Talk:Rookwood Cemetery

I don't get it. If this place is 'officially named Rookwood Necropolis' - and, yes, it is - why is there a redirect page pointing away from 'rookwood necropolis'? Shouldn't the rookwood cemetery page be moved over there and the redirect removed?

Matthew king 17:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The present name, Rookwood Cemetery meets this policy. The redirect helps those which go to the other name. --A Y Arktos 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The references this article does provide are for side-issues. What about some references to verify: what Rookwood Cemetry is, where it is, when it opened, how big it is, why it is (where it is and as big as it is), who is buried there (both generically, (eg, irish catholics but not irish protestants maybe? ) and specifically (surely someone famous is interred here and we can verify that without WP:OR). 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please use {{fact}} template for those assertions you want verified. The blanket {{Unreferenced}} is not helpful. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources - Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind). Of course any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. But what is it that is being challenged? Happy to search for a citation of something specific, but this blanket request is not helpful.

http://www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/tn_rookwood/index.html states Rookwood Cemetery and Necropolis East Street, Lidcombe, Sydney One of the largest burial grounds in the world and a place that documents the cultural and religious diversity of the Australian community since 1867. covers what, where, when and how big in a brief summary from a reliable source (nsw.edu.au). Why and who aren't subject to assertions particularly. Why are people buried seems beyond the scope of this article - query cemetery for that point.--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess they're buried for cultural reasons about handling deceased people. Following up from what you left on my talk page I guess this is also a bit of a to-do but isn't that formal is it? It is quite a long article to not be wiki-fied (with the exception of /*References/* & /*External link*/ the texit is one over-grown lead section).

I ended up here following up on another article which escapes me right now. I get frustrated seeing a series of articles each lacking structure and specific references. And too many of the articles which only provide a general set of references are cut and paste jobs.

If Rookwood is one of the best and largest surviving Victorian cemetries in the world then I tought there would be no shortage of material to present which would be easily verified.

From my questions, the why was referring to why in Rookwood rather than one of the other cemetries in Sydney? Are there some famous family mausoleums, long-standing family plots, etc? I know some are buried here because "well they gotta go somewhere" but some have been interred at Rookwood, specifically, for family/cultural/or some other? reasons. And some cemetries have a lot more "unclaimed deceased burials" than others - does this include Rookwood or not? I guess that is a bit of a general question to try and answer for any article if I am honest about why I asked it here on the talk page.Garrie 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am only going to be speculating - I suspect the other cemeteries ahd started to fill up and a large reserve was made for the city's cemetery requirements. 1868 seems quite late in some ways so this makes sense to me. http://www.strathfieldhistory.org.au/Rookwood.htm offers no insights as to why. There are not many insights either at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20041207019 but it is somewhat interesting reading. The events of 1868 give me not much insight - it was the year the Granny Smith was first cultivated - no connection I think with cemetery establishment nor with any other of the events of that year.

http://www.forpeaceofmind.com.au/vol4/cemeteryinreview.cfm states The Necropolis at Rookwood was founded in response to the problem Sydney was facing by the early 19th century. Sydney’s first two cemeteries were located where Sydney Town Hall and Central Railway Station now stand. These cemeteries were quickly outgrown and also unfavourably situated in the centre of town. Rookwood was developed as the ideal cemetery, it fitted the requirements of proximity to a railway line, distance from settled areas and grounds suitable to both burial and landscaping. - seems to answer why Rookwood.

As to who in Rookwood, as in famous family mausoleums - it really will take an editor with an interest to wrte about that. I know Captain Moonlight was exhumed and I know the mortuary station is now in Canberra - I suspect I am better on what isn't at Rookwood any more than what is. Never been there and, other than to know it is in Sydney which is a metropolis east of me, I have no idea where it is! :-) I still think better more specific citation requests are preferable, or if you think info is missing, request it on the talk page (as you have done). --Arktos ^talk 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not interested in doing the work but I have noticed some references that might be useful. Rookwood has it's own webpage: http://www.rookwoodcemetery.com.au/ and a local library has: http://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/library/rookwood.htm

Given that Rookwood Cemetry is not an official name ("officially named The Necropolis ..."), should this article be moved to Rookwood cemetry in accordance with Manual of Style (headings)? Garrie 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• yes - capitalisation should apply--Arktos ^talk 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is that railway station in the old photo still in existence? Where did it stand if its no longer there? Was the structure at 33°52'10.93"S 151° 3'4.45"E one of them? If you look north of it and over by the railroad tracks, you can see where tracks led into the cemetery. Nothing has been put on the old 'road' besides maybe four new mausoleums at 33°52'2.59"S 151° 3'5.47"E The road curves and puts to the northwest, and we see the old siding that now dead-ends at 33°51'52.65"S 151° 2'55.94"E --Ragemanchoo (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply