Talk:Green-Wood Cemetery

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joycewupolsc110, Stacey.banh. Peer reviewers: Joycewupolsc110.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make it bigger[edit]

How many people are buried here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.39.42 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other sculptures such as the vanness parson pyramid and the sarcophagus tomb. There should be more facts about these sculptures and why they were built in the cemetery.
You should add more famous people and why and when they were buried here. Maybe a description about the famous person's life and how they died and why they choose to be buried here by their loved ones. What does green wood cementery symbolize? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycewupolsc110 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I am chronically too busy with pictures, coaching at edit-a-thons, and various other activities but indeed someone ought to find and insert such information with appropriate WP:Referencees. Last year the cemetery apparently showed interest in an event where people would go there to use their books and records, with technical coaching from old timer editors like me. It didn't happen, but surely there must be records available somewhere for interested editors to use. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front gate complex picture[edit]

August picture

Several weeks ago I snapped this picture and like it better than the existing head picture. However, I hesitate to paste mine in, lest it show that my judgment is clouded by pride. Other opinions? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name 'Green-Wood'?[edit]

Hi All, I think there should be a mention of the origin of the name 'Green-Wood' in the History section. Is it two persons, one with surname Green, the other Wood? Or, more likely I suspect, a site that originally was a green wooded area. If not known, perhaps a statement, 'The origin of the name 'Green-Wood' is unknown.' Thanks. SaturnCat (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

I'm looking for some input on photographs. User:Beyond My Ken has placed his image on this page. This photograph is of poor technical quality: exhibiting overexposure, a crooked crop, and numerous jpeg artifacts. I personally believe a photograph like this one, this one, or any one of the 83 quality images would be a more suitable primary representation of the cemetery. Any thoughts. Filetime (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC to settle this issue fairly and with the participation of more editors then would normally read this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Lede image[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Basically moot. Another alternative photo was uploaded, received favorable comment, and posted. – S. Rich (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Image #1 (current image)
Image #2 (suggested replacement)

