Wikipedia talk:Find a Grave famous people

2005 comment
My email from the founder of Find-A-Grave about posting the list on Wikipedia and getting copied to mirror sites:


 * Go for it...I'm not worried about it, anymore...The whole point of the web is to get as much organized info out there as possible...Use  it as you see fit...


 * ''Thanks and best of luck with the project!


 * ''-Jim Tipton
 * ''Find A Grave
 * ''http://www.findagrave.com

&mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-18 01:06

Incomplete
I looked up the first name that came to mind - George Jay Gould I - who is certainly "notable" and all, having been the owner of an almost-transcontinental system of railroads, and he's not on the list. (Pittsburgh and West Virginia Railway actually has a lot more about the railroads than his article at the moment.) His father Jay Gould is on the list, but that wouldn't automatically make George "notable". --SPUI (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is on Find-A-Grave, and he is marked as famous. Either the list he gave me was a little old, or there's just some database problem. Just send an email to infoATfindagraveDOTcom. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-25 19:00
 * He's there, but he doesn't have one of the "famous" stars. --SPUI (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. Just email them and tell them he's famous, and they'll add him to the list. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-26 02:56
 * The best way to get someone marked 'famous'is to put them on the list in the Find A Grave Forums. Doc 02:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Confused
The instructions read, in part:


 * 1)Do not delete any names from this list, even if they're blue links.
 * 2)Only delete blue links if you've verified that the person linked is the same person on Find-A-Grave's site.

Doesn't sentence 2 contradict sentence 1 (or vice versa)?

--Calton | Talk 05:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete blue links unless you've verified that they go to the correct person. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-25 05:36

Would it not be a good idea to say that it should also have the External Link added prior to removing it from the list Doc 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been somewhat confused by these instructions, so have just added explanatory notes next to names - X is really Y, or we don't have an article on them but look at page Z where they're mentioned - and left them on the page for someone more comfortable to remove when they get to the list. Shimgray | talk | 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Activity
For those who don't have all the pages and subpages of this project in their watchlist, I just wanted to let you know that there has been a substantial flurry of activity throughout all the pages recently. Every little bit helps toward the final goal. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-27 21:01

Split pages
Brian, it's looking great so far but could the split pages be added to the top project page? It adds an additional layer unnecessary navigation to click on E then click on Ea-Eb. --Reflex Reaction 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Word of Warning
Hi. Just wanted to say that I did some W's and realized how careful we have to be about removing links here. It is very easy to get the wrong one--or as I said in one of the lists, the "wrong Wright." Danny 15:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Method
I've become very interested in this project as I've written a number of "famous bios" on Find A Grave and posted both the Find A Grave and Find A Grave Forums pages here. I had already started posting a few of my "own" bios from FAG, as it is known in the Forums here when I found this project. These I only need to wikify, and at times update, as they are my own composition.

I feel that it is very important before a name is removed from this project to be sure that the link to the profile is on the page here as well. I have started to go through the names listed on my user page here, and be sure that they are all complete with the link.

My method is to pull up the page with the name on the project, then open both the wiki page and the FAG page from the links in the project on new browser pages. Then verify the match. Next I add the link for the FAG profile if it is not there. Next I look for any information in the FAG profile that is not already included on the wiki page particularly on the death and burial and add that information. After a preview and clicking to be sure that the link works then I save the page. Only then do I go and remove the name and change the numbers for the prune both beside the letter and in the running total string. Doc 18:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * any endorsements or warnings? If endorsed, this method should be incorporated in the project page. --P64 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I use approximately the same method, except that I only worry about totals every hundred edits or so... note that sometimes the F-A-G bio adds very little information; in those cases, I sometimes drop linking to it. --Alvestrand 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
The copyright statement was not clear to me. How can their text be taken? Basically, I'm trying to figure out how careful I'd have to be on creating a page with that text as a basis to avoid copyright violations. The line between using a source and paraphrasing and more than paraphrasing is thin... I thought it'd be useful to know. gren グレン 10:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The facts, dates, events, etc. cannot be copyrighted. Just use the facts and put it in your own words and you'll be fine. For one thing, the general wiki style will reorganize most FAG bios. Just don't cut and paste the text.

