Jump to content

Talk:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale)

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

Untitled

[edit]

I don't know where this would fit in the article, but here goes:

The first of Forest Lawn's reproductions of DAVID was shattered by an earthquake. The replacement was positioned on a layer of Teflon, then a newly invented and promoted substance. The park management opined that in the event of another earthquake the statue would merely slide over the tremors and remain intact. It didn't work.--Saxophobia 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: Any complete article on Forest Lawn should mention Tom Paxton's satirical song of the same name, covered by John Denver... maybe under Critical Commentary or a new In popular culture section. Thoughts? Mahler3 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy drawl ...

[edit]

A number of interment locations are also kept from the public eye. Perfect, up to here; I'd liked to have the section ended HERE. But now: The Court of Honor advertises that in some of the crypts beneath it are spots which no amount of money can buy, but individuals may be "voted in" as "Immortals." Am I the only one to regard the latter phrase as fantasy-fiction-style drawl. Immortals? Ah yes, and if you are one of the "privileged" individuals, you can probably find mages living in these crypts which can still make the earth shake by a spell? Well, then they could as well resurrect the dead again. ;) -andy 92.230.10.22 (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a section of floor crypts reserved for -so called- Immortals. Two people interred here are Dr. Eaton (The Founder), and Jan Styka, the artist who painted the large "Crucifixtion" painting (which is the largest Oil-on-canvass painting in the world). Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Skelton

[edit]

Though Mr. Skelton's private room is indeed behind the gate in an area where the public is not admitted, it is easily seen from the public area as it is the first room behind the gate, which does not block the view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Michael Jackson

[edit]

Could people please stop adding him until it is clear that he will be buried there? I mean, it is good enough to add him when he is actually there, six feet under.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

[edit]

Hi, Could someone please change Michael Jackson's entry to say that his plot is not viewable by the public, verification can be found on http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_en_mu/us_michael_jackson_funeral. Thanks! Trifecta dogs (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Trifecta Dogs[reply]

That's covered in the last paragraph of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous burials

[edit]

Since the most of the article is composed of a long list of famous or notable people who are buried at Forest lawn, what purpose is served by this partial list? Are these burials (as opposed to the people being buried) particularly famous?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed this and a similar list.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the list of all "famous" people at the bottom of the page is exhaustive, it proves to be difficult for the average reader to sift out the most famous or household name burials at Forest Lawn, Glendale. The summary list earlier in the article provides the reader with the opportunity to view the most famous and notable burials at the cemetery without having to dedicate a significant amount of time to reading all of the hundreds of "famous" burials in the list latter in the article. --Rcs1898 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That's an interesting point, but the list does not seem to be restricted to "the most famous or households name burials". By no stretch of the imagination is Marc Davis (animator) among the most famous people buried there. According to whom is Ian Hornak a household name?   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as there are household name celebrities within other media listed in the summary list, it is also important for the only two visual artists collected by the Smithsonian Institution and other leading museums who are buried at Forest Lawn to be listed Gutzon Borglum and Ian Hornak. --Rcs1898 —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Most of the other names are not household names within other media; they are household names, period. I do agree with Wil that the list should be shortened or removed altogether. I'd say maybe L. Frank Baum, Walt Disney, and either George Burns or Jimmy Stewart are famous enough to the average layman to warrant mention in the intro. Just my opinion, though; I'm sure we could come up with some impartial standard to narrow the list down if it's really necessary to keep it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I am outnumbered on this one! Hopefully the list can stay even if edited in the manner that Kafziel has described. --Rcs1898 —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's all a collaboration.
Some of the names are clearly borderline, such as (bless her heart) Norma Shearer. But for the rest it's rather hard to say which names are the most famous. As a quick and easy proxy for relative notability, I suggest using the Wikipedia page views from a recent month, like December 2010.[1] Then we can list the five or ten with the highest numbers. It's a bit arbitrary, but it's easily confirmed and objective. There's no need to include a separate list for internments in private areas - we can just say they exist.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea Will Beback! Either you make the edit or I will when I get some free time... --Rcs1898 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to decide how many names to include. Excluding Michael Jackson, whose burial really was famous, there are 30 names listed in that section now. Would 10 be a sufficient number?   Will Beback  talk  19:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten seems reasonable to me. The "page views" system sounds good, too. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we draw the line at 50,000 hits that gives us ten names, marked with an asterisk. I scanned the full list to see if there might be anyone who'd qualify but I didn't see any obvious candidates.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your selection of ten candidates from the list appears to be very acceptable. Great work! --Rcs1898 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but just want to point out a discrepancy (which is related, considering her place on the list): Lucille Ball is not interred at Forest Lawn Glendale, and she never was. She was once at Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills but was later moved to New York. Looks like someone added her to the listings in error (that sort of thing happens all the time) and it was overlooked. I'll fix it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to reflect the new list and since Lucille Ball has been excluded from the list, I included Jean Harlow (the next highest on the list above) so that that the article would include ten people as we agreed upon. The next thing that I would like to discuss is forming separate section of the article for the Great Mausoleum. As I am sure that you know, the Great Mausoleum is a tremendously important part of Forest Lawn's history and it contains to many of the most desirable and expensive interment places in the Park. Also, Court of Honor mentioned in the Famous Burials section is in the Great Mausoleum. What are your thoughts? --Rcs1898 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but if we keep separating burials out into sections it does have a "slippery slope" potential to turn into a directory. As long as we don't spend too much time pointing out who's buried where it should be fine. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree! I think that we could even leave Michael Jackson in the Famous Burials section and simply talk about the history of the Great Mausoleum and explain what it is in the special section for it. --Rcs1898 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

