Talk:London Necropolis Company

Actually not sure if it was set up at Brookwood - though there is a Brookwood village nearby. The cemetery is about 4 miles west of Woking, and Brookwood village is also west of Woking, and North of Guildford. This needs to be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.39.195 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2003 (UTC)Reply

This is correct, it is called "Brookwood Cemetery" today and is adjacent to Brookwood Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.71.50.40 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this it? http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10324706&wwwflag=2&imagepos=11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.107.44 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's near Brookwood, it takes nearly a minute to pass on the Bournemouth to Waterloo train!! Britmax (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A fascinating article, probably a bit too detailed for a truly encyclopaedic WP contribution , but ticks all the right WP style and format boxes. Good example for anybody writing a WP (historical) article and justly given Featured Article status.

But, I wonder, I just wonder: in a 99,000 bytes article (say, 25 pages normal text in word) there are some 320 cites to only two books from one author. There are ten cites to one page from Clarke 2004 alone. Credit where credit is due: if WP used the Harvard style of citations, the name Clarke would be mentioned 320 times in the body of the text. As WP prefers the numbered Vancouver style, Clarke is only mentioned twice (in the bibliography). To address this imbalance gently I will add the source (and mention Clarke’s name) in two of the illustrations, which are based on maps from the two Clarke books. It creates inconsistencies in the citation style but that’s in my view a small price to pay for making the originator of most of the material in this splendid WP article slightly more visible.Sleuth21 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article has been created essentially by only one editor and is a ‘featured article’. Typically, Wikipedia articles / should be the result of collective efforts, but this article was put on WP 'in one go' (on 10 June 2011) and there are only few subsequent 'collective' edits. As mentioned above, this article complies (on a very high standard) with WP style editing policies but is much too detailed to qualify as an 'encyclopedic' contribution. It also violates the spirit of copyright restrictions and ‘close paraphrasing’ rules. Some of the main editor’s paraphrasing falsifies careful scholarly statements in the two main sources (by John Clarke). This article (and similar other ones) seems to use WP as a vanity press publisher. I have placed a corresponding general comment on the vanity press site. Sleuth21 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

See comments on the author's talk page and the vanity press talk page--DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discussion about the mysterious "legal issues" surrounding this article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Legal issues with London Necropolis Company? (update: archived). Please keep discussion there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've read all the related discussions and things are even less clear to me. Some people are talking about the images and how they might possibly be violations under UK law because they were taken on private property or something? But only if someone actually presents a lawsuit? But then there are several others explaining that there's no way such a lawsuit would hold up under what the law actually covers.

If the issue is the copyright of images, then shouldn't we just remove said images from the article?

Then there are other people talking about copyright/possible plagiarism issues with the text and I don't know what the heck that is about besides the fact that the article is based on only a few books. If there are concerns of text plagiarism, then that is something that needs to be addressed. If there isn't such an issue, then what the heck are the "legal concerns" over this article in the first place? Silverseren^C 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's in the hands of WMF Legal. They'll advise, eventually, on what should or shouldn't be done. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The request that was made, by the principal author of the article, was that even though the article has reached FA status, that it not be run on the mainpage at this time. He has made the Wikimedia Foundation legal department and me aware of the nature of his concerns. I perceive them and hence his request to keep the article off the mainpage as legitimate, and the Office is presumably going to take a look at the issue.

