Jump to content

Talk:Find a Grave/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Regarding notability: many Wikipedia articles reference find-a-grave's Web site. The find-a-grave Web site is by far the highest ranked Web site of its type.[1] Notability really isn't a problem here.

On the other hand, this article could really benefit from some reliable, neutral, 3rd party sources. Think along the lines of mainstream or industry press articles focusing specifically on find-a-grave.

Lastly, leave out the fan-cruft. Folks who want to know all of find-a-grave's options can simply click on the Web site link and find out. What this article should focus on is the Web site's significance. How has it impacted society? What is it good for? - those sorts of things. There are good and useful answers to these questions. We just need to make sure the article contains them - sourced. Rklawton 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because its linked all over the Wikipedia doesn't make it notable. Unless you do something to address the lack of notability in the article, you should put the tag back on. Just saying it is notable (even if it is) is no reason to take down the tag. 2005 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it does. Over 900 Wikipedia articles link to this one. The problem appears to be only with sourcing. As a result, a notability tag isn't useful. Rklawton 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. This is an encyclopedia with guidelines and policies about how to write articles. The notability tag is an alert that an article needs to display its notability in the article. 2005 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
16 million records speaks to notability; and I've edit the first paragraph to help make this more clear. See specifically for WP:WEB for our standards regarding Web sites. Rklawton 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you are confused here. 16 million records obviously says nothing at all about notability. If someone made a copy of this site it would also have 16 million records, and zero notability. You need to read WP:N and WP:WEB. 2005 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess what you are missing is the idea that 16 million records is huge for a graves database. That sort of thing would be obvious to a genealogist. Rklawton 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not missing that. That is irrelevant to the issue. Please read the guidelines. Articles need to citations from reliable sources. 2005 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Which is why this article has a citations tag and not a notability tag. Rklawton 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You just added citations, one of which was a reliable source so that addresses notability. 2005 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see more citations, but if you think we should remove the tag, that's OK, too. Rklawton 14:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

i just don't see how crappy editing relates to notability. if that were the case we'd be left with just a dozen or so articles. if the goal of the placarding is to improve the article, it seems to me that the citations is sufficient to accomplish that goal. --emerson7 | Talk 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more 3rd party sources: [2] (March 2006), [3], [4], [5] - it's also been noticed all over the blogosphere, but these are citations I could find that seemed slightly more serious than a random blogpost. --Alvestrand 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with above posters that this article seems like a brochure of services offered and is not very encyclopedic. I'd like to see more about the company itself - that it's incorporated and what officers, beyond Tipton, are in place. Are there employees or is the company 100% volunteer-run? Who are their business partners (I believe that ancestry.com may be one) and what type of partnerships do they have? Financial statement info, that kind of thing.
Thanks, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

F.A.G. Discussion Forums are completely destroyed

It seems our discussion forums are completely destroyed. It is replaced by a new forum thing that won't let me log in. Even when I deleted my cookies and logged into my account, there is a UBB Error that prevents me from showing our forums or sending a private message! PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR F.A.G. DISCUSSION FORUMS!!! --Angeldeb82 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Might it not be a temporary glitch? That sort of thing happens from time to time - especially during upgrades (or other melt-downs). Rklawton 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know! Now Find A Grave will never connect! Can't anyone tell me what's wrong with it?! Maybe the site is temporarily down for upgrades, but I don't know what's wrong with it! --Angeldeb82 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the big deal? It'll be up when it's up. Rklawton 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely disconnected

Find A Grave.com is completely disconnected from the internet! And it has happened for 40 minutes!!! When will this site return to connection?! I miss the site and I want it back, please! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please bring back the Find A Grave Forums!!! It's been disconnected for four hours and nothing gets done!!! Unless someone fixes it soon, it's broken forever! :( --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Three popups

This site is pretty overloaded with pop-ups, one of them tries to install an "online" player. There should be a policy for adding Web sites with so many popups and ads. That's not quality for a reliable encyclopedia article. ► robomod 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I block all popups - it's still a very ad-overloaded site. One reason why I only add it when I feel that the info there adds to the value of the encyclopedia. But still, when it does, we need to acknowledge sources. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that but sometimes a link to findagrave may be inappropriate. Must be hard for the relatives to see an image of their child between adsense blocks on a site called "find a grave", as it happens with Ruslana Korshunova right now edit:removed ► robomod 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The website is completely broken!

