excluded.
 * So can you explain your comment, "The burial site info..."? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler.. Ronz asked what you meant from "The burial site info here is referenced to the not so accurate Congress Bio", but you haven't answered.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Congress Bios were compiled during centuries in a slipshod manner and then transcribed to be read on-line. There are a lot of mistakes, although a very large part of the info is correct. Overall, it is considered a reliable source, but one never knows which bit of info is correct and which is not, until corroborative evidence is found. Kraxler (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Ronz: "Just ignore" - I'm appalled. Just to support your side of the debate, one should just ignore part of the guideline? You don't mean that, or do you? How about just ignoring "should be exluded"? Anyway, I suggest you continue the general discussion of the subject at ELN, and discuss here only issues pertaining to this article. Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree to WP:FOC.
 * So the link is acting as a reference to supplement bioguide.congress.gov? --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the article has a single source, I can see how some might leave the FindaGrave in the article. However, there's enough written about the person that anything on the FindaGrave page is redundant with what editors should easily be able to do with this article (ELNO#1).

To move forward, editors should identify encyclopedic information currently unique to the FindaGrave page so it can be researched, verified, and included in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Ronz "editors should identify encyclopedic information currently unique to the FindaGrave page so it can be researched, verified, and included in the article" - Wouldn't it then be logical to maintain the link in the article, so that editors can get a chance to know what is on the Find a Grave page? Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * External links are not references. I usually place such links on the talk page for convenience.
 * --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)