In the meantime, there has been a rash of unhelpful speculation in various places about the subject, all of which is unhelpful, and some of which is defamatory of a contributor. Further discussion at this moment is not going to help the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have less of an issue with the mainpage thing and more on what exactly are the legal issues. Because comments from the author (and by yourself) boiled down to "this is potentially a lawsuit, but only if people become aware of the article, which is why we don't want it to be on the main page". And that is a rather concerning viewpoint. If there is something that is a legal issue here, then we need to fix it. And, again, if it is merely about the images, can't we just remove them for now? Silverseren^C 23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article has had about five edits all year. There is nothing going on here that can't wait a couple more days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you say so. If it is such a seriously direct problem that the article being on the front page might result in a lawsuit, it seems to me that it is indeed an issue that needs to be dealt with swiftly, as that lawsuit can still come about at any time regardless. Silverseren^C 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I admittedly don't have much faith in WMF Legal, considering some past actions they've taken, such as with the Choose Your Own Adventure article. Silverseren^C 23:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a gratuitously unhelpful comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, well, i'm sorry that I don't agree with Wikipedia bowing to someone that wants an article's history to only be their version of events. And anyone who saw what WMF people were saying on the CYOA talk page knew that that's what was going on. Silverseren^C 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't get why people are making a big deal over this. While I don't know what concerns the primary author has, it's easy to find that there are concerns over the images. These are mentioned in our very own Talk:Brookwood Cemetery#Copyright and it's also easy to find discussions on the issue externally, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. It seems clear based on these there would be at least 4 concerns here. One would be the risk to the WMF, my knowledge of the law is limited but it is enough to know that it's generally fairly unwise to conclude there's no risk from a lawsuit unless you have very good legal advice and I think it's clear as much as the WMF may like it otherwise that being located in the US doesn't mean they can just ignore the risk of lawsuits in other countries, it's also clear, and unsurprising, that the WMF doesn't necessarily want to get involved to a lawsuit even if they think they will win. There's also the risk to those who uploaded or contributed photographs here or elsewhere that we're using. Finally there is an obvious risk to anyone who reuses the content and while we're not responsible for them, it does we run the risk of bringing undue attention to the matter if the article appears as TFA, as it seems clear that the company involved has been monitoring this to some extent and have been pursing it even if not in court yet (that I read). Finally the legal issues aside, there's also the stated concern of relatives over photographs of graves being published and while I don't see any photos of obvious concern in this article, I'm not sure about other articles or elsewhere in wikipedia or commons. So yes, let's wait until WMF legal says something, and go from there. It's not like we're desperately running out of FAs and since the person who did most of the work is on board, there's no reason to be desperate to TFA it. And if you don't trust WMF legal, that's up to you, as the ones the foundation trusts, it's irrelevant when it comes to legal issues concerning wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi All! Legal has reviewed this issue and has not asked that the article be placed under protection for any legal reason, but will defer to any community decision to protect such an article based on community policy and practices. However, we want to remind editors to use caution when editing as editors and administrators may be responsible legally for any content and posting of articles per the Terms of Use and legal policies. Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of the issue that were of concern to Iridescent. They provide a reasonable basis for his suggestion that this article (which as it happens he wrote in the first place) not be run on the main page at this time. However, they do not require that article remain protected from editing, nor warrant its being deleted, revised, or de-featured.

The administrator who protected the article has said on his talkpage that he would not object to the article's being unprotected by an administrator with the relevant background. Accordingly, I am lifting the protection. Anyone with concerns is of course free not to edit the article, which has had relatively few editors in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oof, you beat me to it! I was just reading MPaulson's comments when I got the notification you had unprotected the page. I was about to do the same, so of course I fully agree with the action. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is that really an accurate translation of the motto? My Latin is weak but at the very least it should reflect the order of the two clauses; also, I would prefer "health" for "salis" rather than just "good". Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m no whiz either but it does seem a loose translation. AFAICT mortuis and vivis are in the dative, so my literal reading would be “For the dead, rest; for the living, health.“ Providing somewhere to R.I.P. while eliminating a biohazard.—Odysseus1479 06:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

More than once this article mentions that Brookwood Cemetery's take up (and with it that of the London Necropolis Railway) was less than expected by its founders. There is room here for discussing, with citations, what I believe to be the most important factors, which must have caused a significant decline:

• The introduction of municipal cemeteries by the London boroughs.
• The foundation of crematoria within London eg Golders Green that ended Woking's monopoly on cremation in the metropolitan region.

Cloptonson (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Necropolis Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611053809/http://www.tbcs.org.uk/index.htm to http://www.tbcs.org.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply