Talk:Necropolis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't the roman lady gonna be in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk) 20:31, May 30, 2006 .

1) Sign your comments. It's not difficult, it's a courtesy to other readers, and it's a rule. It was stated right there on the same screen you used to create your comment.

2) Please explain, because your comment makes no sense whatever. No one can answer your question if no one can figure out what you're talking about. Canonblack 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1.)Please do not bite the newcomers.

2.)At the bottom the "Sign your comments" page it explains how to deal with with unsigned posts. Bear21 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the term is primarily used to refer to ancient burial sites, rather than to contemporary sites; well and good.

In the list of necropolises by nation, however, the largest entry is that of Australia! Which lists contemporary cemeteries!

If the list is to include contemporary cemeteries, there are some notablly absent countries - for an example, the United States - which have urban cemeteries that are centuries older than anything to be found in Australia.

The Aussie entries seem anomalous compared to the ancient sites listed under the other nations of the list. As far as I can tell, no other entry is listing active modern cemeteries. Moreover, there is a seperate article, cemetery, as well as a List of cemeteries that includes these cemeteries.

It seems that large cemeteries are called necropolises in Australia today, and this is likely the source of these anomalous entries. But the fact that Australians may call their cemeteries necropolises doesn't mean that they should be in this list - it's clearly intended as a list of ancient sites, not of contemporary sites.

These entries should be removed. nitus 1:22am, Oct 17, 2006 (MT)