Doc 12:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of 'Famous'
I've never been a fan of this word on Wikipedia, I much prefer 'notable'. Most important individuals with articles on Wikipedia aren't famous. For example, most people couldn't name the first man in space, or the inventor of the jet engine, but could easily name the lead singer of a contemporary pop band. The latter therefore are famous, but obviosuly not as important. 'Famous' is also a very limited field, where as notable is longer lasting and broader. Grunners 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Find-a-grave link spam
This material looks very like spam. On what objective basis is it being added? --Red King 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Red King may be objecting to the work of, who has added links to findagrave.com to hundreds of existing biographical articles. I agree with Red King that this practice is questionable at best, since findagrave.com has prominent advertising and no significant content beyond the biographical summaries that we should have here. WP:EL states among other things that we do not wish to link to content that we would find suitable for inclusion here. Further, findagrave is not a citable source, rather it is at best a secondary source, and as such it is not suitable for use as a reference. I would like to propose that the links to findagrave.com be removed from all articles except those that were created based on findagrave.com content. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I second this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. At various times someone has added Find-a-Grave links to a few of the Illinois governor pages I have worked on. In some cases Find-a-Grave adds some biographical information to stubby articles and in all cases (so far) it includes photos of the grave marker that confirm otherwise unsourced birth, death and burial information contained in the article. Personally speaking, on the articles that I am most interested in, I would welcome links to Find-a-Grave entries if they exist. In my view, a photograph of a tombstone is much better evidence than the unsourced information from politicalgraveyard.com. Grave markers can be wrong on occasion, but a they are at least a very visible source. -- DS1953 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At least some of the links don't lead to a page with a photograph of a tombstone, e.g. . The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think if the Find-a-Grave link doesn't add value, it should not be treated any more favorably than any other external link (i.e., delete it). However, I believe all the Find-a-Grave links I came across in my work contained photos (but the individuals were buried, not cremated as in your example).  In any event, I would not want to blanket delete all the useful links simply because a few don't add information.  That is throwing the baby out with the bath water, to use an old phrase. -- DS1953 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the findagrave.com site. The Copeland entry does appear weaker than some of the others. While the site has value, I still do not believe that it is wise to add links to it from every biographical article for which there is a photograph of a tombstone at findagrave. I am unconvinced that a photo of a tombstone is inherently encyclopedic, because despite the fact that they are made of stone they are notoriously inaccurate both in regard to name and date, and offer little other useful information to the reader. Findagrave is not a free project (free as in free speech). They lack any editorial process and photos may well be spoofed or uploaded in error (for a person with the same name). And even if we really do want photos of tombstones for all and sundry, better that we go out and take them ourselves and release them under the GFDL.

Finally, I don't feel good about having so many links to a particular commercial site when there are other sites out there that have tombstone photos (rootsweb.com and genealogy.com for example). If we really do want to include links to tombstones on a wide variety of pages, I believe we would be better served with a solution similar to what we have done for book sources, so that we may provide a way to redirect to many sources.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say, but as someone with a long interest in both history and genealogy, I do find the tombstone photograph and burial information relevant and encyclopedic. If we have pictures released under the GFDL, by all means we should use them.  If RootsWeb, USGenWeb or some other source has better pictures or better accompanying information, we should use that site.  However, if Find-a-Grave has the information we need, I would not want to kill the good links just because we have a lot of links to that site.  We have a lot of links to IMDB, too, and imdb.com appears far more commercial than findagrave.com.


 * On the other hand, perhaps we should ask that no editor make wholesale additions of the Find-a-Grave links to articles. The scope of that activity implies that judgment may not being made on an article-by-article basis.  There may be articles where the information does not improve the article and, if so, it should be omitted.  However, I still would hate to see wholesale deletions of the links that currently have been added by a variety of editors. -- DS1953 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the IMDB links have been controversial, though they are now fairly widely accepted. The important difference between IMDB and find-a-grave is that much of the IMDB content is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  IMDB has discussion boards for each film, which is outside the remit of Wikipedia.  It also has a degree of cross-referencing that is not possible for us to achieve.


 * So how do we go about getting them deleted? There are so many that it will need a robot!  Is there an Admin in the house?  --Red King 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the site has photos of gravestones or information about cremation, etc., I think it is relevant and of interest. The Louis Sockalexis one, for example, is particularly valuable for its interest to baseball historians. Badagnani 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with citing Find-A-Grave as a source - sometimes you can find info there that you simply can't find elsewhere. I wouldn't include it if you have a lot of good sources, but I wouldn't exclude it otherwise. BD2412  T 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Find-A-Grave is a very useful source for biographical information, especially for determining dates for birth/death.
 * 2) Any genealogist knows about Find-a-grave and its usefulness.
 * 3) Their founder also provided us with their list of 46,000 famous persons to use as a "missing articles" list, so they're willing to cooperate with Wikipedia to expand our content. They demand nothing in return, but provide us with the option to link to their entry on each person, which usually contains valuable photographs that verify specific details.
 * 4) That people are profiting off our content as a result should be of no concern.
 * 5) Nearly all of our external links have ads that generate profit, including the primary mirrors of our content.
 * 6) Just because one editor has taken it upon himself to add external links to several pages doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.
 * 7) And in this case, especially, it is not a bad thing. Oftentimes, the photographs on Find-A-Grave are our only verifiable source for specific details on people. (this has been my experience on several occasions with Civil War generals in particular) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-7 00:04

Find-A-Grave is an excellent source for this information. At a very minimum, it needs to be cited when it has been consulted as a reference or confirmation for gravesite, or dates. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found that about 1 in 15 of the Find-A-Grave entries list dates contradicting ours. Sometimes this means Find-A-Grave is wrong, sometimes we're wrong, but usually they have photos of gravemarkers, clearing up any doubts. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-7 00:13