Should the lede image be changed from Image #1 to Image #2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutrral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. WP:CANVASSING of individual editors should be avoided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No - The current image depicts the main gate of the cemetery, a particularly distinctive architectural structure. While the mausoleum depicted in the suggested replacement is also architecturally interesting, it is presented at much too small a size with too much surrounding area to be a strong visual introduction tot he cemetery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have no objection to including #2 in the article, although a cropped-in version of it would serve the purpose better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – This photograph is of poor technical quality: exhibiting overexposure, a crooked crop, and numerous jpeg artifacts. I personally believe a photograph like this one, this one, or any one of the 83 quality images would be a more suitable primary representation of the cemetery. Filetime (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A crooked crop is fixable in a few minutes in any good image editor, and some of the artifacting is probably also minimizable. Exposure issues also easily adjusted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No -- the main gate is distinctive and memorable. It's immediately recognizable as Green Wood, whereas the suggested replacement could be used to illustrate a generic cemetery. It may be technically superior, but it's too generic. pburka (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Pburka. Also, it's not technically superior, but a bit blurry and lacking contrast, seemingly shot on an overcast day so also lacking saturation. Some of that might be reparable, but it would still just be pic of some random person's mausoleum and not representative of that cemetery in and of itself. The front gateway is quite distinctive, however. I have no objection to adding the new image, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning no. Both of these are pretty good for different reasons. (1) shows the main gate, which is a NYC landmark and a symbol of the cemetery, and it is higher resolution. (2) shows a mausoleum and is a quality image on Commons, but my main issue is that it isn't a particularly distinctive structure in Green-Wood. I also have no objections to including (2) in the article; it may fit in the "Landscaping and circulation" section, where lakes are mentioned. Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to stick with "definitely no", but Rhodo says he plans to get a better image of the main gate, so I'm open to another image of the gate. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main gate should be the main image, but I don't have a strong opinion about which one (although the first one with the very narrow crop seems like a worse choice than at least a few others that we have). I could've sworn we had some QIs of it. I think I'm going to take this as a personal challenge sometime in the next few weeks if I can find a day when I'm available at a time with decent light... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The main gate has a unique look and have a better resolution. Sea Ane (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I prefer the one that is there. Carptrash (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly formulated RfC. The question should be "should the image be replaced?" to which the answer is Yes. As User:Filetime indicated in the discussion section below, the current RfC wording presents a false dichotomy. I agree with Filetime that the existing image is of poor technical quality. I rather like the alternative suggested in the above section: File:Green-Wood Cemetery (62021).jpg. AlexEng(TALK) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wording he has used is pretty clear, be basically says the same thing, just phrased differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoCurrent picture is better, shows the main gate details better. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Image #1 gives a much more clearer and closer look. Idealigic (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The current image is much more distinctive whereas the suggested replacement gives less emphasis on the architectural features and more on the surroundings like the pond, which can be any old pond. TrueQuantum (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - but image #1 shouldn't be in the lead either, it's of poor quality. I prefer the photo above Front gate complex picture, superior quality all the way around. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The main gate is a really distinctive structure. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • BMK has plastered his own images in the lead of dozens and dozens of articles on New York when very often quality and even featured images of these subjects (by third party photographers) exist. For no article with such a rich selection of images should we have to resort to these pixelated and often out of focus photographs. Furthermore, multiple editors (see the most recent incident) have expressed concern that the user's edit behaviors verge on Ownership. Filetime (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Filetime has made it a habit to replace images which are of practical use and reasonable technical quality, and which fulfill their function in an article, with images which are of better technical quality, but less visual quality and do not sevre the necessary function nearly as well. The only criteria Filetime appears to use are purely technical ones, and they pay little or no attention to the purpose of an image in its article. This is a detriment to the article, and a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding my "plastering" of images I've taken, according to this counter, 3,288 of my images are in use on en.Wiki. Since I've been here for 16 years (as of June 26), that works out to 205.5 images per year. Filetime, on the other hand, has 1,241 images in use on en.Wiki. They've been here for 1.25 years, so that works out to be 992.8 images per year. If Filetime continues to add images to articles at the rate they're going at now, by the time they've been here 16 years, as I have, they will have almost 16,000 images in use on en.wiki. There's no reason, of course, that Filetime shouldn't add their images to articles if it's appropriate to do so, and, pace Filetime, the same goes for me as well, but if the charge of "plastering images [in] dozens and dozens of articles" is going to be thrown around, it would seem more appropriate to apply the charge to Filetime than to me, given these numbers.
    I suggest that Filetime cut back on their hyperbole and commit themselves to dealing with other editors as collaborators and not as competitors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Filetime: This is not a free-form discussion, it is an RfC. You cannot change the question that I asked for comments on by changing the wording or adding additional images to it. If you want other images to be considered, you can add them in this discussion area in a new sun-section, or in your own section above the RfC. Please do not change the RfC again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, RfCs get refactored very frequently both to ask clearer questions and to add additional options. However, given that I've seen two RfCs back to back with Filetime trying to make this be about BMK, in an ad hominem manner, I agree with BMK that the behavior isn't appropriate. This is not a battleground, and it would be more constructive to post alternatives under separate cover than to edit-war over the RfC or try to trainwreck it. Other editors who are not part of this personal pissing match have better things to do that try to mediate between you two on an ongoing basis; the point of an RfC is to serve as a form of mediation, not be a continuance of the problem and in need of yet further mediation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • RfC Questions do get changed or sharpened in focus, but only with the approval (de facto or otherwise) of the editor asking the question. That is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish and Pburka: See option 3. My point is not (and was never) to promote option 2 as the "right" image or one I was wedded to but rather to emphasize that a subject with so many quality images should not be represented by such a technically poor image. Filetime (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to have a discussion when the question keeps changing. pburka (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filetime keeps adding images. It is not allowed for another editor to change an RfC's question. I have removed image #3, which was not a part of my question. As for whether Filetimie was putting image #2 forward as the "right" image, obviously they were, becaue they put it into the infobox replacing the current image. They wouldn;t do that if they didn't think it was the right image -- unless their purpose was simply to remove any image made by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pburka:, BMK unilaterally established a dichotomy that perverted the sentiment I intended to communicate. In my original comment I wrote "I personally believe a photograph like this one, this one, or any one of the 83 quality images." @Beyond My Ken: is now limiting the scope because a technically higher alternative might mean his own photograph may not be the article's lead image. Filetime (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not "ulilaterally create a dichotomy", you did that when you replaced the current image (#1) with the replacement image (#2). I wanted to get the community's opinion about that, which is why I started an RfC and asked the question that I did. Again, you cannot add images above, as they are not part of the question I asked. I've moved your Image #3 to the discussion area, below. Feel free to add other images there if you wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: if, as you say, the existing image is fixable and should remain in place, could you please do the work of fixing it? I would do so myself if I had the technical expertise in photo editing. AlexEng(TALK) 20:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can do that, but it's not something I would spend time on unless I was certain we were going to use it. Be off-level by 5 degrees or whatever is hardly a big deal. People can evaluate it okay as-is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AlexEng: Per your comment above: The purpose of an RfC is to get community input on a question that an editor has. The question asked here is the one I wanted input on, which is why I phrased it in the manner I did. If someone else had started the RfC, perhaps they would ask the question you appear to wish to have answered, but the fact that my question is not your question does not make the RfC poorly formulated, it merely makes it a different RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggested replacement[edit]