† may be misconstrued as a Christian symbol

[edit]

I changed 43 uses of the dagger (†) to the abbreviation NP, meaning Non Public, because some of the people so marked were not Christians, and the symbol can be misconstrued as a Christian cross. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody called NP "terrible." Not very nice language to use when another editor tries to do something positive. If anybody has a better idea, please use it. And, besides, how do we know these particular graves are Not Public? Is there a Source? I didn't see any. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about using an asterisk?   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisk good, dagger bad. Go ahead, Will Beback! Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

[edit]

Changing the list into columns messes up the formatting and makes it difficult to browse alphabetically. It is also the reason that the images had to be scaled down, which would in turn force readers to click through to the file page to be able to see any kind of detail. A gallery isn't a good solution; the images illustrate specific graves on the list and were placed accordingly. All the other cemetery articles are formatted as single lists for the same reasons. See Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills, Hollywood Forever, Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, or any number of others.

A noble effort—I can certainly appreciate the time it took—and I do think the other changes are good. I'm just going to go through and put the list & pics back while leaving all the rest of the recent changes intact. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter to me, really. It was challenging to do. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Carpenter

[edit]

Karen Carpenter rested here for 20 years. I have added her into the list of notable interments as she deserves mentions here Bigbaddan1977 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to split the article?

[edit]
Looks like there is unanimous consensus to WP:SPLIT the article. However, due to a lack of discussion, there is no clear consensus about the name of the article. More discussion would be helpful. (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I'm not a huge fan of splitting articles and creating content forks, but this article is insanely long. We really should turn the list of notable internees into it's own article/list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and believe there would be no objections, though I am not sure what the title of the article would be. See https://www.verywell.com/inurnment-vs-interment-vs-internment-3972242 . BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the split. Perhaps List of notable internments at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale), or List of notable interments at Forest Lawn Memorial Parks and put them all in the one place, separated by cemetery? --Killer Moff (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, per Killer Moff. The article consists of a short article and a long list. It would be simple and sensible to split it into an article and a list. The list is long enough to merit a Glendale-specific list rather than a generic Forest Lawn one. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lists for each Forest Lawn cemetery should be created only when they are sufficiently long, as this one is. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split ok. I also approve--and have changed the spelling accordingly--Interment, rather than Internment, as I found it in the article when responding to this RfC. I (humbly) recommend the changed spelling for the spinoff article as well. DonFB (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Agreed, it's too long in the page as is. Also, the heading needs to be spell-checked as the n is missing in internment :) --John, AF4JM (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 FixedL3X1 (distant write) 15:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Title of new article

[edit]

I have closed the RFC above as there is unanimous consensus. However, please discuss the title of the new article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging respondents (Ad Orientem—BeenAroundAWhile—Killer Moff—Scolaire—DonFB—AF4JM—L3X1—Itsmejudith) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respondent responding. List of notable interments at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) I think this is a good title because:
It includes the word notable, which will help us when vandals/others try to add non-sourcable non-notable listings. Should we make the GNG for this bluelink?
It has the full name of the cemetery, to prevent confusion.
The only other option is List of notable people buried at…, but internment is a much better word than people buried. 13:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Internments looks good to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Scolaire. L3X1 (distant write) 20:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all agreed so I've gone ahead and created the new page as per the suggestion on the article. How do we want to treat the section here? Just as a redirect to main article? There has been some talk about keeping a list of the most notable people here, but do we have consensus on who they are?--Killer Moff (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that even a small section of the "most notable" in this article would gradually expand; keeping such a section could be an invitation to a series of lengthy (and mostly pointless) debates. I suggest eliminating the section completely and putting a Hatnote at the top of the article with the linked title of the notables list. DonFB (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just write a very short blurb, 2-3 sentences noting that many people have been planted in the cemetery with a see main article notice for the list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted New Page accepted L3X1 (distant write) 14:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the section for now. A short paragraph can easily be added if desired. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 questions:

Should I copy any of this discussion to the talk page of List of notable interments at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale)?
Should we put a {{collapse}} on the 209 references so the page is easier to use?
Should I post these and any future questions on the split's talk page instead of here? Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but there is a procedure at WP:PROSPLIT that should have been followed. In particular, when the new article was created, there should have been a link to this article in the edit summary, of the form "split content from [[article name]]", in order to preserve attribution. This should now be done using a dummy edit as set out in WP:RIA (repairing insufficient attribution), and ideally it should be done by Killer Moff, who created the page.
To answer the questions you actually asked: (1) I will add a {{Copied}} template to the talk pages. I see no need to copy any discussion on whether to create the article and what to call it, seeing it has already been created with that name.
(2) I've never heard of a References section being collapsed. What you could do, if you were prepared to do the work, would be to reduce the title in each ref from "John Doe (1900 - 1950) - Find a Grave Memorial" to just "John Doe" without the quotation marks (findagrave.com is already in the ref), and reduce the larger names e.g. from "Mischa Romanovich Bakaleinikoff" to "Mischa Bakaleinikoff"; this would allow you to change {{reflist}} to {{reflist|30em}}, which would give multiple columns.
(3) Any future questions about the list article should go on that article's talk page, and any future discussion about the currently blanked section in this article should go on this talk page.
Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. first time I've done a split and created a new article. I've made the dummy edit and added the link now. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale). 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) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Forest Lawn Cemetery (Cathedral City) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_Lawn_Memorial_Park_(Glendale)&oldid=1195135233"