 * I agree with Nunh-huh and Brian -- these are generally valuable pages, especially for pages that don't yet have any other references. Of course each one should be evaluated for its own merits, and there are dozens I've worked on where I've omitted adding the link (I'm working my way through "T" on the missing articles list), but many more where I've found it valuable to include.  They should NOT be removed wholesale, but judged individually.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Nunh-huh, Brian and Catherine, but I really see no harm in the link on any page here. For one their pages too are improving all of the time and as with IMBD there are discussion elements on Find A Grave too, both through 'flowers' on the main pages and in the Find A Grave Forums. In fact I think that the "wholesale addition of the Find-a-Grave links" would be a good thing as an External link and put it under a Reference only if this has been a primary resource. As I stated above, I don't think that a name should be removed from the list here without such a link  Doc 15:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brian, as well. I've spent a great deal of time pruning the Find-a-Grave lists and have found some discrepancies between the dates listed between the sites.  However, in the long run, the more sources of information can't hurt.  We certainly shouldn't be presenting our data as fact if it turns out to be wrong and the other site is correct.  Hopefully, those individuals who are developing the Wikipedia article would research any discrepancies.  Perhaps noting them on the talk page is too much trouble, but would provide notice that we are aware of the differences and this is why we think ours is correct.  Just my US$.02.  :-)  >: Roby Wayne Talk 00:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I use Find-A-Grave frequently for my own uses outside of Wikipedia. I find links to it at several different web-sites(Findadeath.com, dpsinfo.com, etc etc), sites that feature biographies of notable people. dspinfo in particular is worth checking out. Since it is contributer driven, Find-a-grave can probably be counted upon as being as accurate as WP is, at any given moment. Hamster Sandwich 07:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused

 * Sorry everybody it looks like I am confused about this project, so I have stopped contributing to this project (no more links!). One of the problems is the links.  If it is wrong to add a link to an existing article, then it is wrong to add a link to a new article.

Can someone clarify this project?
 * 1) What is the nature of the agreement with Find-A-Grave? To create a new article a minimum of name, birth date, death date and reason for fame is required to properly identify the person ( Or a link to Find-a-Grave). Does wikapediea have permission to gather the name, birth, death and reason for fame. ? Are we required to a link?
 * 2) *There is no "agreement" with Find-A-Grave. I simply asked for the list, and the founder gave it to me. I've just made a suggestion to link to their site since it is usually informative. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:05
 * 3) Do links to "Find-A-Grave" constitute advertisement for this website? What about the article (Find_A_Grave), is this also an ad?
 * 4) *All external links are "advertisement" in some sense. We have templates for IMDB because, just like Find-A-Grave, it is very useful and often a source for article content. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:05
 * 5) So existing links to Find-a-Grave be deleted?
 * No, nothing is going to be deleted. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:05
 * 1) If links are allowed, do we add it to every article and let the reader decide if it is useful or nor OR do the article writes decide this?
 * 2) *It doesn't matter. Since most of their articles have pictures of the grave markers, they are almost always useful, in the same way that IMDB entries almost always have some useful content. So it is safe to assume that adding their link is useful to the reader. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:05
 * 3) Do we need a disclaimer for external links, "We are not responsible for the accuracy or usefulness of this or nay other external links, inappropriate link should be reported or deleted"
 * 4) *I think it's pretty much understood that if an external link has nothing to do with the article, or is obviously for advertising purposes (eg: a link to an online store), it should be removed. Find-A-Grave doesn't fit either of those distinctions, so is fine. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:05

Just for the record, I have no connection to the Find-A-Grave website or any of its advertisers. RustySpear 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you pull out. As I stated earlier on your talk page, I and many others think that you were doing a good thing. I don't believe that you were confused at all. It is your critic that was confused in my opinion. Doc 05:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 06:12


 * I believe this project needs to be better designed. The potential of adding about 10,000 links to 30,000 links Find-a-Grave should be reviewed by the WIkipedia community (the orginial list of names is 40,000).


 * I am concerned about the lack of a formal aggreement with Find-A-Grave over copywrite. For example for Victoria cross winners a note is added to each article "This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission." What if the current owner of Find-a-Grave sells his website? Would any information copied from that site then have to be deleted from Wikipedia?


 * Note on Tombstone dates: "accuracy of the date depends on the knowledge of the informate and the skill of the stone cutter." p. 234, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Genealogy, Christene Rose, Kay Germain Ingalls, Alpha Books, 1997 RustySpear 15:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I agree that this recent situation IMO is unfortunate only in the way that it was handled. Second, as long as the information is not 'cut and paste' no one 'owns' the data, dates, facts, etc. That is all public record so it doesn't matter in the least who 'owns' Find A Grave. Third, as that data base too changes all of the time, hopefully improving as others contribute, it is an invaluable reference and I believe that the links on Wikipedia pages become even more useful over time. One would hope that anyone hope that anyone wishing definitive information on an individual here would check all references and in the interest of the community here add useful added information for the more casual researcher.