Image #3 (alternate replacement)
Image 3 seems inferior, too. The sky is oversaturated, but more importantly it's a picture of the gates looking out of the cemetery. This is an unusual perspective. While it might be visually interesting, it's also confusing. pburka (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems a bit Disney to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newly uploaded options[edit]

I took these earlier today. They're all panoramas with a good amount of detail (not that that matters so much in an infobox). The second is a crop of the first. I was more or less happy with the light conditions and quality, although I would've loved to move the bikes and car. Oh well. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful images. I'd get behind any of these. Thank you so much for your initiative {{reply to}|Rhododendrites}}. Filetime (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second image (53784p cropped) would be the best of these, although I would prefer a tighter crop for infobox use, similar to the current image. Thanks for providing new options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tighter crop, as in currently used image
I'll vote for the second one as is. I lake the slightly wider view. Thanks for doing this. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ultra–tight crop uploaded by BMK is too closely cropped for an infobox. The article is not about the gate, it is about the cemetery as a whole. Filetime (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (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.

"In Popular Culture" vs. Filming Locations[edit]

While I don't have a big dog in this hunt, I think the article's section for "In Popular Culture" should be reserved for references to the cemetery in movies, books etc. and not its use as a location for film/television productions. That seems to be how "in popular culture" is used on other Wikipedia pages which I have seen. I'm in favor of a section devoted to its use as a location for movies and television, and if one is created I would add HBO's Angels in America to it, and can provide a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenab (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Every major location in New York has been the site of a bunch of movies/tv/music videos/whatnot. If it's a movie about that location or fully set in that location, I could maybe see adding it. But "X scene in Y movie was filmed here" just seems like unnecessary trivia. Perhaps better for the article on that movie. Especially true when it's just used for a generic cemetery or some other cemetery rather than Green-Wood Cemetery. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree. Many articles list what films or television shows have been shot in that particular location, and the notion that IPC sections should not include these is neither policy nor practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
neither policy nor practice Over at MOS:POPCULT there's A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.. And then this earlier RfC, which was launched from a disagreement you were involved with. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of articles which list films or television shows which have been shot in that article's location, and listed them under a section called "In Popular Culture," please cite them. It might be best to move them to compliance with standards. Frank Lynch (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green-Wood_Cemetery&oldid=1207543463"