Template talk:Find a Grave
Add topic | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 2016 May 3. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This template was considered for deletion on 2020 October 3. The result of the discussion was snowball keep. |
| This template was considered for deletion on 2021 August 22. The result of the discussion was snowball keep. |
Reliability
[edit]Why do we even have this template to encourage use as a source in so many article when the site is user-editable and not reliable? I note the documentation says that more reliable sources should be used in preference if available. I don't remember WP:RS saying that unreliable sources are acceptable if that's all there is.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO, it is somewhat reliable. You have to put 90℅ trust that the person owns the grave content keeps the info honest. If Findagrave.com has incorrect info, that should be noted in the wikipedia article.
- This template exists because we want to use it in wikipedia articles. SWP13 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- What you're saying makes no sense. If you have to vet FAG to determine whether it has incorrect info, then, by definition, it's not reliable. The template exists for use in the External links section of articles. 32.218.45.216 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- So, findagrave is deemed unreliable for the same reason that Wikipedia is deemed reliable? Nicmart (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, they are both deemed unreliable for the exact same reason. Neither can be used as a source. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good point Pontificalibus, I put the template up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 22.4meter4 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, they are both deemed unreliable for the exact same reason. Neither can be used as a source. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, findagrave is deemed unreliable for the same reason that Wikipedia is deemed reliable? Nicmart (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- What you're saying makes no sense. If you have to vet FAG to determine whether it has incorrect info, then, by definition, it's not reliable. The template exists for use in the External links section of articles. 32.218.45.216 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
"Template:Fag" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Template:Fag has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 26 § Template:Fag until a consensus is reached. MClay1 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Photos on findagrave
[edit]I get that the published texts on findagrave are user-generated and therefore prone to error, but what about the photos? If a gravestone says that the deceased person was born in a certain place, should this not be treated as a primary source? And if this photo is only available on findagrave, should it be trusted less just because it was 'user-generated'? RabbitFromMars (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement the sandbox which now passes |ref= to {{cite web}} so it can be set to |ref=none where an author is provided, thus avoiding an unnecessary Harv warning. see testcases #3 and 4. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for this perfectly executed edit request: sandbox edits, test cases, a clean diff between the sandbox and the live template. This will be my least frustrating edit all day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)