Talk:Gravestone

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 19 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Headstone to Gravestone. The result of the discussion was moved.

R.I.P

"Rest in Peace" redirects to here, but there is no mention of "Rest in Peace" in the entire article. TheDavesr 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain 19th century headstones?

I have removed the statement:

In the 19th century, headstones tended to have no decoration. However, from the 20th century, they might be replaced by more elaborately carved markers, such as crosses or angels.

recently added by User:Verica Atrebatum. Where are all these plain, unadorned Victorian headstones? ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, please. SiGarb | Talk 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the statement was probably a bit strong. I was trying to make the point that older stones usually have some form of carved emblematic decoration, where as Victorian ones are much more diverse and don't necessarily. I'll see if I can find some sort of reference. Verica Atrebatum 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

The name on the black headstone in the gallery was blurred out to obscure the name, but it's still legible, at least the first and middle name. Just wanted to let you know... :) --Vlmastra 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headstones causing injury

The statement removed, although refering to a rare indicident, is not actually nonsense. There has been considerable publicity in the UK concerning a health and safety crackdown to prevent such incidents, although the risk has been largely exaggerated. You can read a letter from the chief of the Health and Safety Commission concerning the matter online. Verica Atrebatum 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism

Some of these interpretations seem pretty arbitrary -- it would be nice to trace these to a WP:RS. DavidOaks (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of gravestones

There's absolutely zero history about the use of rocks as grave markers. Did stones start being used to mark graves in the 11th century? Or was it before homo sapiens and Neanderthals split? Or did Neanderthals invent it and humans got the idea from them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.89.176 (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery tagged

Why was the gallery tagged as being inappropriate? While I get that Wikipedia is not a photo repository the policy reads: "[Wikipedia is not] Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles". There is text describing headstones from around the world and according to WP:IG, a gallery is appropriate "in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". What the gallery here shows is how different headstones can be from country to country and belief to belief, while I agree that there are a few images that could be removed or expanded on with a history of the stone, it doesn't seem to be a place where people just randomly insert photos of graves which is mainly why galleries are discouraged. Bhall87 ^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 03:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Chrisemms (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I removed the tag with the explanation that the gallery illustrates the concept of "headstone." --Utilizer (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lying gravestones?

Can a gravestone be lying or does it have to be standing in order to be a gravestone? —Kri (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines "gravestone" as a stone slab set at the head of a grave and Merriam-Webster defines it as a burial monument so based on those definitions as long as the stone is marking a grave it is considered a gravestone. Bhall87 ^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 03:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. —Kri (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

I've edited the opening to be a tad more encyclopedic, but think it could do with a bit of touching up, don't think my work is the best it could be. Wootcannon (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the gallery

to be a bit random (and I am usually pro-random, so it must be (opinion) pretty bad). I am considering dividing the gallery into country of origin and seeing what it looks like at that point. Then perhaps chronologically within each country? Any thoughts? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit confused as to exactly what in the second image (Singapore) is the headsone? Just the book? Does it include the frame? And how about the statue? Is that a part of the "headstone?" Left to my own devises I would remove the image, but I am not alone here (am I?) so will wait a bit for more opinions. Carptrash (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, all true - I removed the statue anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo

I have come across this unusual gravemarker and feel, since I have never seen the like before, it might be unique enough to be included here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpriv2000 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are generally known as "graveboards". They were fairly common at one time in south-east England, and often appear in old prints and photos, but not many survive. I'm not aware of much literature about them, but there is a survey/study project currently under way organised by Colin Bowlt of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society: you might want to email him (c.bowlt@tiscali.co.uk) to make sure he knows about this one. GrindtXX (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have forwarded the picture. Russ Hamer 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpriv2000 (talk • contribs)

Any References to "Headbore"?

I'm coming from Bábonymegyer where the word 'headbore' is linked to 'headstone' and directed here. Are there any references, even Hungarian published/translated ones, that lend credence to that decision?

Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Tombstone" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tombstone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was silly. — LlywelynII 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move to Gravestone (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headstone → tombstone – Dear God, no.

(a) Not all gravestones are headstones.

(b) This isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue. Tombstone is by far the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for gravestones in every dialect of English (1, 2, 3).

(c) Tombstone already (appropriately) links here, so this isn't any form of WP:NATURALDAB either. (If one were needed, which it ain't, funeral stela/stele would actually cover more ground and be more appropriate for cremated remains &c.) — LlywelynII 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support gravestone as an alternative. Killuminator (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative use gravestone instead. Not all of them are attached to tombs. Or grave marker, since not all of them are stone. Metal or wood crosses or posts are frequently used. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @65.92.244.237 and GrindtXX: For what it's worth, tombstone doesn't mean a stone attached to a tomb in any dialect of English (1, 2, 3). As linked, it's just the most common way to say gravestone among other English speakers, even if y'all yourselves think of tomb as a structure rather than a place. (Itself nonstandard. The older and still frequently default meaning of tomb is any grave, any place for the interment of the dead [1, 2, 3] and that's the sense being used by many native speakers when they talk about tombstones.) Since it is the more common term among most English speakers in all dialects, yeah, that's really where the article should be parked even if it feels 'off' given the way you parse it. — LlywelynII 05:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikt:en:grave / wikt:en:tomb, yet the term grave is more appropriate, since you can set up a gravestone without digging the hole in the first place (the tomb). As some have set up gravestones in cemeteries, but in which the body was never recovered. It marks were the plot was purchased, and set up, and is now a memorial marker. Here this uses the diction for grave meaning death -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Gravestone". I was going to say something similar to the IP. I agree with the nominator "Headstone" is much too narrow. Strictly speaking, the article is about extramural grave markers, in a variety of media. However, "Grave marker" is a slightly obscure term that few readers are likely to search for. A "Tombstone" is part of a "tomb", which implies some kind of solidly built structure, more than just a grave. "Gravestone" is a bit broader, and seems the best compromise. GrindtXX (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of OR there, no? A tombstone is not so much "part of a tomb" as a substitute for one. Whatever we go for, I think the subject is "Foostone", not wooden or metal crosses etc. "Grave marker", probably a technical term in cemetery management etc is both rather obscure, and too broad. I agree "extramural" is a key part of the definition, but User:LlywelynII doesn't - he reverted me when I added it to the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the bit of OR. Tombstones aren't substitutes for tombs either. They're just the most common way to talk about any grave marker in any pretty much any format. (E.g., ... "tombstone was a wooden" ... does bring back Google hits, including "wooden stake". It ain't what you would call it but it is what some people default to.)

Individuals might make their own distinctions and we can note the more important and well-cited occasional distinctions in a #Name or #Names section of the article but the actual address should be parked at the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME which (as linked) is tombstone. (If the article is subsequently edited to exclude some grave markers from what the WP:SCOPE of 'tombstone' should cover... well, that just means it's a fork off of the general grave marker article that would then be needed to cover the full range of subcategories... and regardless about your feelings about the rest of this paragraph leaving it at headstone would still be worse xD) — LlywelynII 04:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really not convinced by your ngrams, as "Tombstone" has far more alternative uses than "Gravestone" (the city in Arizona, a Bob Dylan song (Tombstone Blues), etc etc – see dab page and prefix page), which will have distorted the results. The (US) Association for Gravestone Studies seems to have no problem with "Gravestone". I'd personally be happy with "Grave marker", which is far more than a "technical term in cemetery management" (it's pretty widely used in historical/archaeological/sociological literature; and more accurately describes the present content of the article) – but I agree is probably not sufficiently widespread in common usage. GrindtXX (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Consensus to move, but relist to allow further discussion of "Tombstone" vs "Gravestone" BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll switch my support for the gravestone option. Killuminator (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move, preference being close between Tombstone first, Gravestone second, given the more prevalent historical usage of "Tombstone". BD2412 T 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gravestone. All three are common, but this is the most generic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gravestone per reasons listed by others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gravestone per above discussion JarrahTree 15:25, 7 June 2024 (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.