The plaque you posted doesn't meet the criteria you posted.
"...to a historical figure (no), someone who is significant to the local community (no) , or groups of individuals (no). For example, a WWII Veteran memorial (it is not a veteran memorial to a historical figure, someone significant to the local community, nor groups of individuals)."
By "For example, a WWII Veteran memorial" they clearly mean something like, "Sometown WWII Memorial" that is a larger installment dedicated to citizens from Sometown that served and died in the war. Not an individual's grave marker that contains information that the person served in WWII. Especially since family may still be visiting the grave.
As for mausoleums: maybe it isn't as architecturally interesting to the local community as you think it is. I'm a member of my local community, and I don't think generic mausoleums near me are architecturally interesting. But that's just my opinion. If others hold that same opinion, it won't get accepted.
That said, the mausoleum for the founding family for my city that is nearly 200 years old is interesting.
And has been said many times, don't look at previous examples for precedent. Just because plaques and benches had been accepted before doesn't mean they should be accepted now.
What's written is they are allowed and per Casey's response they are allowed.
A memorial plaque meets criteria yes. It is a memorial plaque for a war veteran and confirmed by the war memorial plaque. It is of a war veteran of ww2 and is allowed.
Local community members are in disagreement for the mausoleums but that is a different discussion. What's written is they are allowed. When Casey updates and clarifies criteria again, then it will be a different case. But as for her clarification she is saying architecture and artistic things are allowed. People need to respect it.
Based on your responses than all memorial benches and plaques at parks need to be removed and reported as not meeting criteria.
This has been discussed many times - they will not be removed but they also should not be accepted new. They may have been acceptable at one time, but not any more. The exception are things in private presidential property or safety issues. They should be removed.
Also, what you posted wasn't a wwii memorial plaque; it is a grave marker. Ask yourself, "is the purpose of this marker to commemorate WWII or to mark the location someone was buried that was in WWII?" Your example is clearly a grave marker, not a memorial plaque. If it were a memorial plaque to those groups of people that sacrificed for WWII (and not located at a specific person's burried casket that family may still visit), then yes, it would be what you described. But this specific case is not what you are claiming it is. That may be the disconnect that you might be feeling - it is not a memorial plaque in wayfinder, it is a grave marker.
Memorial plaques and stuff was added back into the mix when wayfarer came out. Just because you choose not to accept doesn't mean you are right. Can you show where in wayfarer it says to reject?
It is a memorial plaque as the cemetery has gravestones for the person as well. You don't get a gravestone and a memorial plaque when you pass away at the same spot in a cemetery. Exception is you do when you are a war veteran and one is a memorial plaque for being a war veteran. This is a disconnect on reviewers. That is why I show the memorial plaque as the submission and the gravestone as the supporting info to confirm it is allowed and not just a gravestone.
You’re supposed to 1* anything in cemeteries because cemeteries don’t exist, every single one is an illusion to trick people into thinking immortality is impossible.
Here is where it says to reject:
Memorials are eligible, but only for significant figures in a community or for significant events. Memorials that contain human remains should adhere to the acceptance criteria for gravestones
Memorial bench/plaques - Eligible, if dedicated to a noteworthy member of a community or historical figure.
Under "potentially confusing."
There is no evidence he is a significant figure in the community. That memorial plaque commemorates a single person's life, not a significant event like WWII. Reject.
There is no evidence the memorial is dedicated to a noteworthy member of the community or historical figure. Reject.
Without supporting documentation/images, this looks like it marks a grave with human remains. Reject.
Nothing about that marker fits any criteria for acceptance, which is probably why it was rejected. It's not worth discussing any more. I only answered so others learning reviewing can see the citation.
I disagree with you on this one. I would vote highly on these for communities as they are more meaningful to the community and helps the community learn who helped shape the world from their local communities in War Events like World War II. A World War II Veteran is a Historical Figure to the local communities.
January 2020 clarified what a significant figure for communities are.... A war veteran is a significant figure for the community. That plaque does commemorate being in a significant event of being in World War II. It is more criteria being meet than any memorial plaque approved currently at parks typically by most people who submit them.
Guidance of January 2020 Update.