The Find A Grave website has been broken for HOURS! It happened from yesterday and we could still log on to the forums, but at 5:55 PM EDT, everything is shut down, including the forums! I can't even log on at the main page anymore, and it says, "[an error occurred while processing this directive]". It's been nearly 4 hours now, and STILL nothing gets done! Can the admins please fix the whole website so we can get back on? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Website disconnected for hours!

The Find A Grave website is completely disconnected for hours! Something is TRULY wrong with the website, and we can't connect to it for hours! Is there a way to fix the entire website so that we can get back in again?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just found out from Jim: there was a power outage on the website that lasted for over 5 and a half hours, from 4:00 PM EST to about 9:45 PM. I like to thank him and the admins for fixing the website! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

References

I've added several references which can be used for inline cites from: The Guardian, 14 July 2004; Los Angeles Times, 26 August 1997; The Orlando Sentinel, 12 July 2001; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 August 2005. Apart from The Guardian, all are subscription access, but the free extracts from the articles have a fair amount of material. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism removed

I removed the following section:

The website breaks international and certainly EU privacy laws. It contains grave details for those who wish their information to remain private. Take for example the case of Jade Goody, whose family specifically requested that they be left in peace. Along comes "Find a Grave" posting photographs of the place where she is buried, with GPS location and Google maps coorinates. This character containing grave details of the famous as a "hobby" is either (a) the fantasy of a complete lunatic or (b) the doing of a selfish heartless biggot.

