Talk:Baden-Powell grave/Archive 1

Archive 1

St Peter's ACK Church and its former cemetery are not in Wajee Nature Park.

The Baden Powell grave is in a cemetery next to St Peter's ACK in Nyeri. The cemetery used to be part of the church but is now looked after by the Kenyan Scouts, and some graves by the Commonwealth Graves Commission.

Wajee Nature Park is 5km south of Nyeri according to Wajee Nature Park website, where as the cemetery is close (a short walk) to the centre of Nyeri town. I can find, and am personally not aware, of any connection between Wajee Nature Park end the grave site.

Some useful info here Daily Nation - Plans mooted for monument to honour county heroes

Wajee Camp at 0.575065°S 37.083337°E / -0.575065; 37.083337 that can be found on Google Maps is the nearest thing to the described location of Wajee Nature Park.

The "gone home" tracking symbol and expression is a euphemism in Scouting to indicate someone has died. The significance of this is not made clear in the article.

I believe the cemetery and the grave site are no longer owned by St Peter's church but by the Kenya Scout Association. I don't have a source for this yet either.

Another source of information about the cemetery and grave is youtube video KTN Kenya "Scout movement Founder Baden Powell honoured in Nyeri Kenya"

If will try to find better sources before I will look into editing the article.

Advice from experienced Wikipedians welcome. -- 21:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Scoutnetuk (talk)

Fix it. --evrik ^(talk) 02:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge into Baden-Powell's article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge, for consistency with the rest of biographies on WP and lack of any realistic prospect of expanding this article beyond stub level. Deeday-UK (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

---

I can't see a reason for having a separate article about the grave: all of the information in this article is already present in B-P's main article, and there's not much more to say about the burial site. The grave per se is just an ordinary grave; it's only notable because of the person that is buried there, who already has his own article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the grave is a historic site that is notable. --evrik ^(talk) 01:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The site is no more historic than tens of thousands of other ordinary cemeteries with someone's notable buried in it. This is the first case I come across on Wikipedia where a biography has a separate article for a completely ordinary burial site. It really is the odd one out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You really can't support that statement. There are a number of cemetery pages, and many about graves and tombs. Grant's Tomb is an example. --evrik ^(talk) 01:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous articles about whole cemeteries (you could write one about the mentioned St Peter's one, assuming it's notable enough), not about individual ordinary graves. Grant's Tomb is a monument in its own right, a mausoleum; of course there is an article about it. Churchill, Marx, even Shakespeare have no separate articles about their graves; why should B-P have one? Sorry if you feel somehow attached to this article, which you created, but it really is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny, by the rest of wikipedia, do you mean, es:Tumba de Baden-Powell or zh:貝登堡墓, or do you mean other pages, like Oscar Wilde's tomb? --evrik ^(talk) 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got to try harder: I'm talking about the English Wikipedia, obviously; how topics are treated in other languages is pretty much irrelevant here. And Oscar Wilde's tomb has got its own article because, again, it's a notable sculpture, a work of art created by a notable artist, as highlighted by the italicized title, the use of the {{Infobox artwork}} template, and the general content and tone of the article. Had Oscar Wilde been buried in a grave like his lover's one, there's no chance there would be a separate article about it now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. First, this article has corresponding articles in other languages. Second, there are other graves or tombs that have their own pages, like Grant or Wilde, or less well-known people like Martin Ryerson. If this grave were like Napoleon's tomb or the grave of Jim Morrison, where the resting place was part of a famous cemetery, I might agree, but in this case - there isn't much else there. Besides the grave is a pilgrimage site, much like Pèr Lachaise Cemetery. It's also a Kenyan National Monument --evrik ^(talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. I won't. --Deeday-UK (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because you have nothing to say but, "no." The grave is of sufficient notability that this article should stay. --evrik ^(talk) 02:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. I agree, just include it in the main article. BC  _{talk to me} 19:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The main article is too long as it is. This would just clutter it up. --evrik ^(talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Too long? really? Don't worry, anyway, the text in this article is already present in the main article almost word for word. There's actually very little to merge back. --Deeday-UK (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Deeday-UK. He knows his graves. If it really was notable, the article would be much longer as Grant's Tomb is massively larger than the content on it in Ulysses S. Grant. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not a Wikipedia expert so wouldn't get involved in the discussion about what is usual for Wikipedia. However, I did find the article interesting and it has points of detail, (the meaning of the symbols on it) which would be of interest to people interested in the grave, but too specific (errm, nerdy perhaps) for the general reader interested in B-P. So I have some sympathy with keeping it as a separate article, even if the grave doesn't have any more noteworthiness than those of Shakespeare and Marx.

--Northtowner (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the symbols on it and pretty well everything else in the article is already in the article on B-P. The question is whether more detail can properly be added. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Northtowner: after the merge, readers searching for 'Baden-Powell grave' would be redirected straight to the relevant section on his main article, which already contains all the information about the grave. I can see no point in fragmenting B-P's biography this way. Wikipedia is not Find-a-Grave, which is what this article seems taken from. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Support a merge does not cause the info to disappear. There is not enough here to support a separate article. MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: the Baden-Powell grave article is stub-sized and does not currently look viable as a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.