Cemeteries or Graveyards
Supporting information showing a grave, can be used to support the memorial plaque. Niantic even does that for Flagpole submissions by requiring a memorial plaque to approve. The grave and the memorial plaque are different things. In the supporting information, you can clearly see the separation of the memorial plaque that it is not on the grave itself. No Human Remains are in contact with the memorial plaque.
They’re not in contact with the “““““Plaque”““““ because they’re 6 feet under it.
They are not in contact, Because it is not even under it. It is adjacent to grave and not over it. That is done in the event that the grave has to be accessed. To ensure the plaques are not destroyed when accessing the grave.
dang, you’d make one slick defense attorney
@NianticCasey and @NianticMac These post are a clear violation of the community guidelines. Please address it and remove it. Thank you.
Ban evading really shouldn't be allowed. I would love to be able to ping the mods privately about this user but that's not possible. Someone who has been banned from the forums on 3 accounts already should not continue to be allowed to participate.
It's clear even when he does get Niantic's attention he disregards what is said and continues to do what he wants.
Also why is he tagging mod that hasn't been active since June of 2019??
@NianticCasey any chance of a decision for war veteran memorial plaques? They are veterans from a historical event that is well known around the world. There is a history with learning about war veterans.
As I read wayfarer they should be acceptable.
History to support.
In Russia, a tradition was established after World War II where newly married couples would on their wedding day visit a military cemetery.
Memorial plaques are written as allowed. Yet I'm seeing these rejected. What's your opinion? To me it is a clear memorial plaque that is similarly accepted in parks and other areas of the game with a written confirmation the person is a war veteran from ww2?
For those of you just tuning in at home, a “memorial plaque” as described by one of our colleagues above is a “plaque” with the Name, Date of Birth, Date of Experation, and a brief Epitaph about the person, which is located above and a bit to the side where the body is buried so the plaque doesn’t get in the way of the actual burial ground. This plaque is in no way the grave marker for the dead body according to our friend since it is just a plaque about the person that just happens to be next to their unmarked grave.
For those of you new to Wayfarer, the guidance about memorial plaques regarding significant people and events is already laid out in the Wayfarer criteria. Making this whole thread revival rather redundant.
Photos have the memorial plaques. You might want to learn about the photo project. It is in the link above and a history of why they should be.
From the Va.gov.
Memorial headstones and markers, for individuals or groups, are furnished for eligible deceased active duty service members and Veterans whose remains are not recovered or identified, are buried at sea, donated to science or whose cremated remains have been scattered.
No human remains exist under these.
It makes them eligible as they are for a historical event and remembering a lost member of the community, who's remains are not located under the plaque.
Wasn't talking about you, was talking about Tailpot's post here
Crazy how you'd take a response for Tailpot though.
Nice, try totally different people. His comments are over a week old and I found useful information/research to make this valid candidates. My comment was clear and the most current and you immediately responded to it, than try to start drama. I suggest listening to casey and working together with people on the forums instead of attacking people all of the time.
Your argument is human remains deny this candidate. Veteran affairs site disagrees with you that they are not for locations with human remains. The war graves photographic project gives a reason why we should consider visiting sites like this. So what's the disagreement votes that are saying they are not eligible? Explain your opinion please?
No disagreements from niantic. So I'd say accept them in your area.
You just quoted yourself and talked to them as if you were someone else.
Funny as It's the kind of mistake that one person logging in on multiple accounts could make by using the wrong one to continue a discussion with themselves.
No idea what your talking about. I quoted because no one responded to the last comment in the discussion after a few days.
You should reject any and all objects in a park if that park doesn't have a sign. Basketball courts, playgrounds trail markers, etc. If the park doesn't have a sign, all these should be rejected. Also you should approve every all-you-can-eat buffet. And that's a Wayfarer Criteria fact.
If Niantic doesn't correct me, then it's true, thanks to this wonderful precedent set by @Dice976jr
According to @GearGlider we are to reject valid candidates anyway with rejecting the veteran memorial plaques being they do not have human remains. Only way to get them is actually not having remains.
Sarcasm is lost on some people. I won't name names, whogottimerforthat?
I think it's more funny that you accused everyone under the sun of being timer. Enjoy. Start approving these then if you have no valid arguements as to why they do not meet criteria.