Category talk:Cemeteries

Category:Los Angeles

(Copied from User_talk:Willmcw)

First of all, thanks for editing at Wikipedia! It's always good to see a new editor.

However, regarding your catagorizing various articles into Category:Los Angeles, particularly: Angelus-Rosedale_Cemetery; I think you made a mistake. If you look at the history of Angelus-Rosedale_Cemetery, you will see that I removed it from Category:Los Angeles, as Category:Show-biz_cemeteries is a sub-category of Category:Los Angeles(actually it's a sub-category of Los Angeles landmarks, which is a sub-category of Los Angeles), and it is a general policy to include articles in the most specific category, rather than the most general. I'm not sure why you removed the link to Category:Cemeteries; could you explain?

Thanks again for working on the LA articles. JesseW 08:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am bewildered by how cemeteries are categorized. For instance- the Hollywood Forever Cemetery is categorized as "Cemeteries | Show-biz cemeteries | Cemeteries in California". Shouldn't "Show-biz Cemeteries" be sufficient? It is a subcategory of "Cemeteries"- the most general possible - so why include it if the article is also going to be under another cemetery category? Since only cemeteries in Los Angeles are permitted in the "Show Biz" category, shouldn't it be a subcat of "California Cemeteries" anyway?

I have to admit I also have a problem with the category "Show biz cemeteries" because probably every cemetery in Los Angeles has some performers buried in it, plus there are show biz people buried in cemeteries in other cities. It seems like an unnecessary category. (The prime Hollywood graveyards, like Hollywood Forever and Angelus-Rosedale, could come under the Hollywood history category) Willmcw 09:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for being bewildered by catagorization - me too. I think we have the same goal, so let me take your points one at a time. And these are just my guesses and suggestions; IDKWITA.

• "Shouldn't "Show-biz Cemeteries" be sufficient?" - It depends what we think people would look for cemeteries under. If 'all the cemeteries in Wikipedia are in Category:Cemeteries(and there arn't too many) it is useful for all of them to be there. I think.
• "shouldn't it be a subcat of "California Cemeteries" anyway? Yes.
• "It seems like an unnecessary category." Well, probably, yes, also. It is useful to section off the pages which would otherwise be in Category:Los Angeles, but it should probably be called something like "Cemeteries in Los Angeles" instead, and as you suggest, the really famous ones should be listed in their own category of Hollywood history. (or maybe it should just be moved under hollywood history, and a new one of Los Angeles Cemeteries be created).

Finally, regarding the policy on show-biz cemeteries, I made that up, when I found that all the ones in there were in the LA area, and I was also uncomforable with the category. That was an attempt to make clear boundries for it. Please let me know what you think. JesseW 09:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that a category for "Los Angeles Cemeteries" (for the whole county) would make a lot of sense. I agree that Category:Los Angeles could be overfilled, so cemeteries should have a separate, subsidiary category. Calling a cemetery a "show biz cemetery" does not account for the untold number of regular folks who may be buried there, another reason to avoid that narrow category. Category:Hollywood history and culture is not too full, so entries could go there as appropriate. And maybe a simple list can handle "where famous folks are buried" issues. Anyway, IDKWITA either! Willmcw 10:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Following the lines of this conversation last month, the LA cemeteries have been moved to Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles and I have placed Category:Show-biz_cemeteries up for deletion . CfD. -Willmcw 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crypts/tombs/mausoleums/catacombs/and other miscellaneous final resting places

Should these be categorized as cemeteries or should a new category be created? Westminster Abbey, for example, is famous as a tomb for many notables, and should have a place in the general category. "Tombs"? -Willmcw 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notability?

I'm very interested in documenting some of the cemeteries in my part of the world, but before I begin I wanted to ask about "notability" when it comes to articles on burial places. Has there been discussion on this, and has any consensus emerged? I should point out that, as an inclusionist Wikipedian, I don't personally feel that arbitrary limits are necessary, and instead support the position that well-written, well-sourced articles on any recognized cemetery should be welcome. Thanks in advance for any thoughts/advice! Huwmanbeing 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have many cemetery articles on my watchlist and I've never seen any of them nominated for deletion. A good rule of thumb for notability in any semi-obscure topic is the availability of verifiable sources. If there aren't any then we shouldn't have the article. Avoid original research, but photography doesn't count as OR. Cemeteries about which little is known should perhaps be covered in a compendium like "List of cemeteries in Indiana". It'd be good to check the Category:Cemeteries in Indiana to make sure we have article on the the most important burial grounds. But it all sounds like an interesting project, and unlikely to be controversial.

BTW, I've notived that vandalism is rare on cemetery articles unlike the cemeteries themselves. I have no idea why there isn't more of it. -Will Beback 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)