 * So, in short, it may take some time, but I think that both creating the necessary new pages here and having the Find A Grave link on every page which is also at that site is a wonderful project to continue. Doc 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Percent completed
I have recalculated the percent completed - it never was 3.96 percent. It's probably significantly higher than 3.14%, but one has to count unpruned blue links - a vague guesstimate isn't very useful. Zafiroblue05 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The missing instructions?
I have trouble interpreting anything on the project page as clear instructions on how to help here.... I think that the instructions are as follows: But there's nothing on the page that says so. And I don't dare to delete an entry before having it confirmed. Is my interpretation correct? --Alvestrand 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Find a name in the list here
 * 2) Find the corresponding wikipedia article
 * 3) If not found, write the article
 * 4) Link the find-a-grave pointer into the article, if appropriate
 * 5) Delete the name from the list here
 * Exactly correct. This is a subproject of WP:MEA. All the instructions are there. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-26 07:29
 * If crucial instructions will not be repeated here, the first paragraph should ask people to read WP:MEA instructions. There may be a similar problem for all WP:MEA subprojects. "What links here" naturally sends editors (who use it after moving or redirecting, for example) to somewhere down in the subproject pages. --P64 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's at the lowest level, where "what links here" sends us, that a reference to WP:MEA (instructions in particular?) would be most valuable. --P64 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorg?
Would anyone mind if I did a reorg of the page to something akin to the Hotlist? I don't do much work with the project so I'm find to leave it be, but I find it very annoying to click through multiple navigation pages to get to the actual links. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My biggest irritation is that moving the links around takes editing points in the file 200K apart - ideally, I'd like to just put a marker next to the link and have a robot move them to the appropriate category. The Hotlist schematic doesn't seem that much better to me. --Alvestrand 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A reorg doesn't really seem that necessary. It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't seem like there's a great way to handle this many names. --Mathwizard1232 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim Tipton
Is there a way to let Jim Tipton/Find-a-Grave know about corrections? Does he want feedback on minor corrections? (e.g., Find-a-Grave lists "Henry Prince of Battenburg" but "Battenberg" should properly be spelled with an e, not a u, in "Battenberg".) - Nunh-huh 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen a few of these misspellings, and even some years that don't match the marker at all. It can be very sloppy, and I was wishing for an edit this page tab.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When working on a list, I wait until I've accumulated a list of a dozen or more corrections (with URLs), then send them all at once, (to info at findagrave dot com). They seem grateful for the corrections, though since I've sent them multiple emails I now often get only a one-line "thanks!" reply.  Be careful with reports of duplicate entries -- this is sometimes intentional when there's more than one "burial site"/marker/memorial/etc.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Status update
I went through and updated the various counts, and then the statistics on the main page. Let me know if there are any comments. Ardric47 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "done"?
I am wondering about the definition of "done" in this context.... on the T page, I have 1609 articles on the page, but only 980 of them are missing or not located - the rest are verified to be the same as their Wikipedia articles, but I've not verified whether or not there's a link to the F-A-G bio on the page. But if the 980 artciles are created, I'd consider it quite reasonable to consider the T space "done".

So what should the right "left to do" percentage on T be? 980/1705 or 1609/1705? --Alvestrand 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be nice to have the F-A-G bio linked (particularly for less notable people). I was doing the J page a little while ago, and I always added in the F-A-G link when I ascertained that the Wiki page matched the Find a Grave bio. But if you've already verified over 600 articles, I don't think it's necessary to go back and add the bios individually. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take the number of clearly missing articles as the number "left to do" - I'm now down to 969... --Alvestrand 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of "possible non-notable"?
In my slow walk through the T's, I've noticed a couple of classes of people who are thought notable by F-A-G, but don't seem to have all that many articles on Wikipedia. I've tried to make a grouping inside "possibly non-notable" for them, but haven't started moving people inside that category en masse yet. Comments on classification? Wisdom of approach?

See Find-A-Grave famous people/T for the example. --Alvestrand 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The approach seems wise. And the execution lots of work. A vandal must have deleted earlier congratulations and thanks.
 * It's easy to understand why most of these are notable for amateur photographers and tour guides of local burying grounds, the f-a-g community.
 * Every Catholic Saint is notable here, I guess.
 * Many of the memorials pertain to an event, person, or group that should have an article here. So what is the question in those cases? Perhaps "Is the event otherwise flagged by WP:MEA?"
 * (answering mid-response..) In many cases, the event has an article. I've tried to link to it. But there was no good-looking way of referring to the memorial from the article in question. --Alvestrand 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm-m. You can't just work into an article on a Neapolitan saint a photo of memorial statuary in a small cemetery in Massachusetts? :-)
 * More seriously - and a real example - how does a picture of a memorial from a random graveyard in the Netherlands add to the article on the Tenerife airplane collision disaster? Note also that Find-A-Grave doesn't give enough copyright data on the photos to import them into Wikipedia, so you can't even insert the photo - you have to insert "and btw, if, after reading about this air disaster, you want to look at a random graveyard in the Netherlands, here's the link". Great value? --Alvestrand 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the classification: "Other reasons, or not classified" is stuffed with memorials that are not gravesites so I suggest that that should be a class, leaving many fewer miscellaneous. --P64 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense.... --Alvestrand 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Find A Grave
I went looking for a template for the find-a-grave references, and found one. Fixed it so that you don't have to specify the name of the page (but can if you want to).

Usage:. Seems useful? --Alvestrand 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

vital dates
"about 1 in 15 of the Find-A-Grave entries list dates contradicting ours" This project might do something specific and consistent regarding f-a-g vital dates, such as cover the discrepancy in Talk.

This may be a question for some biography project but here goes. When should articles note discrepancies in vital data and explain resolutions, when relegate that to Talk? Should a reference consulted and dismissed be listed as a reference in order to show that it has been consulted? (for example, f-a-g consulted and its vital data dismissed as incorrect) --P64 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would discuss and figure it out on the talk page, but only list the source under References if any of its contents are still used in the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2006-08-28 21:40Z
 * Thanks. On a related matter, should every biography be put into several categories such as "18xx births" and "19xx deaths"? I have considered those clutter, but reading here suggests that they help editors if not readers of the 'pedia! --P64 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be done for every bio, and I do it whenever I remember to. More important are the categories describing the individual's occupation (what makes them important) and the categories for "Native of X" where X is a city/state/country. So you should try for a minimum of 3-4 categories for everybody in F-A-G (birth, death, occupation/importance, native of X). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2006-08-29 02:35Z

Some statistical experience from the Ls....
I've recently been through one subpage of the letter L, and have formed some opinions.... In total, these 3 steps seem to be enough to get a page to around 75% complete, without a single new article being created. That's a lot of progress towards project completion! --Alvestrand (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I went for the blue links. For those that matched, I deleted them (after listing F-A-G under extlinks if it made sense), and for those that didn't, I added qualifiers to the link so that it turned red. This removed approximately 50% of the entries.
 * Second, I added search to each name, and used the "gwp" link (use Google to search on Wikipedia) to find out if the person was listed under another name. I also added an one-line description to each entry, to aid in the next step. This eliminated perhaps 20% of the remainder.
 * Last, I moved all the medal recipients, murder victims and other items that I thought were non-notable to the "non-notable" session. This eliminated perhaps 40% of the remainder.