My reason for removing it isn't that I disagree with it, but that the paragraph contains a) a legal opinion, b) a statement about a specific family's wishes and what Find-A-Grave did with that, and c) a personal attack. All these are without sources. a) and b) can be re-added if adequate reliable sources can be found; c) has no place on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the entry in question. My goodness, what an unlikely poster child for privacy concerns! In any case, I doubt even the EU takes much interest in privacy for the dead. My guess is that the anon who posted the "criticism" was joking. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What a truly ironic claim! I did not recognize the name before, but even I have heard about her... --Alvestrand (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Information on the site is often unsourced. Someone I know has been trying to get inaccurate burial information removed for a person but has hit a brick wall with the requests. So I would be sceptical about any unsourced information on the site i.e. if there is no exact date of death and burial and no exact burial place then it is probably a guess and can be ignored. --jmb (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination, and it *never* lists sources. I've been using it as a source of claims that "this person exists", and have taken dates of birth/death from the site when those were missing from corresponding Wikipedia articles - but when Wikipedia and F-A-G are in conflict, I believe what's already on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"EU privacy laws" (by way of agreeing with the deletion of the criticism) don't seem to be an issue here. First, Find A Grave is based in the US and isn't subject to EU laws. Second, Germany (for example) has a fairly restrictive privacy law (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) and nonetheless has similar sites (e.g., http://www.elcom-stadler.de/friedhof/). Third, cemeteries are publicly accessible places, and so it's reasonable to assume that the information available in them is of a public nature (which of course wouldn't necessarily apply to additional information that a user might add). Doremo (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Someone's moved this article from Find A Grave to Find a Grave, citing "MOS" (I assume Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), but can't see it speaking directly to mid-name "a"). I don't agree - no matter what common usage of capitalization in proper names is, the Web site uses a capital A in describing itself, and I think it's reasonable to follow this usage unless we can document extensive usage with the other capitalization. Comments? --Alvestrand (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Plastikspork (talk · contribs) moved the article, I had originally tagged the redirect for speedy deletion to make way for a move. I did this because 'a' is an article, and articles are always lowercase if they aren't the first or last word in the title. I don't find that the capitalization the Web site uses is relevant because they don't seem to follow the normal rules of capitalization (evidence can be seen on the homepage as they capitalize "to" sometimes, while at other times they don't). I can't say I see a lot of articles that don't follow the Manual of Style, even if they capitalize articles in their titles, and I don't see why this article should be exempt to the manual of style. — Σxplicit 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Explicit, can you give me a reference for the article rule? I'm not a native English speaker, so these things don't come naturally to me. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:CAPS explains this in the third paragraph. — Σxplicit 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This move violates WP:CAPS and needs to be reverted. This is the proper name of a company. Ford Motor Company is correct. Ford motor company is not. 2005 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? How is moving Find A Grave to Find a Grave violate WP:CAPS? — Σxplicit 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. It's the first sentence! "...do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun." "Find A Grave" is the name of the company that they use all over the Web site. As I said above, Ford Motor Company is correct. Ford motor company is not. We aren't here to tell Ford or Find A Grave how to name their companies! Anyway, CAPS is plainly clear, and its standard procedure throughout the encyclopedia. Company names are what they are. 2005 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I may be missing something here, but I don't understand your argument. Yes, the lead says to not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun. The second word, 'a', is not a proper noun, rather an article, and shouldn't be capitalized, as stated in WP:CAPS. — Σxplicit 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The article not about how to find graves. "A" is part of the title of the company. They and the sources that are footnoted, refer to it as "Find A Grave". This is not an article title with three separate words, it is the official, proper name of an entity. "Motor" is not a proper noun either, but it is when a part of "Ford Motor Company". CAPS states it succinctly that it should be capitalized, and it has been for years, and it's not our business to rename companies, so it needs to be reverted to the proper name and proper title. 