Find a Grave Single Site for Two Cemeteries

Question

Hi Wonderful Wikitreers,

So normally the issue with Find a Grave is that they have multiple sites for the same cemetery.  I have been asking for merges all week as I deal with the Find a Grave report from Ales (I work in New South Wales, Australia at the moment.)

See Category: Woolgoolga Monumental and Lawn Cemetery, Woolgoolga, New South Wales 

This is the first time I have seen two sites represents by a single Find a Grave Site, and the Australian Cemetery Index splits it correctly into two records.

So, how do we manage such a circumstance, given:

• The physical sites are side by side.
• The accurate way would be two sites in Wikitree (Split the current single category and point both categories back to the single Find a Grave Site. plus greate a new FaG site and beg the FaG staff to rename the existing, knowing that many of the records in the Fag site and Wikitree category would be incorrectly assigned.)
• Ignore the issue (as I have currently done) as it will result in less issues for Wikitree users.
• Split only the Wikitree Category, pointing both categories to the same FaG site.
• The local council, Coffs Harbour City Council - Cemetery Services lists both sites independently

So all a bit of a issue to think about.

My vote: Keep Wikitree as accurate to the reality as possible and create the second category, rename the first, and correct profiles over time as discovered.  Let FaG look after itself, as their edit process is too labourious.

Regards,

Craig Rayner

Answer 1

IMHO if they are officially two separate sites then both should be on Find A Grave. It is laborious, if there are a large number of graves, but simple to request the transfer of a memorial from one site to another. If a Find A Grave cemetery needs renaming you should argue your case in the Find A Grave forum. I can't see there being much argument against if the local council lists each site independently.

Comments

With you David.  Different dates as well.

Answer 2

If these are separate cemeteries, WikiTree should treat them as such, with separate categories. WikiTree is not a mirror site for FindaGrave.

The error on FindaGrave is FindaGrave's problem, not WikiTree's. Members can alert FG to their problem, but their error should not affect WikiTree categorization.

Comments

The error on FindaGrave is FindaGrave's problem, not WikiTree's. Members can alert FG to their problem, but their error should not affect WikiTree categorization.

Thanks for this Ellen. This is also the stance of the Cemeterists Project, and I couldn't have said it any better myself. 

---

I am with you Ellen.  Two sites.

Answer 3

From the look at austcemindex.com these could be treated as 2 sections of the same cemetery. Admin details are the same also directions. Also the map points to the same area.

But maybe someone with the local knowledge could provide more info on why they should be separated. A lot of cemeteries grew over time and change the name but they are all treated as one cemetery with aka names. I don't see the need to make a time or name separation of the cemetery category.

Comments

Don't agree Ales and Margaret.  Should be two sites, as they are distinct, with one site NOT allowing new burials unless prior reservation has been made. (family plots, et. al.) as per the council web site.

Answer 4

Coffs Harbour Council manages 7 cemeteries including  the monument and lawn cemeteries at Woolgoolga (which the council website shows as separate cemeteries). However they share the same address so for all intents and purposes, they are the same, and I see no point in creating separate wikitree categories.