Following Wikipedia's categories[]

I urge users to adopt the Wikipedia categories for cemeteries as far as practicable. Lots of thought was put into them by many people.

Robin Patterson 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. Chadlupkes 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise, not the conclusion. The "lots of thought was put into this" - those thoughts are WAY beyond my comprehension. Here's a copy of the entire list of what I found in Category:Burials:
  • Burials at Aldershot Military Cemetery
  • Burials at Arlington National Cemetery
  • Burials in Ireland
  • Burials in Turkey
  • Burials at Chapel of the Pines Crematory
  • Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries
  • People buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard
  • Burials at Hollywood Forever Cemetery
  • Burials at Holy Cross Cemetery
  • Buried in Karrakatta Cemetery
  • People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery
  • Burials in Maryland
  • Jews buried in the Mount of Olives
  • Burials in New York
  • People buried at the Panthéon
  • People buried at Imogiri
  • People buried in San Michele
  • People buried in unmarked graves
  • Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery
  • People buried in space
  • Burials at Valhalla Memorial Park Cemetery
  • People buried in Westminster Abbey
  • People buried at the Zentralfriedhof
But, if that's what you want, that's fine. I've tried to set up a kind of organisation from the ground up. If you prefer something different, that's fine. Let me know how best to proceed. Zephyrinus 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeph, we have had "organisation from the ground up" here for a couple of years. Much of it is closely tied to Wikipedia in various ways, for (a) ease of use by contributors familiar with Wikipedia, (b) convenience of basic structure (not reinventing perfectly serviceable wheels), and (c) reducing the need to change links in material we copy. Now that we are getting noticeably ahead of WP in specific areas, thanks to energetic and knowledgeable people such as Zeph and Bill and Chad, we can graft onto the framework our more specific subcategories and listings. Clearly that WP category is one we are away ahead of, in effect though not in name, by virtue of having individual cemetery pages listing most of the people buried there instead of having categories for isolated people buried at certain places (and I guess nowhere near as many places as we have). Same as most of the state cemetery categories, where we are away ahead in categories with the same names. Robin Patterson 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I said "categories for cemeteries". If we decide to have "Burial" categories, they will probably be in numerous subcategories, which might be geographic or might be something else. Those subcategories should, however, all be in or indirectly in a Category:Burials, one good reason being that it can have a direct link (such as by the "alsoWP" template) to the WP "equivalent" - which may be seen to be a "poor relation", especially if it is still such a jumble of countries, states or cities (eg New York), and individual grounds! I wonder how many places are called "Holy Cross Cemetery": dozens? Robin Patterson 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what?[]

Before long, we may be wanting more detailed subcategories: go for it!

(The corresponding category at weRelate may offer ideas of what to do or to avoid. It has thousands of pages and not a single subcategory. Source:An Index of burial registers between 1813-1837 for the parish of North Hill comes after Source:(Two Oregon cemeteries).)

Robin Patterson 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Just for the record, I want it to be known that an administrator (whom I won't name) sent me a private e-mail to "criticise" my deletion of categories. I think this was very honourable for the administrator to do, i.e. privately reprimand me rather than doing so in public. However, I have been praised in public by Robin who is also an administrator (he leaves comments in the permanent history files like Good Job!). Whether or not administrators are fungible may be an open question, but I feel the need to make it public that I can be a real idiot sometimes - and that the administration also believes so.

Now, to address the point raised. I removed, for example, "monuments and memorials". I would have made it a subcategory of cemeteries, Category:Specialty Burial/Cemetery, but it was blank; so I left it deleted rather than recreate it, because the next person who feels the need to create it might want to name it "memorials and monuments" and I didn't want to force that future person into a category s/he didn't want to fit into.

Gosh, what a long answer. Personality trait or disorder? Novelist or poet? One thing is clear: we have to be free to make mistakes or progress will never be made. Idiots Untie!

Zephyrinus 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The "monuments and memorials" category was straight from a Wikipedia page, taking barely a millisecond to copy (though clearly taking more time to delete) and possibly being useful for further categorisation and linking to Wikipedia's relevant pages. Robin Patterson 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that a slash (/) is appropriate in categories. If there is nothing under Category:Specialty Burial, why is that part of the category name? I wouldn't have used that myself. Chadlupkes 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the category system itself probably does away with the need for slashes. Robin Patterson 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A monument on a cemetery should be listed on that cemetery page unless there is a huge article about it. But there are also monuments that are not on cemetery grounds. They should be separate categories, I think. Chadlupkes 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the time an individual grave is marked out as special - one burial from an entire cemetery: hence the "burial" part of the "burial/cemetery". But if you didn't understand it without this explanation, then this likely isn't a good category name. And that is without the "/" appropriateness issue. Zephyrinus 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Burials or Buried[]

Thurstan and I had a chat in about 2011. I think we concluded that the WP use of "Burials" would be OK here for simplicity, rather than an insistence on using a participial form "Buried" to match categories such as "Born" and "Married". I've forgotten whether I've noticed any problems either way. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:15, October 17, 2013 (UTC)