 * I've been working backwards through the alphabet and had similar results (although I'm only doing the first step so far). I'm currently working on the R's. It is slow going, but major progress has been made on this project in the last few months! jwillbur 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Superb!
 * One note: When I get a "mismatch", I usually modify the name on the project page until it turns red. Sometimes (as when inserting a middle initial), it remains blue, and it turns out the new name is a correct match. This means that I don't have to use a "mismatched" section. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've started doing that for the R's after seeing the mismatched section for the S's get very large. I will eventually go back and do the same for the mismatches in S-Z. jwillbur 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal techniques and notes page
I've started keeping some notes on the way I attack F-A-G entries at User:Alvestrand/Find-A-Grave. I think everyone should do his own thing, but someone might find the notes useful. Having fun seeing progress! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A toast to the 1/3 point!
I just want to share a toast with the contributors that have made this project pass the 1/3 completed point (as of January 4, 2008).

Great to see this project move! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Congratulations everybody. jwillbur 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And today we're halfway!
And now we're at the halfway point - 50% was passed today! --Alvestrand (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay 50%! It took two years to get up to 20%, and we've gone from there to 50% in less than five months. Awesome. jwillbur 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! This project has really taken off. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2008-04-24 12:59Z

Another sort of milestone
As of today, 2008-08-05, all of the letters of the list have been pruned at least once. And we're almost at 2/3 complete. Hooray! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two thirds!
I've declared about 130 people in /S non-notable, and researched out another 70 or so. That tipped us over the 2/3 mark. Hooray! --Alvestrand (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Figuring percentages
I am wondering about the percentages. I usually take a look at the A and B lists, and the A list only mentioned the notable pages left to do in its percentage. I changed those numbers to indicate the total amount of work left (both notable and non-notable), but before I change the official stats on the project main page, I just wanted to seek some guidance.

Should we include just the notable amount left to do, or all links left to do (notable and non-notable)?

Thank you!

Trjumpet (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that we should regard the project as having two possible outcomes for each entry:
 * An article is created, or an existing article linked to
 * Someone has evaluated the article and decided that under Wikipedia rules for inclusion, no article should be created.
 * I think of "Possibly non-notable" as the latter category; therefore, I don't think we should include it when considering how much we have left - we've looked at them, and figured that they were non-notable.
 * Of course, it's a judgment call, and might be wrong - but still, I think we shouldn't "promise" to revisit the PNN people before we declare the project finished. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll revert the A list. Thank you! Trjumpet (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be agreement on this point (at least between the two of us!), I've added suitable text to the front page for the project. Have fun! --Alvestrand (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost done searching them all....
Now that jwilbur is almost done with F, the only letter not marked as "searched" in the list is B, but that's so far along, I'm leaving it for now (and most of it is in fact searched). With that, we're closing in on the 75% mark (ever so slowly - this process takes MUCH longer than just breezing through bluelinks).

I'll be taking another scan at W, which at 70.0% is the one lowest on the "percentage completed" list apart from F.

Getting there! --Alvestrand (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just finished F, we're less than 1 percent away from 75% now. I'm going to start re-pruning M, just because it hasn't been done in a while and it's one of the largest pages. — jwillbur 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Three quarters!
I just finished splitting out all the PNNs on /G, and that tipped us over the 75% mark. Hooray! (but too tired to dig up more festive pictures) --Alvestrand (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging
Would people have an objection to merging the sublists of letters like A, E, J which have less than 300 names remaining? Or even L, which has 400 remaining? Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not object. I think 400 may be pushing it - it's a long piece to edit all at once when I do my sorting passes; 300 seems offhand like a nice limit. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. One has to strike the right balance and it's probably wise to handle sorted and unsorted lists differently. 300 unsorted names might be inconvenient whereas 400 nicely separated entries should be ok. Pichpich (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly non-notable
Hello. Another stupid question from a newbie in the area. Is there any plan to actually remove the most obviously non-notable entries? And how should we determine this? Related question: would it make sense to move all the memorials on a distinct page? I've also found that for some letters, there are clearly notable people in the PNN section. Some are CMOH recipients, others are non-American politicians (Canadians in particular) who have held sufficiently high office to be automatically considered notable, others still are mayors of sufficiently large cities to justify an article. The depressing part is that moving these will decrease the % of progress... Pichpich (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I regard the PNN sections as a "very rough sort" - which is why I mostly don't want to delete people from it; the overhead of having more people in there is pretty low. The reason why many CMOH recipients are in PNN sections is that I initially held the opinion that doing one brave thing once isn't enough for notability, but after being pointed at WP:MILMOS, I decided that I'd go with the community in this case, but I haven't yet found all the earlier misclassifications. WRT mayors - the rules at WP:POLITICIAN are so lax, almost anyone would get in there (see discussion on that talk page) - so I have not applied those. If we can figure out a reasonable guideline, we could move people - mayor of New York, New York, what would you suggest for a guideline? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, the guidelines with respect to politicians are quite vague but I think it's safe to say that mayors of decent-sized cities are notable in the sense that their life or at least their political career have been documented to some reasonable extent. (I suppose that's the underlying argument in WP:POLITICIAN) The same is true for US representatives and Canadian members of parliament at the federal or provincial level. Of course, the sources might not be that easy to find, especially online, but state archives almost certainly contain enough info for decent short articles about politicians that have held such seats. Pichpich (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On the same sort of topic, see my question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography. Seems like there's a consensus for creating redirects for most murder/accident victims. Pichpich (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alvestrand: I'm going to start removing the victims. Here's my rule(s) of thumb: Are you ok with that? I'll start with just a few and wait until you give me an ok. I've just been through all the A's so you can see the result through my contribs. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disaster victims are almost always not worth a redirect.
 * Victims become redirects only if their name appears in the target article.
 * Victim names which are not turned into redirects get dropped from the F-a-G list.
 * If the name is already used for a different person, I'll redirect from John Doe (murder victim) or something similar.
 * If the name is fairly uncommon (Amina Agisheff for instance) and is unlikely to be the name of some other notable individual, I'll just redirect using Amina Agisheff. When in doubt, I'll use the (murder victim) format. Like I said at the project biography talk page, anyone searching for the term will see it appearing as a suggested completion anyways.

Monuments, memorials etc
After mulling about it for a while, I think Pichpich's idea of merging all the memorials to a single page is a good one. They clutter up this page set's single-minded focus on people, and they're all in the "possibly non-notable" category anyway, so they don't matter to the "done" percentage one way or the other. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news/bad news
Hello. I've been working on the B's and I'm noticing two things. First the bad news: a lot of people classified as probably non-notable are in fact quite unambiguously notable. I pointed out the case of politicians a few days ago but the same goes for athletes. People who have had a professional career (with the possible exception of ridiculously short careers) are automatically notable. In that sense, the progress percentage is significantly lower than what the current stats claim. But there are good news. The wp search fails spectacularly in many cases and one has to dig a little deeper to find the correct redirect targets. In particular, athletes are often best known through a nickname or diminutive but the wp search will most often miss this. In fact, if find-a-grave says that athlete Jonathan Robert Doe has played three years of MLB baseball, then it's basically impossible that there's no article about him. It might be under Joe Doe, Johnny Doe, Bob Doe, Joe-Bob Doe, Joe "Hammer" Doe or even Hammer Doe but it's there! The same is often true for many many American political figures. Almost any US congressman, governor, top diplomat has an article although, again, someone may be best known under a name that differs slightly from the one used by find-a-grave. Just today, I've created close to a hundred such redirects. In that sense, the progress percentage is higher than previously thought. I'm not sure which of these two effects is more significant but the current stats may be misleading. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've classified athletes as PNN - both they and actors are listed in the "not available" category by default. The congressmen were taken care of by Wikiproject Congressmen some time ago - any Federal congressman not listed indicates an error either in Find-A-Grave (it calls many people US congressmen when they were actually state congress members) or in the Wikiproject. Fortunately, that is easily checkable using the official Congress Biography website.
 * WRT search, I recommend hitting gwp rather than wp - it takes care of things like "bob" vs "robert". But this also fails to find quite a few - the reason why the search fails often is that all the cases where it succeeded have already been removed - only the hard cases are left!
 * I think baseball is reasonably complete back to WWII or so, but have had far less success with athletes from the 19th and early 20th century - still a few holes in Wikipedia's coverage there....
 * Anyway, wonderful to see so many cases dealt with! --Alvestrand (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates
Along with WP:GEO, I'm interested in tagging articles with coordinates. Clearly this mostly applies to articles about places, or events that happened in a single place, but it can also be done for dead people with an identifiable grave, providing the coordinates used are specific to that grave, rather than generic for the cemetery, or wherever. I understand that this is outside the scope of this project, but I'm hoping that you have some 'local' knowledge that I can call on.

Firstly, how reliable and precise are the coordinates? Do FaG's users give them for specific graves, or more generally? Secondly, is there a quick or easy way to obtain them, perhaps by an API, or do we have to scrape the site page by page? Is there some way to disambiguate; to relate an article on WP to a specific page on FaG, or vice versa? Is there already some liaison between the two sites, to facilitate such work?

Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too optimistic. You can probably extract FaG's cemetery data to associate individuals and cemeteries (just do a search by cemetery) but I think you'd have to figure out the geo-coordinates manually. Note also that you'd need to account for the limited reliability of the FaG data and for multiple people with the same name. As for coordinates for the actual grave, I think it's pretty hopeless. Even for überfamous cemeteries such as the Père Lachaise Cemetery, I don't know how to get reliable data on tomb coordinates unless you take something like this map and calculate them. That sounds like a pretty awful effort/value ratio. Pichpich (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear you may have misunderstood me. Pages like http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9576 have coordinates on them. The data seems very unstructured, though, with little semantic mark-up. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. There's a lot of interesting stuff on the FaG website but I don't think very precise data such as tomb coordinates should be trusted. For instance the satellite data for this grave suggests that the coordinates are a bit off. Another example of obvious problem is Mark Twain's grave where the given coordinates are just outside the cemetery. If the coordinates are a bit off, they're worthless. Pichpich (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I feared, but thanks for the confirmation, anyway. Bad data sucks. :-( Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

80% done
Thanks to Pichpich's efforts, we've now finally crossed that elusive 80% line. Hooray!