2005 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're speaking of the "Notes" section, yes, they capitalize the 'A', mainly because three of the four sources are Find a Grave itself. Two of the four sources under "References" don't capitalize (The Guardian and Access My Library), while the other two just refer to the site as findagrave.com. Further research shows that other publications and Web sites also don't capitalize the 'a', including xxx, The Seattle Times, Baltimore City Paper, Minneapolis City Pages, among many, many others. I think WP:CAPS still applies here. — Σxplicit 01:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't clickthrough, so didn't see the notes were self-notes (pretty lame Notes section...), but that just emphasizes the point. The "Find A Grave" Web site refers to itself as "Find A Grave". Lots of places say simply "Yahoo", but our article is "Yahoo!" because that is what the company somewhat oddly wants to call itself. Likewise, if they called themselves "Find A GraVe", we should have the article spelled like that, as we do with many ExampleWords.com articles. 2005 (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Personally, I feel the Web site referring to itself "Find A Grave" holds little weight. The Make-a-Wish Foundation also capitalizes the 'a' on their Web site, but in the article here, it doesn't (Make-a-Wish Foundation). As for the Yahoo! example, I feel that the fact it's referred to as Yahoo without the exclamation mark is just informality, considering the homepage does include the exclamation mark (I think capitalization and special characters are an entirely different discussion). It doesn't seem we'll be agreeing, as I'm for WP:CAPS while you're for the way the Web site refers itself as. Perhaps we should seek a third opinion? — Σxplicit 03:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, third opinion won't work since there are four editors involved. After reviewing the arguments, I find myself agreeing with Explicit, so we appear to be at an impasse. dispute resolution lists the steps if you want to go further. Plastikspork (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
D'oh. That's what I meant, not third opinion. My mistake. — Σxplicit 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Third paragraph states In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), .... I don't think WP:CAPS is going to entirely answer the question. After all, see e. e. cummings, which overrides the authors "preference" for all lowercase. I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think Ford Motor Company applies as there is no "article" in that title. Plastikspork (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And all first letters are capitalized in articles, so e.e. cummings is like it is, but again notice both the second "e" and "cummings" are not capitalized per his usage. C'mon this is pretty darn clear. The guideline says to capitlize proper names. "Find A Grave" is a proper name. It's how the company calls itself. It is one of the two ways the footnote sites refer to the company (also as Findagrave.com, which seems a better article title anyway). 2005 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you think CAPS is not clear, then there are two choices, the style they use "Find A Grave", or a style used in many articles about Web sites, "Findagrave.com". Choosong a way to refer to them that no one else does doesn't seem logical at all. (In a similar fashion, we don't correct the spelling of Web sites that mispell names; we use what they consider their official name/spelling.) 2005 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the Web site, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=whois, it is referred to as "Find A Grave" in several spots. Let's use what they use as they are the ultimate answer, and not spend time WP rule warring. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not a question of Wikipedia style or the uninformed opinions of those who slavishly follow the style guidelines. The legal name of the site is "Find A Grave", and it is the property of "Find A Grave, Inc.". See the Privacy Statement on the site. It should be called "Find A Grave" on Wikipedia as well. — QuicksilverT @ 19:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Scano Grave

COSTANTINO 1904-1972 John 1938-1987 Antoinette 1909-1995 James 1944-1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.99.236 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Added to References

While discussions were on going Find a Grave was added as a reference (Notes). I am sure this is an over-sight and needs correcting. Also there is a link to a forum (FAQ) and a bold URL to Find a Grave in the same section. Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources

Not a fan of this site at all - but that does not mean we should not try to fix the problems with the article. I see that there is nothing realy out there about there reliability and i would guess its because they are very open about this fact at Accuracy and Copyright Disclaimer. So going to be hard to talk about this if there is no references for it -plus is it normal to do so in the first place?. I did find some stuff that might help with the current tag.Moxy (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The Online Genealogy Handbook By Brad Schepp, Debra Schepp page 116, Sterling 2008 ISBN 1402752555
  • Net.people: the personalities and passions behind the Web sites By Thomas E. Bleier, Eric C. Steinert pages 167-171 CyberAge Books, 1999 ISBN 0910965374
  • Find info like a pro: mining the Internet's publicly available resources for ... By Carole A. Levitt, Mark E. Rosch. page 17 American Bar Association, 2010 ISBN 9781604428902
I agree we should try and find some other resources than the site. It seems like there was a news article of some length mentioning the history of the site and some of the issues in the pat but I can't seem to find it. I believe it was in one of the Salt Lake City papers but I can't remember. --Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all. There are problems is what I am saying and these need to be addressed. It appears there is consensus on this.
I am the second editor that states the article reads like an advertisement as well as the second with concerns of source. The source problem was addressed so if an edit to address the advertisement issue is not very timely please put that tag back. Also, if anyone cares to admit that the lead is not only too short it is the first instant of the beginning of an advertisement then the lead tag is also proper. Am I the only editor that sees that the article is certainly slanted and deserves a NPOV tag? Would any other article slanted as such warrant the tag? Prose is also mentioned and I agree. From what I see a multi-tag was certainly proper. The reason for tags are to call attention to problems and there is consensus that there are actually many problems with the article.
Kumioko is right. The fact that there is information worth writing about, concerning the links to find a Grave on Wikipedia, are notable but lacking reference is the inclusion problem not the fact that it should not be used.
  • I think Moxy needs to chill with accusations. When using words like bullying and disruption of Wikipedia care should be taken especially when other edits show that a disruption actually occurred by removing valid tags. Regardless of opinion or reasoning the removal of valid tags, especially without consensus, is also not how Wikipedia works. I actually like Find a Grave and IMBd. I have proved this in defending use of the sites on Wikipedia. This means that part of, "A POV that the site sucks" is wrong. The part about the BBB was also not interpreted at all. I stated, "In fact by taking out the only other view (and rightly) by renaming the BBB section..." Please note in parenthesis the words and rightly. This means that I agree that the renaming was proper. It also still means that taking this wrongly placed information out of the only section that attempted to show neutrality renders the site now totally lacking NPOV. Tags have been removed for years without improvements. This is not supposition but fact. My address was that if edits left the site lacking NPOV I would tag the article and I did. A needed re-read will show that my concern was edits that removed tags not edits in particular. What has been called a threat was the fact that I would seek resolution if tags were improperly taken off.
I would like to ask that editors simply ask for clarification before assuming bad faith and instead assume good faith. I think I read somewhere that this is policy. I did edit with a reference but that was reverted (and rightly) as being improper. I also edited with a POV that was reverted. This is not the issue. How far back would you like to go in the article history to see that tags on a poorly written and sourced article have disappeared, much like ones now. Personal attacks (especially when things were misinterpreted) aside, please replace the multiple tags template with the appropriate tags that certainly includes consensus. Otr500 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you show us were you believe the article is not neutral? As for the Lead tag - do you rely think its necessary on an article that is so small?. As for the "include all significant viewpoints" tag whos point of view is missing as i dont even see any pov in the article to begin with. Moxy (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Second the call for being specific about what statements are not NPOV. The article's been shortened a few times to remove unsourced material. But time might be better spent inserting or referencing material from the four references cited above - in the US, they seem to be all viewable from the Google Books links. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure who "us" ("Could you show us") is but one instance concerning neutrality, "Why I love ... findagrave.com" is listed as a reference and please note the word love. I then found a link, **(redacted blacklisted URLs)**], that shows some don't love Find a Grave. This is just one instance (I haven't look at if it can be used) that shows there are some that do not "love" the site. Inclusion of a reference slanting in that direction should fairly point out (neutrality) the opposite (of which there appear to be some) but NPOV is missing. There is a review posted here that might be relevant.
Concerning the lead it was asked, "do you rely think its necessary on an article that is so small?", and my answer is yes. It is not my fault that the article is so short (or the lead), possibly because notability issues for available references, or because the article needs more work, but the opinion still stands including that the article reads like an advertisement. I posted tags that are meant to bring these concerns to editor's attention and all were removed (one replaced) with no explanation save the edit summary that I was disrupting Wikipedia. The reasoning for removal was rebutted with an explanation and there are other editors that chimed in concerning some of the other tags that were noted. I have asked that the tags be replaced with the reasoning and have supplied more. I also seconded the mention of prose. It was commented, "but that does not mean we should not try to fix the problems with the article", and I agree, which is why the article deserved the tags. Tags are meant to call editors attention to the fact that there are issues (multiple in this case) to resolve.
Since "time might be better spent inserting or referencing material" is a good idea there were possible references listed but no action, so what about these? I have listed reasons why I placed the tags, and there is verification other than Wikipedia disruption, which is why I asked for the proper tags to be reinstated on the article until the issues mentioned be resolved. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no need for a long drawn out conversation about this article. The "Why I love ... findagrave.com" is used becuase it is the title of the article the information is sourced from. If you find other sources to use then use them as you would any other article. There is no need to bring the discussions of whether Find a grave should be used on articles here. Aside from that argument the site is notable and should have an article on Wikipedia regardless of whether its used on the articles or not. I also want to note that the genealogy-websites.no1reviews.com link provided takes me to a site that my computer says is an untrusted site and shouldn't be used due to its history of using exploitive software. --Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Why I love ... " is an article from guardian.co.uk, an UK newspaper site generally regarded as a WP:RS. The article is signed by Nick Johnstone, has a publication date, and was presumably published under the Guardian's editorial policy. It's cited, as far as I can tell, because it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. I don't have a problem with that, no matter what the article actually says. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Note to Kumioko: My AVG anti-virus and the IE SmartScreen Filter looked at genealogy-websites.no1reviews.com and did NOT find any threats.--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright?

