Grave of a Famous Person

[+elyob]

I cannot take the credit.  It was another's idea to seek your ideas.  However, I will take the blame for raising the subject.  We are considering changes to the category description.  Do you have ideas that we might consider including in a revised description?

[+Max and 99]

5 minutes ago, elyob said:

I cannot take the credit.  It was another's idea to seek your ideas.  However, I will take the blame for raising the subject.  We are considering changes to the category description.  Do you have ideas that we might consider including in a revised description?

A general idea of what you are looking for?

[+elyob]

The biggest concern is the definition of famous.  Over the years, the category has cycled between too exclusive and too inclusive.  It's difficult to create objective criteria for reviewers concerning a subjective category.

Edited June 20, 2020 by elyob

[+ScroogieII]

21 hours ago, elyob said:

The biggest concern is the definition of famous.  Over the years, the category has cycled between too exclusive and too inclusive.  It's difficult to create objective criteria for reviewers concerning a subjective category.

 

Locally, regionally, nationally  or globally famous?

It seems that, no matter where one should choose to draw the line, they'll always be faced with the problem of having to make an arbitrary decision. I don't see any way around that. The only possible way to please the maximum number of folks is the inclusive route, even though otherwise that may not be the most desirable choice. What am I saying? Basically, that I have no solutions to offer. Possibly there isn't one.

 

"The individual whose gravesite location is being recorded must be widely recognized, rather than just locally known."

At present the bar appears to be set at the regional level. Are you likely to find a more amicable solution?

 

Edit: One thing that occurs to me might be a concise definition of "regional". Might it be county or municipality wide, province/state wide, or even larger?

Keith

Edited June 21, 2020 by ScroogieII

[jonathanatpsu]

When I've looked at this category, I've wondered about this as well.  Another question to consider is when the person was famous.  What if the person was famous 150 years ago, but hardly anyone knows who they are now?  I've seen a lot of Waymarks in this category for people who were once well known, but not so much anymore. 

 

Since it would likely be very difficult for the reviewer to verify if the person was well-known regionally rather than just locally, I think being less restrictive is the way to go. 

 

 

 

[+iconions]

Here's my thoughts - I just got back from a trip from Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin.  During my series of road trips, I explored a lot of cemeteries - actually one of my favorite things to do.  
If he hadn't already been waymarked, the grave of Nelson Dewey should be eligible.  First Governor of Wisconsin and would be regionally known.  Governors or top elected officials of a province or state should always be a yes.  Members of legislatures I would review.  Judges I would review.  
I skipped Waymarking Father Michael Flamming, although I probably could have made a case for him.  He was responsible for the construction of the St. Donatus Parish Church and Way of the Cross which is actually quite famous.  I just didn't feel that his fame extended much more than the Tr-State Region of the Dubuque Area.  I felt that the building and the Way of the Cross were much more famous than the man that built them.

All of the above said, this is one category that you are never going to make people happy.  A line in the sand has to be drawn and then the microscope has to be gotten out to see where that grain of sand lands....   

[+Bear and Ragged]

5 hours ago, iconions said:

I skipped Waymarking Father Michael Flamming, although I probably could have made a case for him.  He was responsible for the construction of the St. Donatus Parish Church and Way of the Cross which is actually quite famous.  I just didn't feel that his fame extended much more than the Tr-State Region of the Dubuque Area.  I felt that the building and the Way of the Cross were much more famous than the man that built them.

 

As an officer... I'd be tempted to accept it!

[+iconions]

2 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

 

As an officer... I'd be tempted to accept it!

See - I try to make a point and look where it gets me!  Okay, you asked for it... 

[+bluesnote]

Personally, I believe someone is famous if they have their own Wikipedia article. I think that would be a good indicator. Maybe require a link to their Wikipedia article?

[+fi67]

2 hours ago, bluesnote said:

Personally, I believe someone is famous if they have their own Wikipedia article. I think that would be a good indicator. Maybe require a link to their Wikipedia article?

That only works in English and German. Not a global solution.

[+Bear and Ragged]

21 hours ago, iconions said:

See - I try to make a point and look where it gets me!  Okay, you asked for it... 

 

Didn't even have to wait for me to accept it!

[+Bear and Ragged]

19 hours ago, bluesnote said:

Personally, I believe someone is famous if they have their own Wikipedia article. I think that would be a good indicator. Maybe require a link to their Wikipedia article?

 

 

17 hours ago, fi67 said:

That only works in English and German. Not a global solution.

 

Other websites are acceptable. If more than one can be offered, it makes it so much easier.

[+NW_history_buff]

I inherited the leadership of the Grave of a Famous Person category a couple of years ago and knew immediately it would be another one of those 'subjective' categories that involve numerous 'send to vote' actions, raised questions and a little confusion as to what constitutes being 'famous' to deserve admission.

 

I believe as the category sits, any individual with a minimum of a regional or statewide notoriety is accepted into the category. This includes many politicians and lawmakers since the majority have a Wikipedia page devoted to them, which segways into the next question: "Does a person require a Wikipedia bio to merit inclusion in the category?" The answer is 'No' but it makes a stronger case for inclusion, since every officer who sees a submission would like to have as much proof of the individual's notoriety as possible before approving. The category's description currently doesn't require a Wikipedia page of an individual but encourages the submitter to include a link to some web page highlighting the individual's life. I believe the category needs to be amended to require a web link (or more) when submitting waymarks. 

 

wayfrog, one of the admins, has related to me numerous times in promoting the principle of 'inclusiveness' when reviewing submissions. I've tried to follow that same principle but I also worry about a category becoming 'run-of-the-mill' and over-saturated with an 'anything goes' mindset.  My motto when Waymarking is... 'Does your waymark(s) create enough interest to cause a person to want to visit it themselves?' I believe the Grave of a Famous Person should follow that motto. 

 

 

[+Bear and Ragged]

I'd like to see the photo requirement increased.

One of the headstone.

One showing the location.

Option of - if it's a family marker - one showing the details of the person.

 

Example (mine, submitted before I became an officer)

https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wmPGW5_Mike_Hailwood_British_Grand_Prix_motorcycle_road_racer

https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wmPGVZ_Nick_Drake_Musician

 

I don't mind 'copy and paste' from the source, but do like some attempt at formatting the text, and not leaving it as a 'block of grey' when submitted...

 

It's not about the numbers... It's about providing the information that people can read easily, be presented well enough, and be interesting enough to make people want to find the Waymark.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Bear and Ragged
speeling!