It took us from April to October to get there - 6 months for another 5%; I think most of those ~2300 entries were accomplished by looking at the lists and sorting out those who are probably not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. There's some more of that work still needing to be done - perhaps another thousand or so that we can remove - but at that time, I think we're reaching bedrock; the rest of the list consists of biographies that should be researched and written up.

Harder work ahead - but work well worth doing! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at External Links Noticeboard
Participants in this project 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) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Archive of that discussion . (Emperor (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

Another discussion heads-up
Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Once again on the appropriateness of the links. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion to eliminate the use of Find a grave and IMDB
Its been almost 3 months so its time for another weeks long discussion on the status of Find a grave. Here is a link to the discussion that is currently taking place, Again. on the external links noticeboard. Find a grave and IMDB. --Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting has begun
A vote is currently being held at External links/Noticeboard as to wether we should ban the use of the Find a grave site and the thousands of links we have to it on articles. Please take a moment and place your vote. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting article creation guidelines
After a rather strange debate on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites, I've concluded that the guidelines for creating articles here (which have been the same for years) need some revision, to make it clear that Find-A-Grave is not an acceptable sole source for a Wikipedia article, and that both WP:RS and WP:CP (copyright) need to be considered when you're creating articles. I'll take a stab at it - the project seems quiet at this time; I've been elsewhere for quite some time. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an acceptable source period (it fails WP:RS rules quite dramatically), nor is it an acceptable external link. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's reasonably obvious from the debate there that I don't agree with you - so there isn't a consensus. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate rewrite
The debate that has been going on, and the fact that there are issues with Find a Grave, does not matter that improper instructions "have been the same for years". I previously listed issues with the following; If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source. If you don't enter any material, or if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find-A-Grave link</Blockquote> While having left the external links debate to others I have been continually commenting against assertions that Find a Grave is acceptable as a source or reference, especially when masked as an external link. I have actually tried to get totally wild with my imagination and still can not figure out how anyone would not consider "adding material" from Find a Grave as not using the site as a source. I have listed the policies that Find a Grave fails. I will provide them here;

Find a Grave as a source or reference fails;
 * 1)-WP:SOURCES; Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * 2)- WP:NOTRELIABLE; Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.
 * 3)- WP:SELFPUBLISH; Find a Grave is user edited and uses anonymous or pseudonymous editors.
 * 4)- WP:SPS; This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Find a Grave is not currently specifically named as is IMBd but falls under "and so forth". Rational dictates that Find a Grave, while not listed by name in WP:SPS, certainly falls under the criteria.
 * The Find a Grave project instructions states, Remember that all articles must satisfy Wikipedia core policies of notability (WP:NOTABILITY), verifiability (WP:VERIFIABILITY) and reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE SOURCES). Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source., and further, For any articles you create because of this project, you can add the entry's Find-A-Grave link to the External links sections of the article..

I do not consider the debate as strange but serious issues. Instructing editors to violate Wikipedia policies is serious. Continually arguing that the above policies somehow do not apply to this project can be detrimental. I am still trying desperately to support find a Grave as an external link but without some help I will have no choice but to take a different overall position. I am still trying to figure out why my comments concerning the possible release of pictures from a Find a Grave editor was not even worth discussion. In light of past discussions I am sure that a plea for reconsideration will be met with the same disregard but feel I had to give one more attempt. Otr500 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OTR500, you have not responded (as far as I can tell) to my quoting of WP:CHALLENGE. The fact is that Wikipedia has lots of facts that are not controversial, and are not challenged. We have a tradition that we don't list sources for those facts unless the sources satisfy WP:RS - the result is that it's not possible in most cases for people to understand where that information is fetched from. I think the external link method is a reasonable thing to do that gives a better encyclopedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I still cannot see why the fixation and the campaigning and expending all this effort over a simple external link. Why this one and not so many others used in a similar manner, such as IMDb and MobyGames? It's a helpful, informative site yet some are making it out to be like the plague hellbent on destroying Wikipedia. If only editors would put this much earnest zeal into actually producing content instead I think we'd have a much better encyclopedia. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure I have mentioned the WP policy concerning challenge possibly along with burden. I maintain that reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. I also feel that someone in a minority should not be dismissed but their valid views should at least be weighed. There is a point, when an editor continues to argue against consensus, repeatedly does not understand, fails to concede that there are problems especially with overwhelming evidence, and chooses to use what can be seen as proof by assertion, which can be seen as contributing in ways that are not conducive to building a better encyclopedia thus disruptive editing.

I actually feel pretty secure in my belief that both the previous editors that commented above have more Wikipedia editing knowledge than I do. I have no doubt that my comments, as well as others, leave any real doubts as to the validity of concerns. Some have issues over the use of Find a Grave as an external link or copyright issues but my issues involves a twist that is more than just "a simple external link" problem. The fact that it is equated to a simple problem is incredible.

I have issues with the Find a Grave project instructing editors to use a site as a source that fails policy as such, but placed (thus masked) as an external link, and the many articles that these misleading instructions has affected.

On 7 April 2010, a Find a Grave editor made the comment,  "External links are not required to be reliable sources. If someone is using it in source citations, that would be another matter. " I have found several articles (so far) with Find a Grave as a source. I surmise that this supposedly simple external link problem is far more wide spread than I imagine. As far as IMBd the site has editorial control in that information must be submitted for approval. I do not use or advocate the use of IMBd as an external link but that is my choice. I will and most certainly have removed IMBd if found as a source or reference. I have not run across MobyGames but many on the essay page were not contested as is Find a Grave.

This statement, - the result is that it's not possible in most cases for people to understand where that information is fetched from., reads as though some people might be perceived as ignorant? I would hope this is not the intended meaning as verifiability is clear with; <Blockquote>Material must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is appropriate for the claim being made. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed...</Blockquote> This covers the issue of challenging with "likely to be challenged. Using sources, a well written essay that is not policy but has not been contested includes, <Blockquote>"Verifiability" requires that the facts and claims we present are  verifiable by other editors. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim, including interpretation or analysis of facts and references, for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove original research. Citing reliable published sources is essential in our goal of building a quality reference work.</Blockquote> Again, just in case it was missed, this essay is not a policy or guideline but follows the relevant policies and guidelines with explanations. One explanation covers why stated death, birth, and other such information, used from Find a Grave that is not a reliable source, is considered original research. I feel that editors acting in good faith, that are familiar with policies, would not knowingly submit potentially contentious (likely to be challenged) unreferenced material. Acceptable uploaded pictures stating the facts presented, with no other interpretation or analysis of facts and references, would solve this problem.

I do see issues with statements like, "We have a tradition that we don't list sources for those facts unless the sources satisfy WP:RS" and the following that puts this statement into perspective, "I think the external link method is a reasonable thing to do that gives a better encyclopedia". The method would be of using a source that can not otherwise be used (since it fails RS and several others) and placing it in an external links section. I realize that the practice or method has been on-going almost from the beginning of the project but please note this is not a blanket approval to alter or change policies and guidelines and silence and consensus states, "...dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus.". This is supported by the fact that consensus can change.

I assume "we" are Find a Grave project members as I am part of the Wikipedia community and have not observed a community practice of placing unsourced material in articles. Removal procedures are quite simple when challenged. It becomes more complicated when a project has instructions making it appear that it is a community standard when this simply is no so. It literally astounds me that any editor could find value in this idea or would attempt to defend such actions. The fixation I have is that in the beginning I stated there were problems that needed solving and not just circular discussions in an attempt to actually go no where or that just muddied the waters. With continued pleas for discussions to solve problems that I identified I have either been subjected to endless comments that could not, and almost without exception did not even attempt to address policy issues, or I was ignored.

I guess, maybe for the fun of it, for lack of any other reasonable explanation, my concerns can continue to be ignored and possibly my resolve underestimated, and we can see what solution we end up with. The sad thing is that the resistance or refusal to make corrections and improvements will probably make this inevitable. Otr500 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re a Find a Grave related redirect
See: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a Grave template usage
I've started a discussion regarding use of the Find a Grave template and whether the way that the template page is worded in accordance with Reliable sources guidelines or a generally accepted consensus about its usage.

I asked the Reliable sources noticeboard about this: There are 54 postings about Find a Grave, but I don't know if one of them - or another source would be considered the definitive guidelines for content to update the template. I am happy to draft a rewrite of the verbiage for the Find a Grave template.

It's posted here, too, because it would seem to make sense that you'd have an opinion and/or source of guidelines regarding use of Find a Grave as a source.

Thanks!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted a summary of suggestions for changes to the Find a Grave template regarding when to use/no use the Find a Grave as a source/link, based on what I'm understanding from a number of different sources on Wikipedia. Do you mind looking at it and responding at Template talk:Find a Grave?


 * Thanks!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source
Anyone know what the final decision on was as to whether we were allowed to use FAG as a reference? A few months ago a purge was started to remove FAG as an external link and as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See External links/Perennial websites and Template:Find a Grave. The former says that FAG is "Rarely" appropriate as an external link and is "Almost never" considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Photographs and copyrights
This may not be the right place to ask, but what are the policies regarding uploading photos from findagrave.com to Wiki servers? For example, if a picture on that site has been uploaded by a user and does not credit any photographer (or mention if someone owns the copyright), is it OK to use it in an article? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikicommons would be the place to go. But almost certainly the answer is that the images are copyright of someone until 70 years after the death of the photographer – unless (and only unless) the copyright owner has explicitly released it under GFDL or other Open content license. --Red King (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

An Argument for Bessie Buskirk and Findagrave
In recent years Wikipedia steadily has been deleting any info from Findagrave. In researching the silent film actress Bessie Buskirk a still photo from the movie Her Official Fathers is posted with her being said to be on the left. The woman unnamed on the left is a much older actress than Buskirk(25 years old in 1917 at the time of the movie still). In looking up her Findagrave(and she did have one) a photo is posted showing her with her family and on a fishing trip. So in working out that Bessie Buskirk was born in 1892 and died in 1952, the birth-death stats are correct. The image in Wikipedia is in error. The family photograph of the REAL Buskirk is on the left of Findagrave giving us an idea what she looked like and who she was. No photo of Buskirk could be found on ebay, Google etc. But the family photo of Buskirk was located thanks to Findagrave which also yielded that Buskirk was adopted. The photo can be seen on Findagrave and enlarged by clicking. see--->Findagrave Bessie Buskirk

Koplimek (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)