A Person Having Their Own Wikipedia Article Means Their Memorial Should Be Accepted?

This is what got rejected as not meeting criteria, and at least one person thought a Churchyard is "private residential property". If a reviewer believes the marker is slightly wrong, that can easily be fixed in the review process. However, I put the marker next to the memorial, which is next to the Church, so I don't see what the issue is. The man is a pioneering cricketer who was born locally. Not sure why it was rejected.


Comments

  • LukeAllStars-PGOLukeAllStars-PGO Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭✭✭

    wikipedia also has an articale for a tree. Its still a natural feature, 1*

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited January 7

    Here's what the guidelines say regarding gravestone nominations (emphasis added):


    Ineligible location, place, or object

    • Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access
    • Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter
    • Location is an adult-oriented store or service, such as a liquor store, **** range, firearm store, or provides **** and/or pornographic content
    • Location obstructs the driveways of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers
    • Location, place, or object is temporary, or highly unlikely to be permanent
    • Sensitive locations like gravestones (not associated with a significant/historical figure) and cemeteries
    • A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique


    I'm not surprised it was rejected, but at the same time, after a bit more research, I do see the significance and would probably approve this provided there was nothing else wrong with the submission. Perhaps a link to somewhere other than Wikipedia would be more convincing, such as this article, which conveniently leads with an image of the very same gravestone (which I hope would help support the idea that the gravestone is a destination for exploration):

    A few other suggestions for improvement:

    • I know it isn't very far off, but you should place the pin for the nomination right on top of the marker, not on the pavement next to it. This is Niantic's official policy, but also, avoiding placing it on the marker could make it seem like people playing near the marker wouldn't be desirable.
    • I would use more of your description describing the impact this cricketer had on the sport rather than defining his title of nobility. Perhaps a sentence about how round-arm bowling would eventually lead to the modern state of the game. (As an American, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it does seem like round-arm bowling eventually led to the modern style of play based on the article I linked.)
    • Perhaps a brief statement in the supporting info stating that you are specifically nominating this as a gravestone for a historical figure that is a destination for exploration would get people more on board as well.
  • bjmacke-PGObjmacke-PGO Posts: 39 ✭✭

    This tree has a Wikipedia article, and a portal. Would you like to suggest Niantic remove it?

    The OP isn't talking about trees or any other part of the criteria, it's about memorials to people, and those have a notability requirement attached to them. Wikipedia has a notability requirement that isn't an exact fit to what Niantic is looking for, but it's pretty close:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

    So, yes, seeing a Wikipedia page for someone with a memorial is a strong case for notability in Niantic's system.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    He’s saying you can make a wikipedia for anything I believe. So someone could make a wikipedia of random people. I would want to see a different reference

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 292 ✭✭✭✭

    @flatmatt-PGO thanks for the detailed feedback. At present, ²⁄₃ of my nominations are being accepted and I'd like to get that as high as possible. I see the little changes now and perhaps for something potentially complex as this I should have come to the forum before it went into voting.

    With regards to the positioning of the marker, what I typed in the supplemental information is a post-hoc rationalisation (when I got home) because at the time it was raining quite heavily and this was making submitting the nomination quite difficult. It was not my original intention to have the marker slightly off. With hindsight, I should have not wrote that because it makes people think I intentionally put the marker in the wrong place.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 292 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7

    In theory a person could, however Wikipedia has quality standards and anything not meeting Wikipedia's standards gets removed pretty quickly. I can kind of understand what @LukeAllStars-PGO is saying, yet has @bjmacke-PGO has cited, Wikipedia has its own notability requirements and these are roughly the same to what Niantic expect and therefore what the reviewing community should accept.

  • LukeAllStars-PGOLukeAllStars-PGO Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Exactly what @Jtronmoore-PGO said. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles. Of course, they can help a lot for reviewing, but having a Wikipedia article doesnt make something eligeble. Thats what I wanted to say. You can use it as a source for a better description, thats clear. But I would still not accept something because of having a Wikipedia article.

  • LieboOSBA-PGOLieboOSBA-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    If it is any consolation, I gave that one a 5* when it came up.

Sign In or Register to comment.