FAG is gathering and hosting an immense historic community database about dead people. Like WP itself, the content is contributed by hordes of unpaid volunteers. There may be issues about what the Web site owners do with this information, how much money they make in what ways. But a more fundamental key issue, that should be covered in WP articles such as this, is what the long-term copyright status is of the contributed information -- what is the public allowed to do with the information? Are the contributing volunteers really working together to build a community resource, or just something private-proprietary-restricted?-96.237.8.174 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a host of concerns with Find a Grave. It has continually been used as an only source to create new articles against Wikipedia policy. When used as an external source yet an only source disguised as an external link, with copyrights not being attributed, anyone can rest assure that there are copyright concerns as well as flagrant WP violations.

There is a project at WP:External links/Perennial websites and a discussion on the talk page concerning the many issues. An edit concerning the controversy was reverted on this article. Per WP:Neutral point of view I am adding an edit about the concerns. If this is reverted I will be tagging the article as non-neutral, one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. I have no issues if someone wants to re-edit, or if someone wants to include this in the history section, but there are and have been community concerns for a long time so any attempts to bury this will be viewed as biased. Otr500 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how the fact that FIND A GRAVE is linked on many Wikipedia pages has anything to do with the sites article? The fact its spammed all over has nothing to do with the article page nor its it relevant for the encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia. Apparently the site Find a Grave warrants an article. This means that the information must adhere to certain guidelines. One of these guidelines is neutrality. It is of issue that there is a problem with the find a Grave site on Wikipedia. Either this information is a lie or not. Now, either article bias can be swayed because this truth just happens to involve Wikipedia or not. I suppose that Neutrality is not important if it involves Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has thousands of articles with links to Find A Grave is notable and inclusion gives opposing view to the now slanted article. In fact by taking out the only other view (and rightly) by renaming the BBB section, Moxy has now slanted the article all the way to the floor. I will tag the article and bring this to arbitration unless someone, and there should be a couple out of 200, will edit this article for neutrality. Otr500 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the tags ...I think you do not understand that the BBB has nothing to do with reliability. Its about there Business practices dealing with public complaints etc...not about the sites reliability and/or accuracy. So realy its you that is trying to add A POV that the site sucks (with no references i might add) and then saying if you cant get your way you will tag the article. Not how things are done here as we dont take kindly to threats or bulling. Moxy (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking from experience here: Find-a-grave is kind of like wikipedia except that whoever creates an article "owns" it unless they transfer it to another registered user, who then becomes its "owner". It's a useful reference, but it's not foolproof, in fact its text seems to be taken from wikipedia from time to time. The one part of it that I would consider reliable is its core fact base, namely the burial places and photos of the memorials of the individuals. The photos posted there could be from anywhere, so beware of copyrights. In fact, I think the gravesite photos are specifically copyrighted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course the gravesite photos are copyrighted to the photographers who took them and, in most cases, uploaded them to the site. However, other photos uploaded to the various memorials of the interees are in many cases already copyright infringements found in various Internet sites. FAG members play fast and loose when it comes to copyright recognition. 68.197.49.241 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Things like this needs, what Bugs says above, to be added to the article. There has to be sources that also show the short comings of this site. Most of the references in this article are Find a Grave sources. We shouldn't be using the sources from subject of the article. We need to find outside sources to replace a lot of the Find a Grave sources. I'm going out of town in a few hours and will only have minimal access to the site so I won't be able to do this or help until next week. This has to be done though to make the article follow policies and guidelines. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, this article reads like an advertisement. It needs less fluff and more meat to it. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree that a "reliable third-party publications tags" is good idea. Article space is not the place to discus the fact that the links are all over Wikipedia. As we have an essay called Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites that states some of the communities concerns over its use (over use) here on Wikipedia. Moxy (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal views about the use of this site on articles aside unless you can find a source that discusses the sites usage the ongoing debates of it then we don't need to discuss it in the article. I do agree that this article needs some work in sourcing and prose but we need to focus the discussion back to the EL discussion and not here. --Kumioko (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

I think it is misuse of the wikipedia site to have FIND A GRAVE links at the bottom of every dead celebrity page. If you want to use findagrave.com as a source for the burial location and put the burial location in the wikipedia article, fine. But linking to the site along with its advertisements, amazon.com referral links, etc. is really just supporting a business instead of an encyclopedia. I think all outside links to the findagrave.com web site other than the ones in this article itself should be removed. Jcc1 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. And it seems that you are referring to the use of the template {{Find a Grave}}, or its hardcoded equivalent, in the External links sections of articles. That discussion belongs elsewhere, possibly at Wikipedia talk:External links, as this talk page is supposed to be about its corresponding article page. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For every article where FAG is the best source of grave info (pic etc) for the individual the article is about, it makes sense for the article to have an FAG link of some sort. If there are other better sources of such info, great, than an FAG link is not needed... -96.237.8.174 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Many informative Web sites (e.g., The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, Time Magazine, The Economist, National Geographic, etc., etc.) carry advertising (and are for-profit businesses). I don't think it's possible to single out this cite on this basis. Doremo (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Find A Grave is becoming increasingly popular. Our son supported an Eagle Scout project with FAG. — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Histopolis

Another great source of cemetery details in the US is Histopolis -- please start an article for this.-96.237.8.174 (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Any progress to date? — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Competition

i think an additional section talking about other grave finding services could be helpful here. BillionGraves and TombFinder have both become fairly large recently and lots of talk has been generated on the Find a Grave forums about them and in other media. I don't know if either is notable enough yet to warrant their own articles, but maybe a mention here might be appropriate since they are all the same industry and trying to accomplish the same purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.44.78 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at both sites, and I would say that any mention, that would not just be advertising, would require verifiability with proper sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/BillionGraves

Do the two work together? (BG & FAG) — We'll ask at [6] — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad Experience

My brief experience with Find A Grave is that many contributors as so busy racing to add memorials from obits online of people they do not know, that they make large numbers of mistakes, and are insulted and angered when asked to correct their data.

My experience on their forum is that moderators and members are quick to attack and judge members who are simply asking for advice and clarification of the rules.

This is not a nice place to be apart of if you are looking for a nice community to join. Dreamcraftmw (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

"This business is not a BBB Accredited Business."
"Find A Grave Inc has a BBB Rating of C-"

This is a very large Web site with a large number of unpaid volunteer contributors. Over the years, some have gotten very upset, over controversy and conflict in the forum, allegedly arbitrary actions by administrators particularly with regard to "memorials" and "privacy" concerns of families and relations regarding recent deaths.**(redacted blacklisted URLs)** 

Company Name Find A Grave Inc
Headquarter 360 West 4800 North
Provo, UT 84604
Phone Number +1.801-705-7000
Industry Business Services
Ownership Privately Held

-96.237.8.174 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How does this info improve the article? Actually, the BBB rating on FAG is A+, not the C- as stated above. The lack of a BBB Accreditation has not impacted FAG's receiving an A+ rating. (The lack of accreditation is now mentioned in the article.) **(redacted blacklisted URLs)** is a blog. **(redacted blacklisted URLs)** gives FAG a "5 star" rating, although it does not explain the rating system and seems geared to posting complaints only without the balance of kudos.--S. Rich (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as of today, the Utah BBB site has the following rating. It improves the article because the listing verifies the official name of the company, the name of the owner, and the address of the company:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findagravesux (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[Rating data from BBB redacted. Per their policy: "BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes." – S. Rich (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)]

http://www.bbb.org/utah/business-reviews/cemetery-equipment-suppliers/find-a-grave-in-salt-lake-city-ut-22270560
For the "a is an article, not a capitalizeable word" people, you'll note that even the BBB acknowledges the company's prefered name of "Find A Grave".
Thanks, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

BBB data -- is inclusion in article or here proper?

Various editors (perhaps WP:SPAs) have been reproducing data from the BBB on this page. Full details as to the BBB's ratings are being posted, but I do not see justification for including these details. Specifically, how is the data related to article improvement? The BBB does not permit use of its' info for promotional purposes. I submit that posting its' info here, in the article, or anywhere on WP is improper. Comments on this talk page are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)14:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Wikipedia:Fag. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar names?

In searching, I find that there are also sites: findagrave.org and findagrave.net. If these are somehow related to findagrave.com, then they deserve a mention in the article, or at least outlinks. If they are spoof-sites, which entrap and infect/track unwary visitors, this is also worthwhile information, and this article might be the correct forum for a warning.

Also, previous comparisons/references in the 'capitalization' discussion to the exclamation point in Yahoo!, Inc. 's official name did not mention that Yahoo! did not start out with the exclamation point. There was a question of tradename infringement (Yahoo chocolate soda), and the exclamation point was added to differentiate between the tradenames. I read this either on Wikipedia, or on an official Yahoo! site. Rags (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per Wikipedia's house style. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Find a Grave → Find A Grave – Name is "Find A Grave" on website and all other sources, cannot move to requested target due to limitations of the moving tool. -Liancetalk/contribs 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Find a Grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Member #48438402

Why is my member # the same as a deceased person's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.170.118 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the site has (at least) three sets of objects that they assign numbers to: members, memorials, and cemeteries. Member 42 is not the same as memorial (grave) 42, and neither are the same as cemetery 42.
In the current scheme, member IDs are as noted in URLs as "MRid", memorials as "GRid", and cemeteries as "CRid".--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Find a Grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's editorial policy on using the Findagrave as a reference, see ...

This was removed as saying "This is an enecyclopedia for readers, not for editors. Keep this out of article space"

For Wikipedia's editorial policy on using the Findagrave as a reference, see Wikipedia:Citing Find a Grave

Yet right below it is the template used by editors. We have over 5,000 template:selfref wikipedia policy guides as hatnotes, so I am not sure why this one was deleted. --RAN (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, the edit you reference was removing the template link, which I restored in the very next edit a few minutes later. I don't think that we should be linking to templates from article space, but it seems to be common, so I'm not going to argue about it. As for the hatnote for using Find a Grave as a reference, you added it here, it was removed by Michael Bednarek here, you restored it here, I removed it again here, and Michael Bednarek reverted my other changes but left out that hatnote here. So two editors have disagreed with your hatnote. Rather than adding it again, you need to get consensus for its inclusion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Pls read over WP:ADMINP and WP:ITSELF. The {{Selfref}} is used to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page.....not to a template we are activity removing all over Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave --Moxy (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of "a" in "Find a Grave"

I've restored the lowercase "a" in "Find a Grave" per the consensus at § Requested move 13 November 2015, which cites MOS:TM and MOS:CT. If editors want to capitalize the "a", please submit a requested move for the article title before changing the capitalization. — Newslinger talk 02:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already asked for the article to be renamed. The name of the website and the company is "Find A Grave". This is not a style or grammar issue. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot to check the technical move requests. — Newslinger talk 05:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Find_a_Grave/Archive_1&oldid=1094884358"